K-9

Well, you had "heard" that Clinton wanted to do away with the VA healthcare system. That's what you said. I pointed out that the GOP would be the more likely of the two major parties to do that and that their voting record regarding VA issues backs that up. Sorry you didn't find that helpful. I suspect I struck a chord with my "'partisan rhetoric" and I further suspect that fueled your uncalled for outburst. Here here. We should live up to the standards that Lincoln called for when it comes to all those that have answered the call and/or made the ultimate sacrifice. They and their families should simply be taken care of as a show of gratitude for their service. It's the least we can do.

Vets have far more wide ranging choices compared to previous administrations. They can get care from their choice of doctors in many cases. It's not as good as it could be in that we can make it even easier for them to meet the guidelines, but they are not anchored to the VA for care in many instances.

If the Sabres can pick up the phone and have that kind of sway regarding police procedures, then we are more screwed than even my often cynical being cares to admit.

Not by this voter.

If anyone wants to do away with the VA it's the GOP. Not only have they routinely rejected funding and other improvements over the years, but they actually want it to fail and then privatize the operation. The VA is a successful experiment for social medicine and has been for decades. Republicans seek to destroy it so they can point to socialized medicine as the failure they need us to believe it is. Think about how phucked up that is. That's worse than the GOP actively rooting for bad jobs reports and downturns in the economy like they did four years ago. And I don't understand the logic, quite frankly. I'd rather have the players who have actually destroyed our terrorist enemies in charge of that continuing effort. I remember when G Dub said Bin Laden was no longer an important target. Yes, the very same Bin Laden who planned the murder of 3,000+ US citizens. I need someone to give me ONE good reason why Trump is a better alternative in the face of terrorism. Just one.

Since we've been advised that we back certain politicians because of their appeal to our morality, I submit that isn't as important as the morality of the candidates seeking to manipulate us. I've asked it before, what does it say about Trump that it's not even in his DNA to offer the kind of words you suggest above? Serious question. And it's not like this is an isolated incident. His minions walk back his many gaffes, but sometimes a simple apology is the best course. Then again, narcissistic megalomaniacs are literally incapable of offering sincere apology.

Is that why he would get your vote? Because he's a master at manipulating the masses with broad morality plays? Moral psychology is nothing new and megalomaniacs have been using it to their advantage since time began. Goebbel's and his gang were masters, too. None of them were very good politicians, though. EDIT: never mind. just saw your post after I got done with this one.

Depends entirely on the candidate. I've voted for GOP candidates several times since leaving the party myself in the 80s, with Bush 41 being the last presidential nominee to get my vote. I most likely would have voted for McCain if he hadn't been screwed by Bush 43 in 2000, although there was no chance he was getting my vote in 2008. A GOP candidate would have to have the balls to bring the party back to center while strongly denying the far right planks of their platform. I find it incredible that, all things being equal and Trump not changing a single word, tweet, or insult in his campaign, that he would get your vote as a third party candidate. Mind boggling, really. Easily the worst candidate in my lifetime.

I'm sorry, did you say "skater?"

Wrong in my case. And I don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted, either. I could just as easily say you would vote for Trump if he were the third party candidate.

No phucking way. Trump is an unfit candidate in every sense of the word.

Perhaps you should have. It's obvious we are arguing two different things here. I'll re-engage when anybody can provide one shred of proof that Hillary Clinton destroyed anybody's life. I mean after she killed Vince Foster. After all, she can't prove she didn't.

I don't dispute that it happened. That's not the point here. The point is, that the townhall article bobis linked cited nothing but conjecture with no substantiation to back it up. Rife with sensationalized tripe. The claim was made that Hillary Clinton destroyed lives. Where is the tangible proof of that? It's certainly not in her polling among women. There is nothing legitimate about saying Hillary Clinton destroyed lives with not a shred of proof to back it up. And nobody is whitewashing anything. I just don't tolerate attempts at revisionist history. There's a difference between whitewashing and not tolerating deliberate attempts to smear. I'll let you figure out what that difference is.

