Is referencing the Reagan administration and the CIA operations in Afghanistan back in the 80s supposed to be some kind of revelation. Haven't we learned from that since 9/11?


It's stupid. Stop arming the enemy of your enemy. We've done it before and apparently will continue to do it. And for what?! Now because we REALLY NEED to overthrow Assad?


And now today... What do you know? It's backfiring once again. You would have to believe that Obama and Hillary and the rest of them are all really stupid. I don't. They know what they're doing. Any reasonable person would have seen this coming, the creation of ISIS. In fact, there are reports that they HAD INTELLIGENCE that ISIS would rise. Did they do anything about it? But I guess that's not proof. I don't know what proof is to you.

 

There is proof of that stuff.  And it was done in a manner that was not intented to destroy America.

 

YOU HAVE NO PROOF of anything!  Come on,man.

 

You're beginning point is treason that you cannot substantiate and then going from there.

 

Start from the facts.  The facts point to a US policy that has occurred prior.  Is it a good policy?  No.  But it's not treason.  If you can admit that.  Then I can say our Policy on ISIS has been bad.  Our policy on the entire middle east is bad.  Terrible even.  And it's been that way since WW2 at least.

---

Again, I'll wait to see the facts. I'm not calling Assange a liar. I'm not calling Rand Paul a liar. But I'm not just gonna take thier word for it.


If they have all these facts, why haven't they provided said facts?


LOL, you want to just take rumors and "well I know for a fact" from politicians (Paul is part of the government by the way, so you're being just as clueless, aren't you) and some web-page owner as gospel.


You have nothing but hearsay, which is not substantial. And you know it. That's why you're so frustrated. That's why you're attacking my intelligence. You know that if I was making spurious accusations against trump you'd ask for facts.


There's no difference here. You have no proof. And you know it.


The weapons ISIS has that originated from the USA have been explained in a way that does not paint Obama or Clinton as traitors. Unless you have actual proof otherwise, you're just spreading rumors like an immature 13 year old. Be a grown up, Deal with the reality. The reality is you got nothing.


Now when Assange provides proof. You can come here and tell us all we should have believed you, and Assange, and Rand earlier. That's fine. But I'd like proof before I jump to any conclusions. That's fair, isn't it?

There are so many reports on the ground from people that it's virtually impossible that it's not true. What our government will do however is claim negligence. Its not negligence. At the very least it's wreckless, but youd have to be a fool to not see it's wreckless by design.


Again, this isn't Joe Website reports. These are big time publications reporting on this.


Frustrated?! Damn right and it's not because I don't have "proof". Its because I know it's true.

---

She should be in jail is an opinion. The fact is that she is not. The other fact is that she has not been indicted for anything - yet if ever.. Facts have no partisan leaning.


We should all be dealing in facts as much as we can.

You can't sit here and tell me politics isn't the only reason she hasn't been charged.


There's a difference between charged and guilty

---

There are so many reports on the ground from people that it's virtually impossible that it's not true. What our government will do however is claim negligence. Its not negligence. At the very least it's wreckless, but youd have to be a fool to not see it's wreckless by design.


Again, this isn't Joe Website reports. These are big time publications reporting on this.

 

Which reports exactly?  By reports do you mean news articles on the web?  Or are you talking about testimony given on the record?  

---

You can't sit here and tell me politics isn't the only reason she hasn't been charged.


There's a difference between charged and guilty

 

So you're saying that the FBI director lied about the fact that there was no case against Hillary?

 

There is a difference between charged and guilty.  The fact is she was not charged.  And therefore has been found to be innocent.  Because, as I sometimes have to remind my right leaning freinds...  Based on our federal government and our legal system, you are innocent until proven guilty.  So, because she was not charged, by default she is currently viewed as innocent of any criminal actions.  

 

That's the fact.  You may not like it.  But you have to live with that reality.  At this point, there are no charges.  Therefore she's innocent of any criminal actions as it relates to this email scandal, as of right now. 

---

There is proof of that stuff. And it was done in a manner that was not intented to destroy America.


YOU HAVE NO PROOF of anything! Come on,man.


You're beginning point is treason that you cannot substantiate and then going from there.


