Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Bernie Sanders. He is the only congressional member in office whose name does not have a dreadful R or D attached to it.And pray tell who would that be?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bernie Sanders. He is the only congressional member in office whose name does not have a dreadful R or D attached to it.And pray tell who would that be?
Well you are correct he is not a Republican or a Democrat, he is listed as a Independent but in all fairness shouldn't he be listed as Bernie Sanders (S)where S=Socialist?Bernie Sanders. He is the only congressional member in office whose name does not have a dreadful R or D attached to it.
[/QUOTE]You plan on most likely voting Republican then? If you're thinking about it doing so, which of the potential candidates do you think doesn't have a "character flaw", as you call it?[QUOTE="esmith, post: 4228043, member: 24621" Are you really sure you want someone with this type of character flaw as your President? I sure don't.
Not sure what party candidate I will be voting for. Haven't heard enough from any of them. I do know one thing it will not be for Hillary.
Depends on the Libertarian candidate and their platform and objectives. Would prefer a Ross Perot style candidate. I will be honest with you, if I do not see a candidate that has a platform or objectives I agree with I would have to take the lesser of two evils and that would not be Hillary.So, you planning on probably voting Republican, can I assume from this? So, which candidate would you like to see, and is (s)he free of any "character flaws"?
BTW, a while back you said you really aren't a Republican, but now it appears that you are, so maybe you can explain this discrepancy while you're at it?
From CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS for HILLARYabstract said:Any American who feels he has discharged his civic obligations by voting for a puppet every four years needs to take a civics class (but not in a government-run school). More important are the elections every 2 years for Congress, and more important still are acts of letter-writing every month to Congressmen, and especially to bureaucrats when they open the door to public opinion before passing dictatorial regulations. A letter or phone call is viewed by politicians as carrying the weight of six times as many voters.
I actually liked Perot and thought about voting for him, and I especially agreed with his projection that passing NAFTA would create a "giant sucking sound" of businesses moving out of this country-- and he was correct. So, if you also agreed with him, then I'm afraid you're not likely to vote Republican because I see not one of their potential candidates that has been inclined to roll back NAFTA or GATT, and most appear to be for the PTA as far as I can tell.Depends on the Libertarian candidate and their platform and objectives. Would prefer a Ross Perot style candidate. I will be honest with you, if I do not see a candidate that has a platform or objectives I agree with I would have to take the lesser of two evils and that would not be Hillary.
Given that Ross Perot started up possibly the most unethical software services company in the world, I found his moralizing distasteful in the extreme. I will declare a conflict of interest here: were it not for EDS's lying & lack of any kind of moral standards, I'd be a wealthy sort of chap. It might have been more tolerable if they were competent, but sadly he built a multi-billion empire around getting others to pay for their inability to write working software, combined with a very good legal department.I actually liked Perot and thought about voting for him, and I especially agreed with his projection that passing NAFTA would create a "giant sucking sound" of businesses moving out of this country-- and he was correct. So, if you also agreed with him, then I'm afraid you're not likely to vote Republican because I see not one of their potential candidates that has been inclined to roll back NAFTA or GATT, and most appear to be for the PTA as far as I can tell.
Ya, and I didn't vote for him, but he was correct about the "great sucking sound" of jobs leaving the U.S. because of NAFTA.Given that Ross Perot started up possibly the most unethical software services company in the world, I found his moralizing distasteful in the extreme. I will declare a conflict of interest here: were it not for EDS's lying & lack of any kind of moral standards, I'd be a wealthy sort of chap. It might have been more tolerable if they were competent, but sadly he built a multi-billion empire around getting others to pay for their inability to write working software, combined with a very good legal department.
care to refute the above statement???? I doubt it.I feel the same way, Breitfart is claiming the actual server was in her house, which is not true and stupid for anyone to believe. The Wapo piece stated that the server was registered to the clinton address. There's a difference esmith..
Where was the server for her email located?
The server for her email was physically located on her property, which is protected by U.S. Secret Service.
It was on the property. Are you willing to concede that what she did was legal?care to refute the above statement???? I doubt it.
from: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
Was it allowed?
Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.
As far as concede the answer is no. That is what the FBI is investigating and what the DOJ will do with their report.It was on the property. Are you willing to concede that what she did was legal?
I am assuming that you copied and pasted that from https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/Was it allowed?
Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.
The IG report cited department policies dating to 2005 that require “normal day-to-day operations” to be conducted on government servers, contrary to Clinton’s claim that her server was allowed. It also said she “had an obligation” to discuss her email system with cybersecurity officials, but there’s “no evidence” that she sought or received their approval.
I see that as more of a separate concern. It is rather unseemly that she didn't see anything wrong with doing so. But then, at this point in time, what difference does it make, eh?
InterestingExcept that former SoS's did the same. I could see where it would make life a bit easier using your personal mail rather then a new government account. At one time I was using 4 separate emails. One for scouts, one personal, one for my photography business and the last for my full time job. Confusing as heck.
This is the Washington Post painting a picture of Hillary's imperious disregard for legally required procedures.