I will sooner pound my head against a brick wall, Michael.
BTW, what people don't talk about will be used to control them.
Sorry but I have to do this. It's an unfair question. Let's just switch the names and ask it again and let you provide the answers for the other party. Can you do that? There is nothing political to name. The man is not a politician. He has done nothing but shoot off his big mouth.
Now as for Hillary she did her job as a senator, was for or against certain bills, etc. As Secretary of State she also did her job, had no power or authority to tell the military to "stand down" in Beghazi, and never did so. She also had the same type e-mail server as Colin Powell but was caught up in this e-mail thing as the system was making a change and politically it suited her opponents. No great accomplishments but she did her job.
I repeat again, the other person is not a politician and has no achievements in that field.
I'll post this one time and will not be on your blog any longer unless I get verifiable answers.
Explain to all of us please how Hillary is a crook. What did she do to make her a crook specifically? How would this alleged act involve the FBI that you now say would have indicted her for the act but are afraid to do so?
I might also ask what was wrong with Bernie Sanders and why do you think that Soviet style "socialism/communism" has anything to do with Sanders. I'm not impressed by right wing bullshit and I draw "socialist security" and so does a lot of the Republicans that are making all the noise. So, just what is the problem?
Looks to me like it is an orange troll that wants his way so badly that he seems to be dividing the people and inciting to riot. I have never seen an intelligent candidate do such a thing.
He admitted that Hillary's judgment was wrong (I forgot the details) but then he claimed that a "reasonable" person would not find her criminally responsible... He or somebody else also emphasized that a normal person would be in federal prison for doing the same thing.
Michael, that is as contradictory as hell and it amounts to hearsay.
You would prefer to assume that Hillary is a crook. Is there anything else that you assume? Is an assumption evidence of anything?
As for "bashing Trump" all we do is repeat what he himself says. He seems to bash himself and make claims that incite people to riot. Would any of this make him responsible?
I doubt it and I'm done. Let others reply if they will.
I'm going to explain something to you, but you won't get it.
I've been there. I have voted Republican and used to be a member of the party, I used to listen to Rush, and I'm currently a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. I've been around the block in 70 years so what am I going to learn? What would possibly make me vote for your orange troll? How (and why) would I "go back" to something that I have already come out of?
I was once a Reagan Republican and I also did some work with Robert B. DePugh, both now long dead. I've been around the political block. You don't get more right wing than Bob.