Wrong again. None of the major news outlets you mention here would run with that story from your wingnut publication because it can't be sourced and properly vetted. And in the event one of those sources is proved wrong after reporting a story, they retract, publicly. When was the last time your townhall rag retracted anything in public or otherwise? But I understand the need to create false equivalencies when the truth isn't on your side.

Yes, the same old parroting from right wing sources. We are past that. Try to keep up. Please post some proof to the claims that Hillary Clinton "destroyed" the lives of these women. Surely there are court records from all the suits filed against her. Some of these women had the full backing, financial and otherwise, of the GOP. Surely they stood behind these women as they pressed charges against Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, there have been literally thousands of cases filed against your boy, Trump. By people he actually DID cause damages to; people he simply chose not to pay for services rendered. Many of them were women, too. A real people's champion, that one.

It was put forth that Hillary Clinton destroyed lives and that is a serious accusation. I don't know how to respond to "prove she didn't." Using that logic, we are free to accuse anyone of anything at anytime without repercussion because the onus is not on the accuser to prove anything. Prove she didn't? Really? I'm sure there are women who won't vote for Clinton for no other reason than she forgave a philandering husband while attacking women who claimed sexual harassment, etc. It's at least legitimate. The fact she champions women on many issues is also legitimate. And she trounces Trump in polling among women. Something must be registering. And I think you are connecting those dots just fine.

Still waiting for the actual proof that Hillary Clinton destroyed the lives of those Bill Clinton had affairs with. The NYT article is about the political ramifications Hillary might face with women over how she attacked Bill's accusers, especially young women of today who weren't around at the time. That's a legitimate question. But attacking Bill's accusers isn't the same as destroying their lives, as has been suggested. This is all I need to know about her motivations at the time: History has shown this to be the case.

I'd like to see the links to these other online sources. I'll come up with a disparaging name for MSNBC when they hire a top democratic strategist to run the news department who issues a daily memo outlining the talking points for that day's programming and then threatens repercussions if anybody doesn't toe that scripted line. When MSNBC rises to that level of propaganda as a hired tool for the DNC, I'll call them all sorts of names. In the meantime, please back up your claim that Hillary Clinton destroyed the lives of anyone Bill Clinton had an affair with. Surely there are court records for the lawsuits brought against her. Just to be clear, I am not doubting you have other news outlets. It's just that what your claim about Clinton destroying lives is straight out of FNC broadcasts. Other outlets parrot the same propaganda, too. Carry your own water. But yeah, I take umbrage when a news organization deliberately pisses down my back and tries to tell me it's raining. Faux News would have flourished in the Soviet Union. Hell, I'm surprised they don't have a bureau in North Korea.

What does it say about a person, let alone a person running for president, that this thought process doesn't even occur to him? I'm glad the AMA long ago made it policy not to diagnose public figures. The shrinks would have a field day with the list of symptoms he exhibits on a daily basis.

You're just parroting the same unfounded crap heard 24/7 on Faux News Channel.

Well, one candidate has a long record of helping those less fortunate, especially regarding children's issues and the other doesn't. Clinton's long track record of public service doesn't jive with your assertion that she doesn't care. I wonder what his perception of Trump is.

What has she ever stolen from the poor? Sounds like her detractors are sore that they, too, can't make $52m a year giving speeches. That $52m ain't coming from the poor, that's for sure. If that was a joke, I'm not getting the humor. Speaking of the poor, how about we do a side by side of charitable donations between Trump and Clinton. I don't know if they were poor, but Trump certainly stole from the thousands of workers he simply refused to pay over the years. How many lawsuits is that?

Regarding all these files, where's the there, there? And I love how the right has embraced Assange after they wanted to hang him in 2010 for his dirt on G Dub and the Iraq war. He's in bed with the Russian leadership, so I'm not surprised as the right as been polishing Putin's nob for a while now.

Shameful. Simply shameful.

Somewhere, Don Shula smiles.