Wrote in message:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:



My guess is that Trump will end up running unopposed. Has there
been a president for that possibility?

The democrats will come up with someone, no matter what happens. Biden
is still hanging around waiting until they really need him. He may be
their strongest candidate. Looking at this bunch, I might even look at
him a little harder. He is head and shoulders above Trump and Clinton
in integrity, honesty and qualifications, even if I disagree with most
of his politics.


For sure he wouldn't act like a spoiled child and invoke executive
order when he didn't get his way. Replacing Hilly with Biden
would certainly attract some republican vote.
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 7/5/16 2:14 PM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:



My guess is that Trump will end up running unopposed. Has there
been a president for that possibility?

The democrats will come up with someone, no matter what happens. Biden
is still hanging around waiting until they really need him. He may be
their strongest candidate. Looking at this bunch, I might even look at
him a little harder. He is head and shoulders above Trump and Clinton
in integrity, honesty and qualifications, even if I disagree with most
of his politics.


For sure he wouldn't act like a spoiled child and invoke executive
order when he didn't get his way. Replacing Hilly with Biden
would certainly attract some republican vote.
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/



Sorry, ****heads, you are stuck with Trump. You should put up a Trump
yard sign to identify yourself as a xenophobic, misogynistic racist.
But, hey, I'm sure your neighbors already know that about you, right?

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:20:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/5/16 2:14 PM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:



My guess is that Trump will end up running unopposed. Has there
been a president for that possibility?

The democrats will come up with someone, no matter what happens. Biden
is still hanging around waiting until they really need him. He may be
their strongest candidate. Looking at this bunch, I might even look at
him a little harder. He is head and shoulders above Trump and Clinton
in integrity, honesty and qualifications, even if I disagree with most
of his politics.


For sure he wouldn't act like a spoiled child and invoke executive
order when he didn't get his way. Replacing Hilly with Biden
would certainly attract some republican vote.
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/



Sorry, ****heads, you are stuck with Trump. You should put up a Trump
yard sign to identify yourself as a xenophobic, misogynistic racist.
But, hey, I'm sure your neighbors already know that about you, right?

Reading comprehension thing again?
You are not responding to what was actually written. You just burped
out a brain fart.
The man said Biden "would certainly attract some republican vote" ...
the ones who can't stand trump and could not possibly vote for
hillary.

On 7/5/16 4:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:20:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/5/16 2:14 PM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:



My guess is that Trump will end up running unopposed. Has there
been a president for that possibility?

The democrats will come up with someone, no matter what happens. Biden
is still hanging around waiting until they really need him. He may be
their strongest candidate. Looking at this bunch, I might even look at
him a little harder. He is head and shoulders above Trump and Clinton
in integrity, honesty and qualifications, even if I disagree with most
of his politics.


For sure he wouldn't act like a spoiled child and invoke executive
order when he didn't get his way. Replacing Hilly with Biden
would certainly attract some republican vote.
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/



Sorry, ****heads, you are stuck with Trump. You should put up a Trump
yard sign to identify yourself as a xenophobic, misogynistic racist.
But, hey, I'm sure your neighbors already know that about you, right?

Reading comprehension thing again?
You are not responding to what was actually written. You just burped
out a brain fart.
The man said Biden "would certainly attract some republican vote" ...
the ones who can't stand trump and could not possibly vote for
hillary.



The Dems have their candidate, and she is going to slaughter Trump in
the general, and she will get a significant number of votes from
Republicans who are capable are thinking and care about their country.

No need to insert Biden into the argument...he's not going anywhere near
the presidency.

What you think are "brain farts" typically is just me not taking
seriously a post. FlaJim the moron says he thinks Trump will run
unopposed. That's moronic nonsense.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:35:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

What you think are "brain farts" typically is just me not taking
seriously a post. FlaJim the moron says he thinks Trump will run
unopposed. That's moronic nonsense.

You were responding to a comment that was 3 notes up with an
intervening note in between from him.

On 7/5/2016 1:33 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:26:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

You certainly should be questioning $750,000 honorariums for a man
who's wife is the SoS and the corporation is doing international
business that State is signing off on. The Saudis have funneled
millions into super pacs that endorse here. It is "hold your nose"
legal but certainly should raise red flags.
If anyone but Trump was running against her, she would be deader than
disco.
Comey just came out today and said "Scty Clinton was "extremely
careless in handling highly classified information", "Information was
properly classified as 'top secret, special access only' at the time
it discussed on E-mail". He pointed out that her server was not even
as secure as G-mail.
"It is possible that hostile actors gained evidence to her E-mail
account"
He went on to say they found a ****load of undisclosed "work related"
E-mails that were not turned over and that they made an intentional
effort to wipe as many devices clean as they could. Unlike commercial
"private" E-mail servers, nothing was archived. If they deleted an
Email and it was not still spinning in the slack space of the drive,
it was gone forever.
Conclusion "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes"
He went on to say criminal prosecutions for these things is not likely
BUT that there are generally "administrative sanctions".
She may not be prosecuted at this time but the FBI calls her
"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information"

That doesn't sound very presidential to me.