Start from the facts. The facts point to a US policy that has occurred prior. Is it a good policy? No. But it's not treason. If you can admit that. Then I can say our Policy on ISIS has been bad. Our policy on the entire middle east is bad. Terrible even. And it's been that way since WW2 at least.

Intent isn't even important. What does it matter if you meant to arm ISIS or not? In the end you still made the most idiotic move imaginable in arming the most radical scum the world has ever seen and you want to focus on whether or not it was on purpose? Ok, I bet it was. You seem to think our government is too swell for that. To me, it won't change anything. These politicians will not be charged with anything. They are above the law and they have enough idiots in this country who believe anything they say, as evidenced by you.

---

Intent isn't even important. What does it matter if you meant to arm ISIS or not? In the end you still made the most idiotic move imaginable in arming the most radical scum the world has ever seen and you want to focus on whether or not it was on purpose? Ok, I bet it was. You seem to think our government is too swell for that. To me, it won't change anything. These politicians will not be charged with anything. They are above the law and they have enough idiots in this country who believe anything they say, as evidenced by you.

 

Well, this position is much more reasonable then where you started earlier today.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you just said here.  I agree, that the idea of intervention in the middle east is a total disaster.  Hillary's a hawk.  Trump, despite what you are saying here, is also a hawk.

 

He's said that he's gonna invade Syria and is wanting ground forces.  He's also not afraid of using the nuclear option. 

 

Neither of them are good for our foreign policy in my book.  Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul are more my speed when it comes to foreign policy in the middle east. But we're stuck with dumb and dumber, unfortunately.

---

So you're saying that the FBI director lied about the fact that there was no case against Hillary?


There is a difference between charged and guilty. The fact is she was not charged. And therefore has been found to be innocent. Because, as I sometimes have to remind my right leaning freinds... Based on our federal government and our legal system, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, because she was not charged, by default she is currently viewed as innocent of any criminal actions.


That's the fact. You may not like it. But you have to live with that reality. At this point, there are no charges. Therefore she's innocent of any criminal actions as it relates to this email scandal, as of right now.

Only a crime if you get caught huh?


I guess today it's if you get caught and belong to the minority party at the time.


At the very least she's guilty of obstruction by destroying evidence thats a fact. She violated the handling of government documents that's a fact.

---

Only a crime if you get caught huh?


I guess today it's if you get caught and belong to the minority party at the time.


At the very least she's guilty of obstruction by destroying evidence thats a fact. She violated the handling of government documents that's a fact.

 

I think George Zimmerman is a murderer.  He's out free and was found not guilty.  That's a fact.

 

So, yeah, I guess we live in a country that is heavy on rule of law.  While in the court of public opinion, you may feel that she's guilty of many crimes.  The court of public opinion has no bearing towards our legal system.

 

I'm not here to defend Hillary Clinton.  She's awful.  And what she did with the email server shows the type of political person she is.  She's un-trusting of those outside her circle and thus makes herself untrustworthy to us 99%'ers that are working class stiffs.

 

The insanity of this election is that the alternative to her is far more dangerous than just a status quo wall street democrat with neo-con tendancies which she is.  Think about that.  Think about how unstable trump is to make Hillary Clinton the actual the better option.

 

Again, I really lose alot of respect for Bernie Sanders in that he ran such a clean campaign.  He should have gotten down and dirty with Hillary.  He could have won that primary if he would have been more aggressive.  SMH

---

So you're saying that the FBI director lied about the fact that there was no case against Hillary?

 

There is a difference between charged and guilty.  The fact is she was not charged.  And therefore has been found to be innocent.  Because, as I sometimes have to remind my right leaning freinds...  Based on our federal government and our legal system, you are innocent until proven guilty.  So, because she was not charged, by default she is currently viewed as innocent of any criminal actions.  

 

That's the fact.  You may not like it.  But you have to live with that reality.  At this point, there are no charges.  Therefore she's innocent of any criminal actions as it relates to this email scandal, as of right now. 

 

When the lead investigator says, point blank, "she did X, Y, and Z that are felonies but we aren't going to prosecute" then she's not innocent anymore, she's above the law.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think George Zimmerman is a murderer. He's out free and was found not guilty. That's a fact.


