pastajoe

Bush didn't lie on purpose, but he was naive and had little experience or knowledge of world affairs, so he depended on the advisors around him to tell him what to do. They failed him and the country, but ultimately the failure was with the people who voted for him, some because they were mad at Clinton for the affair and took it out on Gore. And of course the flawed voting process in Florida.

I was wrong, he wasn't in the Senate for the vote. "Barack Obama (who went on to win the election) was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but had repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... undetermined cost, [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring."

Obama benefitted from people being tired of the failed occupation of Iraq and the belief we were lied to by the Bush administration, and Obama's Senate vote against the invasion. But he also had a better ground game in the primaries, and made the most out of new technology to identify and contact voters. Hillary's vote for the invasion and not having a good organization hurt her. I admit this as someone who supported her over Obama. But I think she has learned, and has even brought former Obama campaign workers into this run.

Now I understand why you don't like her. When someone states that, "She's either dumb or lying" without proof, that's an opinion piece. And I didn't say "just" Fiorina and Trump, I said "like", as in "for example". You misstate what I said to support your opinion just like those who misstate that Hillary broke the law. But feel free to keep trying, you'll get it right someday.

I attended Catholic high school, and they taught evolution in science class, perhaps with some references to intelligent design. But creationism was discussed in Religions of the World class along with the beliefs of other religions. So they seperated scientific facts from religious beliefs. Of course they were beer drinking Jesuits, so they were a bit more open minded.

That's a long opinion piece, but quantity doesn't mean quality. The bottom line you missed is that she did not break the law as many Republicans are saying without proof. If you don't like her don't vote for her, but for Republicans like Fiorina and Trump among others to lie about her breaking the law shows how desperate they are to eliminate the candidate who has the policy ideas the majority of Americans support.

Your statement is again factually wrong. She said that she never received or sent any emails that were designated or labelled as classified or top secret. The details matter. is it her fault if someone sends emails that were not designated properly, or had their designation changed after they were sent? Of course not. If you really care about the facts, read the linked summary. And yes I believe she is honest and trustworthy, which is why I supported her in 2008. https://medium.com/@jmpalmieri/hillary-clinton-s-emails-82b52eb77f04

I see you're following the Trump method of avoiding answers and attacking the questioner. I'll try again; what is she lying about? Please provide proof, not Repub generalities. Hillary's knowledge of how to be the civilian leader of the military comes in part from her 6 years on the Armed Services committee, her experience as Sec. of State being involved in Situation room decisions, and traveling to more countries than any Sec. of State in history to meet world leaders. She has a in depth knowledge of the military that she will demonstrate when questioned in debates. The only Republican running who might be as knowledgable is Lindsey Graham.

Murder is black and white. Rape is sometimes a grey area of he said she said, where it's sometimes difficult to know who to believe if and when the line was crossed from sex to rape. I'm not justifying rape, just the reason why it's not as clear as murder.

What is she spinning? She answered the questions. Just because her answers don't satisfy your preconceived notions doesn't make them spin. I submit that Hillary is more knowledgeable on the govt, military ("the button"), and world affairs than most if not all of the candidates. Who cares if she's a tech expert, we're hiring a president not a member of the Geek Squad.

You're parroting the claims of Repubs that because the multiple committes and investigations haven't found anything, there must be something hidden. Perhaps the fact is there's nothing hidden, but it makes for good politics to keep claiming there is. When will they revive the claim that she killed Vince Foster?

And that's why her poll numbers might go up, she's giving the base the red meat they like. When is somebody going to ask her for proof to back up her statements, since the Congress who has investigated these claims haven't come up with any themselves.

That could be said about most politicians. How does that affect her ability to implement the policies she proposes?

What don't you trust her to do?

He waited until it looked like there was enough votes to prevent an override of a likely veto, then made the announcement. It's frightening to think what would happen if there's no deal. If someone takes the time to understand the details of the deal, and what it takes to create the materials for a nuclear weapon, but still opposes the deal with no alternative offered, then they're either being political or pandering to the Israeli lobby. Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent. The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to support the agreement. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world/29-us-scientists-praise-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-to-obama.html?_r=0

Trump getting jumped on for his latest remarks on Meygn Kelly. The Repubs and Fox are really trying hard to get him out. I'll bet many of his angry blue collar supporters like his non PC remarks and agree with his remarks. The hypocracy is that the Repubs have said worse things about Hillary in the past, so there's a degree of hypocracy when they attack Trump. I wonder if Fox would have hired Meygn Kelly if she looked like Rosie ODonnell.

Agreed, but to even say he cheated is speculation. They're not married, do they live together? Perhaps they have an understanding that he can see other people given he's on the road so often. We don't know. And cheating is not a crime. He's young and rich, I'm sure lots of guys in his position are not monogamous.

To get an idea of what a person would do in a similar situation in the future, they have to be asked what they would have done in the past. Too often politicians will say they won't respond to hypothetical questions, so they have to be asked about real events.

Very disappointed that Schumer is pandering to Israel and not supporting the Iran deal. He says he doesn't advocate war with Iran, but then says he doesn't think Iran will change. Well if Iran won't change, then by that logic war is the only option because sanctions won't change their actions.

Some of them said they now prefer Cruz or Huckabee.

There's been some discussion that the heads of Fox don't want Trump, so they made sure the opening question would make him look bad. And now on Fox the focus group has people saying they liked Trump before but not now because of his response that he wouldn't rule out an independent run.

Oh the sweet hypocracy of these guys who stereotype belivievers in Islam talking about how their Christian faith guides them.

Trickle down economics, the great mistake. Look at Kansas for an example of how it doesn't work.

I wouldn't vote for any of them, but Kasich is the only one I would be relatively comfortable with. Bush is too apologetic and waffles on his positions, while the rest are too extreme.