I think they should put all the dice back in the cup at BOTH
conventions and find 2 new candidates,


There will be no indictment, but you can still hope for one charging
Hillary with planning and directing the multiple shooters on the grassy
knoll back in Dallas in 1963.

If you have been paying attention, you noticed I never thought much
would come out of this "classified E-mail" thing. The report was worse
than I expected tho. She did send top secret (at the time) information
on an unsecured platform and it is likely that foreign operators may
have intercepted her communication.
Al that Comey would commit to is that she was "sloppy" and "careless",
not exactly what you want to see on a bumper sticker.
What may come out and what was not in the scope of this investigation
is whether there were any inappropriate transfers of money or favors
between CBI and foreign governments that State had influence over.
All of those recovered E-mails are now government records and you can
bet your ass the FOIA requests are already in the mail.



Basically Comey said although there wasn't enough evidence to charge her
criminally, any other person who was as careless in handling of
classified material would likely not qualify for a security clearance.

He also made several statements that directly contradict statements made
by Hillary in the past. But, we all knew her propensity for lying.

Another thing that gets me .... the liberal media is playing up that the
FBI "cleared" Hillary of any of wrongdoing. She wasn't "cleared".
One can't be "cleared" if they are not charged. The decision was simply
not to recommend charges to the AG.

I agree with a panelist I just saw on MSNBC with Chuck Todd. This
decision is only going to make Hillary haters even more hateful and
Trump supporters even more supportive. What a frigg'n mess.

On 7/5/2016 4:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:20:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/5/16 2:14 PM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:



My guess is that Trump will end up running unopposed. Has there
been a president for that possibility?

The democrats will come up with someone, no matter what happens. Biden
is still hanging around waiting until they really need him. He may be
their strongest candidate. Looking at this bunch, I might even look at
him a little harder. He is head and shoulders above Trump and Clinton
in integrity, honesty and qualifications, even if I disagree with most
of his politics.


For sure he wouldn't act like a spoiled child and invoke executive
order when he didn't get his way. Replacing Hilly with Biden
would certainly attract some republican vote.
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/



Sorry, ****heads, you are stuck with Trump. You should put up a Trump
yard sign to identify yourself as a xenophobic, misogynistic racist.
But, hey, I'm sure your neighbors already know that about you, right?

Reading comprehension thing again?
You are not responding to what was actually written. You just burped
out a brain fart.
The man said Biden "would certainly attract some republican vote" ...
the ones who can't stand trump and could not possibly vote for
hillary.


I'd vote for Biden. Maybe I will anyway.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 18:12:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Another thing that gets me .... the liberal media is playing up that the
FBI "cleared" Hillary of any of wrongdoing. She wasn't "cleared".
One can't be "cleared" if they are not charged. The decision was simply
not to recommend charges to the AG.

Comey said the normal result of this is "administrative sanctions"
basically being fired and never getting a security clearance again.
Good thing Hillary is not looking for a job where has to handle
sensitive materials.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 18:13:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I'd vote for Biden. Maybe I will anyway.

If he is not the DNC candidate, you might as well vote for Johnson, as
if it really matters in your state. That was one thing Rollins and
Beckel agreed about. They write off 40 states as not even being worth
worrying about. They know how they will go, no matter what.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 11:26:32 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/5/16 12:20 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:35:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/5/16 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...rump-business/

If you don't think that could be, you may want to stay tuned.

The Clintons have always been corporate whores.
How do you think they went from zero to over $150 million in 15 years?


D'uh. Obviously, the answer is to disqualify from seeking office anyone
who has ever had any corporate ties or even contributions from
corporations.

You certainly should be questioning $750,000 honorariums for a man
who's wife is the SoS and the corporation is doing international
business that State is signing off on. The Saudis have funneled
millions into super pacs that endorse here. It is "hold your nose"
legal but certainly should raise red flags.
If anyone but Trump was running against her, she would be deader than
disco.
Comey just came out today and said "Scty Clinton was "extremely
careless in handling highly classified information", "Information was
properly classified as 'top secret, special access only' at the time
it discussed on E-mail". He pointed out that her server was not even
as secure as G-mail.
"It is possible that hostile actors gained evidence to her E-mail
account"
He went on to say they found a ****load of undisclosed "work related"
E-mails that were not turned over and that they made an intentional
effort to wipe as many devices clean as they could. Unlike commercial
"private" E-mail servers, nothing was archived. If they deleted an
Email and it was not still spinning in the slack space of the drive,
it was gone forever.
Conclusion "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes"
He went on to say criminal prosecutions for these things is not likely
BUT that there are generally "administrative sanctions".
She may not be prosecuted at this time but the FBI calls her
"extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information"

That doesn't sound very presidential to me.

I think they should put all the dice back in the cup at BOTH
conventions and find 2 new candidates,


There will be no indictment, but you can still hope for one charging
Hillary with planning and directing the multiple shooters on the grassy
knoll back in Dallas in 1963.

Of course there was no indictment, Krause. However there was probably a load of damage slated in Trumps favour.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politi...ebar_expansion