Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 56. (Read 234761 times)

Sometimes I don't know who is sleazier, the politicians or those that defend their actions so they can justify voting for them.

Revealed: Hillary told Egyptian PM day after Benghazi attack that Mohammed movie had nothing to do with it


I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.

To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjX-o9axmw


http://freebeacon.com/national-security/jim-jordan-traps-hillary-clinton-emails-show-she-knew-immediately-attack-was-not-result-of-video/

I seriously think the only candidate who has the best shot of winning is going to be Sanders... there is so much support from him amongst the young democratic voters.  This notion of electing Hillary just because she is a woman is starting to disappear, and the democratic voters are actually starting to look more into Hillary's history... which could be considered a good/bad thing for the republican party.  I think if Hillary would be elected it would be a shoe in to get a republican candidate elected for the presidency, because they will non stop call her out on all the bad things she's done over the years... While Sanders has a pretty clean history with radical socialist ideas, that I think a majority of the young people want... for some reason I don't really understand.

If only we the people could elect humans for whom they truly are and not "nudged" to do so. This statement is for R or the D. Of course more for the D

 

Because until there is any other "reasonable" alternative to run a big developed country such as in the EU or in North America, for example, then there will always be a need for a politician(s) to run the country... a stable country cannot simply live in an anarchist world.

Why would a normal person with more than 90 IQ trust ANY politician anyway?
All politicians are same. They only think their own welfare, nothing for humanity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/30/voters-want-someone-who-is-honest-and-trustworthy-in-2016-they-dont-think-thats-hillary-clinton/

Hillary Clinton has a problem.  In a new Quinnipiac University national poll, more than one in three voters say that the most important trait they are looking for in a 2016 candidate is being "honest and trustworthy." Almost six in ten of those polled said that Hillary Clinton lacks those two traits.

Uh oh.

Clinton's problems with the honest/trustworthy question is not new. As I wrote back in April:

    There's a widespread belief in her capability to do the job she is running for. There's also widespread distrust in her personally.  People admire her but don't know if she's honest.

The Q poll trend line shows a steady line of distrust towards Clinton.  In May 39 percent of people said she was honest and trustworthy. In April that number was 38 percent. And, before you dismiss Clinton's honesty issue as simply the carping of Republicans, look inside the Q numbers.  Just 31 percent of independents describe her as honest and trustworthy while 62 percent say she is not. One in five Democrats (19 percent) say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy(!).

.....Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation ofIraq could be extremely expensive.

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered. .....