So, yeah, I guess we live in a country that is heavy on rule of law. While in the court of public opinion, you may feel that she's guilty of many crimes. The court of public opinion has no bearing towards our legal system.


I'm not here to defend Hillary Clinton. She's awful. And what she did with the email server shows the type of political person she is. She's un-trusting of those outside her circle and thus makes herself untrustworthy to us 99%'ers that are working class stiffs.


The insanity of this election is that the alternative to her is far more dangerous than just a status quo wall street democrat with neo-con tendancies which she is. Think about that. Think about how unstable trump is to make Hillary Clinton the actual the better option.


Again, I really lose alot of respect for Bernie Sanders in that he ran such a clean campaign. He should have gotten down and dirty with Hillary. He could have won that primary if he would have been more aggressive. SMH

She's not the better option just a different option. If shes really that

Bad come join us at the protest table and vote for any third party. A vote not going to either of them is a vote against this lunacy.

---

You don't think Gary Johnson is a sensible third party vote do you? He's exactly the same as a globalist and less conservative than Trump. Not even a real libertarian.

---

You don't think Gary Johnson is a sensible third party vote do you? He's exactly the same as a globalist and less conservative than Trump. Not even a real libertarian.

He's not a conservative at all, he's a social liberal and economic libertarian. He's on the far left side of the party and I'll end up voting for him for one simple reason in hopes that we get enough votes to force a third party participation in 2020.


Issues I agree with Johnson are economical and foreign policy. On social issues we disagree but he'll I can't even find common ground with Trump on economic issues or foreign policy becuase he can't find a position to stick with.

---

He's not a conservative at all, he's a social liberal and economic libertarian. He's on the far left side of the party and I'll end up voting for him for one simple reason in hopes that we get enough votes to force a third party participation in 2020.


Issues I agree with Johnson are economical and foreign policy. On social issues we disagree but he'll I can't even find common ground with Trump on economic issues or foreign policy becuase he can't find a position to stick with.

Isn't he pro-TPP? How is that economically libertarian?

---

Isn't he pro-TPP? How is that economically libertarian?

Yes he is, unfortunately we don't have a candidate running in any party that isn't pro-tpp.


His economic policy however is very libertarian, it advocates auditing and even aboahing the federal reserve. Off the top a 43% reduction on all fedral spending. Ending all federal subsidies and bailouts, privatizing no essential government functions such as the post office, libraries, ect....

---

Yes he is, unfortunately we don't have a candidate running in any party that isn't pro-tpp.


His economic policy however is very libertarian, it advocates auditing and even aboahing the federal reserve. Off the top a 43% reduction on all fedral spending. Ending all federal subsidies and bailouts, privatizing no essential government functions such as the post office, libraries, ect....

 

He's for getting rid of the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress all public libraries in cities, and the post office?  OK, so he's insane?  LOL, that's not the type of libertarian I am.  He sounds like an anarchist.

---

Hillary is annoying and clearly a servant to wealthy Americans. But she is not a traitorous double agent who's working to strengthen Isis.

 

She is clearly a servant to wealthy Saudis, wealthy Israelis, Wall Street, Hollywood, etc.  Everyone but the American people.  She is a globalist.

---

Yes he is, unfortunately we don't have a candidate running in any party that isn't pro-tpp.


His economic policy however is very libertarian, it advocates auditing and even aboahing the federal reserve. Off the top a 43% reduction on all fedral spending. Ending all federal subsidies and bailouts, privatizing no essential government functions such as the post office, libraries, ect....

 

Trump is anti-TPP

 

it's going to be the most destructive piece of legislation to the average American worker in decades.  and on top of that, most of it doesn't even have to do with trade.

---

Trump is anti-TPP


it's going to be the most destructive piece of legislation to the average American worker in decades. and on top of that, most of it doesn't even have to do with trade.

You trust trump. That's fine. But he's given no reason anyone should believe a single thing that comes out of his mouth.

---

You trust trump. That's fine. But he's given no reason anyone should believe a single thing that comes out of his mouth.

 

not 100% but hes the only one who has actually been 100% consistent on that topic

 

he's the only one that has been 100% consistent on not being open-borders

 

everybody else is 100% open borders and 100% pro-TPP.  the vote to me is clear if you're not voting Hillary.

---