DrmDoc

Clearly, the destruction of 30,000 emails suggests that Hillary had something to hide, but is that in itself criminal or indicative of corruption? Those emails were on her private server where she engage both private and governmental correspondence as she has stated. Given the political environment of Washington and the vitriol Mrs. Clinton has endured, it's reasonable that she would destroy private, non-government related emails to keep them out of propagandist hands. Federal law and rules, as I understand, forbid the destruction of government related emails and Mrs. Clinton claims that those emails were preserved and given to investigators. Her FBI investigators did not and have not found prosecutorial criminality in the destruction of the emails they did not receive. So why is this even an issue? Political accusations and the perception of some illicit act isn't real or credible evidence of a crime or corruption. As Bernie once said, "Forget the damn emails!" How does any single person, particularly a democrat, comprise the integrity of a republican led, investigative arm of the US government?

I agree, every free-thinking voter should be afraid of a Trump presidency. He's clearly the most vacuous candidate to potentially become POTUS since George W. Bush--and we all know how that turned out.

If that occurred, that is a prosecutorial offense. So why hasn't the republicans congress requested a special prosecutor for this perceive pay-for-play? Could it be that possession of facts rather than perception of wrong doing is 9/10th of the law? Wasn't it Mr. Clinton, then POTUS, rather than Hillary as merely FLOTUS who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999? If this is about Mrs. Clinton efforts, this New York Times article regarding Glass-Steagall suggests she has a tougher stance on banking practices than Glass-Steagall or her husband had as POTUS. According to this government Trans-Pacific Partnership website, this agreement "will make it easier for American entrepreneurs, farmers, and small business owners to sell Made-In-America products abroad by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes & other trade barriers on American products across the 11 other countries in the TPP—barriers that put American products at an unfair disadvantage today".​ ​So...how is this catering to the wealthy? I think Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, may have supported her President's, Barak Obama, position on this issue well before being in a position to accept donations towards making legislative changes regarding our healthcare delivery. Her position has been in support of the Affordable Care Act, which has been under constant and considerable republican attack since being enacted. If her opposition came before her candidacy, I hardly see how subsequent donations from interested parties altered her prior position. Political accusations and perceptions of collusion with the wealthy or elite is not the same as an individual, unbiased evaluation of the available facts. From my assessment of the facts and in my opinion, it appears Mrs. Clinton has been the subject of a rigorous propaganda campaign, which some may have gullibly accepted as rote rather than investigate.

I agree, Clinton is more of the status quo; however, if I may ask, what legislative acts has Clinton championed that catered to the wealthy? Other than elicit funding from the wealthy, what actually has she done or promised to do on behalf of the wealthy?

It requires just 1 vote of a majority for a district to swing one way or another and we may not know all the people in our voting districts and how they feel about an election. Perhaps you do know what some people your town believe; however, unless it's a very small town and you actually do know everyone, you may not know what all the people believe. The only person who has inferred a rigged election has been the candidate who knows he is behind in the poles and is currently unlikely to win. That same candidate, as I recalled, made a similar claim against his own party during the nominating process, which ultimately proved to be invalid. Threats of a revolution over an election loss infers your belief that your life and freedoms will somehow be irrevocably changes and damage by the election of the other candidate. Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton would have that power? During the whole of the United States governance history has any single elected official ever held or wield such power? Our governance is specifically design is such a way that no single individual could unilaterally change the freedoms we enjoy without the support of other governing branches and the American people. A prime example of that fact has been the efforts against our people's right to keep and bear firearms. The fear you seem to express over Hillary's potential presidency is incredibly similar to those expressed over the election of Obama nearly 8 years ago--and, as you can see, our nation is still here and you still have your freedoms. I agree, each governing approach may have its advantages; however, I don't think educating the public about them is Clinton's job alone. I believe it's incumbent upon the voting populace of our nation to educate themselves on the issue involving their governance as responsible and involved members of our society. Some of us have but, unfortunately, many of us are like sheep content to being led by wolves.

I think you'll notice that invoking those sensations are tied to your breathing and, possibly, diaphragm constriction. What you may be voluntarily invoking are those physiological mechanisms associate with panic without the emotional elements of that state. You're likely able to cause these sensation through shallow, somewhat constricted breathing. This process may involve the release of stress hormones that initiate a cascade of anticipatory physical reactions such as rapid pulse, vassal constriction, muscle tinkling, and shallow breathing. The euphoria you may feel after exiting this voluntary state is likely your brain chemistry counteracting the effects of your self-induce panic-like state. I hope this helps.

