Hillary won more votes for President

Answer me this, seeing your certain Hillary is a criminal, suspicious, shady, etc. etc., why haven't the congressional republicans announced an investigative committee and held hearings? They have subpoena power, they can request emails from top Obama administration officials including the current secretary state regarding the former, Hillary. So why aren't they doing it? Eight Benghazi committees and yet nothing being formed, no Tom "I'm a Warrior hear me roar" Cotton chomping at the bit to question witnesses under oath? Why? Because it's political. They only have the politics of personal destruction to try and ruin her credibility and make her unelectable because people "think she did something shady, like stole from the White House." And it's all because they thought she was going to be the nominee in 2008 and Barak Hussein Obama upset their game plan. And they, and many American voters, still haven't recovered from the fact that the political chicanery of yesteryear ain't working. The majority of Americans want compromise and shit to get done. The next generation is okay with a black man or a woman being president. It doesn't have to be a pasty white guy anymore. And to folks like Mitch McConnell and "I cry all the time" Beoner, and the rushbo's, pasty white guys like them, this goes against the very core of who they are and how they think their world should be ordered. Reince Prebus did a very detailed post mortem on the Republican Party after 2008 and came out with a bunch of recommendations to make the party relevant and competitive. How many were implemented or acted upon? There's no link to a feminazi, liberal blog post because IMHO.

mrussel1 said:

^^ It's quite sad that Prebus did this extensive port mortem and the GOPs official response was to do nothing, and its base's response was to select someone that vowed to do precisely the opposite.

Beoner and McConnell both share a ton of blame with their "it's our job to make him fail." And for eight years. Except all they did was implode their party. Bad for democracy, bad for America. They'll never recover from this because they're the party of no and their trickle down theories and denial of climate change have exposed them as the dinosaurs they are. See the stock market lately? How about unemployment numbers? Particularly for those low IQ, college educated crowd? Imagine what could have been had there been a smidgen of respect from the republicans toward Barak Hussein Obama. Politics of personal destruction is an outdated political strategy. They have yet to learn that.

It'll always exist but it usually is coupled with actual positions, policy papers and plans to address issues. There's been none of that thus far because they haven't offered anything up. It's all been sound bites, ridiculous accusations and broad generalities (I'm going to build s wall that Mexico will pay for, I'll fight for the little guy). And Americans are eating it up. It's embarrassing.

The Clinton's almost have 1/2 as much money as Mitt! What percentage group does that put them in?

multi-millionaires vs. alleged billionaires

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/15/clinton-campaign-enlists-undocumented-dreamers-for-voter-registration-drive.html

Hillary, what sad low life POS.

Godfather.

So Donald Trump is completely transparent about what will amount to the dissolving of DACA and DAPA and the expedient removal of all immigrants without proper documentation - and Hilary Clinton instead wishes to keep the members here, thereby preventing negative momentum to the organizations, and (more importantly) its members. This is one of those rare situations where a politician's personal goals amounts to something which is actually socially progressive from an immigration policy standpoint: if you follow DACA and DAPA's histories, their ability to defend those they attempt to has been so weakened under Obama's administration that any attempt to salvage them is crucial (that is, if you feel that an immigrant has worth, which seems debatable). To read this article and to then state that Hilary Clinton is a sad low-life POS shows either you possess the reading and comprehension skills of a five-year-old, or that you will truly distort and manipulate truths in your mind to the point that you actually believe them, which makes it simple to broadcast. If it's the latter that's the case, it's no wonder you have so much to say about Hilary Clinton, and so little about Donald Trump; it's because your uninformed opinion-forming and political process concepts closely resemble those of Donald Trump.

Jason P said:

The Clinton's almost have 1/2 as much money as Mitt! What percentage group does that put them in?

multi-millionaires vs. alleged billionaires

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-taxes.amp.html

So either Mitt has lost an astounding amount of wealth or you're misinformed. Still puts bill and Hillary in the top 1%. But isn't that where everyone aspires to be? And name the last president or presidential candidates who weren't in the 1% when they ran for office. You almost have to be to even be considered a serious contender.