https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-pharmaci...

Never thought that a business offering services to the public would successfully assert a claim to discriminate based on religious beliefs. That thought is so 18th century.

Oh those French . . . us Americans would never use this kind of criteria. ;-)

Her characterization of it is really worrisome? See Trump, Donald if truth and reality bother you.


Her use of private email was not good. But evidence showed that other/prior high-ups in the State Department did the same.

Hillary's not blameless here.

But the incredible amount of investigations, pretty much admittedly aimed at ruining here, impressed no one.

Mrs.Clinton lied about the cause of Benghazi,for no reason other then political cover.
What's really disturbing is that she lied directly to the people who lost family members in the terrorist attack.

Lets also get the facts straight about the email issue.
Yes, other people used private email.But,for the most part,before a number of the current requirements were put in place.

However,no former Secretary of State ever used a private,unsecured email server,located in their residence.

She also did this, apparently without notification,let alone authorization.

If I recall correctly,the Clintons and/or their representatives originally asserted that, since they purchased the server with other then Government monies,the Government had no right to examine it.

There is a very interesting piece in yesterday's Washington Post,hardly a conservative paper, about the most recently released batch of emails.It basically says that, with each batch of emails that are released,her story gets harder and harder to believe.

If it wasn't for the current administration providing cover,the Inspector General's report would have been followed by an indictment.

It also remains to be seen what's in the hacked emails that Julian Assange says he's going to release.He has said they are enough,all by themselves,to indict
her.

First off,I never said anything about Mrs. Clinton being to blame for the Benghazi terrorist attack.

What I said was that,to provide political cover, she lied to family members of those murdered in the attack,as to its cause.I also said that,at the same time, she emailed her daughter with the truth.

As far as the Ambassador's family not blaming Mrs. Clinton for what happened at Benghazi,the article you posted uses a comment from 1 family member.
It says she had been acting as the family spokesman.But the article uses the word "I" as opposed to "we".That indicates its her opinion,not necessarily any other member of his family.

From the interviews I've seen/heard ,I don't believe the families of the other people who were murdered share this woman's opinion on Mrs. Clinton's culpability.

Now who could come to distrust a woman who declared - falsely - that her incoming aircraft came under sniper fire?

With that fib, I'm thinking she lost any hope of winning votes among most veterans.

Look, I believe in the truth.

I also believe that, unfortunately, that needs to be leavened with reality, with politics.

Has there been any proof of Hillary doing much more than typical political disingenuousness (er, lying)? Has she made or pursued significantly bad aims?

Then, Trump.

Like it or not, would you cast Hillary aside and go with the only other apparently viable choice for the White House?


The right has really shown us that Benghazi is full of impeachable type offenses, hasn't it.

You're overlooking the Green Party's Jill Stein. She polled at 7% recently.

Wish you would define "hard proof".

Lying about the cause of Benghazi.

Lying about an unauthorized, unsecured email server.

Lying about being subjected to sniper fire, when your helicopter landed

Using a charitable foundation for self enrichment.

Claiming you're a reformer,yet refusing to release transcripts of the paid speeches you made to the people you are now pledging to reform.

Claiming to be a defender of women,except when its your husband who is accused of improper acts,including rape.

To me,this is all "hard proof" that this woman is,as Bernie Sanders said, unqualified to be president.

I know, no matter what I say, you'll try to marginalize it.

So I wonder, is there anything, short of her being forced out by an indictment, that would deter you from voting for her ?

The prospect of someone other than Trump winning the election?

Time to indict?:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/questionable-tax-free-paym...

Well, one must have an appreciation for a good scandal or accomplished use of walking on one side or the other of the borderline.


Which would significantly explain Trump.