K-9

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.

Seriously, in a world as scary and dangerous as Trump makes it out to be, how can reckless rhetoric like that help things? Answer: it can't. When did it become desirable for our president to sound like the drunk at a bar spouting off about what we should do "with em." 'Bombing the schit out of em" is barroom diplomacy at its finest. And it's pretty phuckin' stupid.

You and I both know that names don't mean much in terms of philosophies, which is where I'm coming from. Labels can, however, put people off or incite fear if one doesn't wish to learn further about what's behind that label. Thanks for the clarification, though.

Scratch fearful then. How about "against" it? Just an FYI, but McCarthy didn't appreciate nuance.

I already know what Bernie Sanders thinks it stands for, I'm more interested in the viewpoint from someone who is fearful of it. If the Democrats win, you said you will consider a centrist GOP candidate in the future. What is it about a Democratic victory that shapes that view? What are your concerns (i.e. worries), that inform that view?

What are you worried about, specifically?

Pray tell, what does it "stand for?"

A 45 year record of public service qualifies one for canonization? Does the Vatican know about this? For 23 years now republicans, at great expense to the taxpayers, have been trying to qualify her as "crooked" or worse. They are either flat out wrong or utterly incompetent. Take your pick. Haha. Got that right. The mere word "socialist" is enough to send shivers up the spines of people. Better to call themselves ISIS or something.

Can you spare a square? I'm a bit misty myself after that read. Thanks for linking that incredible tribute by a son to his mother.