Power hungry? What politician isn't if not for the power to pursue some cause or agenda? Even Bernie is guilty of that. Dishonest? A honest politician is as rare as a truthful Used Car salesman, I'm sure you don't naively think Sen. Sanders is somehow a rare honest exemption. Corrupt? As Secretary of State, where was it found that Mrs. Clinton used her position to illegally advance the cause of some outside agency? Accusations and perceptions of pay-for-pay are not the same as solid evidence that she engaged in some direct or indirect illegal act on behalf of some group, corporation, or contributor. If Mrs. Clinton has engaged corruption, why isn't she being prosecuted instead of persecuted? I fail to see what your issue is here, I'm from Philly and I voted for Obama. He was the best selection given how badly our nation's economy and world standing were ruin under the leadership of a republican administration in the years prior to Obama's. Despite Mr. Trump's claim, America is already a greater nation because of Obama's presidency.

Thumbs up!

Wow, I had no idea Mr. Trump was a lawyer.

I don't see where the FBI said that lesser employees would be prosecuted if their actions equal those of Mrs. Clinton. If she committed prosecutorial acts, the FBI apparently didn't perceive them as such.

My claim was, "An FBI investigation, led by a Republican appointed and endorsed agent, has found no prosecutorial criminality in any of Hillary's email related actions." If there was prosecutorial criminality, I'm certain the Republican led FBI would have recommended that action, which they didn't. Therefore, there is no prosecutorial action to pursue against Mrs. Clinton by the Attorney General as the absence of a recommendation by the investigative arm of our government affirms. How is that not the same?

Indeed, science can and does satisfy as deeply as ideologies antithesis to science--faith based ideologies.

So...which specific politicians do you support? If there's evidence that they've ever lied, would you continue to believe and support them? As I also said, it is negligently naïve to receive the utterances of any politician as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Are you negligently naïve?

Although I'm not sure with which of my statements you disagree or whether you disagree with me at all, dealing with survival affecting influences such as cancer and the threat of death--even with the loss of loved ones--religious ideology severs our innate or instinctive survival programming until it is proven ineffective to some measure of our individual satisfaction. Virtually any notion can replace religious ideology, whether scientific or not, when an individual perceives that the replacement ideology satisfies his or her survival needs, which also includes coping with loss.

Did she lie, if I may? Maybe, but what politician doesn't? Is she incompetent? Well, did the former Secretary's email handling harmed our people and our nation's world standing? I think not. The most apt example of that would be George Bush's foray into war with Iraq and I don't think the FBI's investigation uncovered that measure of incompetency. Did she commit such heinous acts of transgression that she should be vilified and prosecuted? Well, her Republican back FBI investigators didn't think so or they would have surely recommended some measure of prosecution if she had--which they did not. This was and remains a political non-issue from the start, not one of competency, and everyone of fair and objective reasoning should understand that.

I agree; it's not a requirement, it's a choice. Indeed, adoption is an excellent alternative given the number of exceptional children waiting and wanting parental devotion. Unfortunately, adoption isn't always an option for homosexuals in some places because of discriminatory rules. However, short of artificial insemination, the OP could investigate whether adoption is possible where he resides.

The Attorney General said that she would accept the FBI's recommendations. She did and, to-date, there are no prosecutorial efforts announced or currently pursued by her office against Mrs. Clinton--that is unless you know something everyone else doesn't?

I don't think we're born to this world as critical thinkers or rational beings, I believe much of that is taught or passed on to us by those charged with our parenting. That parenting, I also believe, comes during a period in our lives where the ideas we assimilate are closely associated with our survival interests, which is an innate, preprogrammed aspect of our nature. We initially believe what we are told because it is taught or perceived as essential to our survival. Therefore, I think, religious ideology can become rooted on the bottom floor of our critical thinking by the very instincts with which we were born, which is our survival instinct. In many case, the ideology we assimilate will remain unchanged until it has been consistently and effectively proven incompatible with our survival interests and needs. If we were never taught religious ideology during some prior critical period of development, then there is nothing to change. However, if we were, reasoning alone likely isn't enough to dislodge an idea perceived as basic and essential to our mental, emotional, and physical survival. Along with reasoning, something has to take that ideology's place and that something has to be palpably, viscerally, and equally proven as effective as the ideology we are being asked to relinquish.

Perhaps I misunderstand, is this an inference that the DNA tests we use in criminal cases and to identify deceased, distant and close relatives are virtually useless since, essentially, "most people's DNA is practically identical"? To some of us, even the combined cosmetic distinctions DNA comingling produces is an important reflection of the bonds we desire and share. Regarding the DNA difference between humans and chimps, I was reminded of this Neil deGrasse Tyson discussion where he made a very compelling argument on the significance of that 1%.

Now it's homonyms, the word is aisle not isle. It occurred to me in the middle of the night as I was reviewing my thoughts. Time to put Old Yeller down. Ugh!

Ha! I'm going to file that one away for future use.

Perhaps the best way to assure your offspring will share at least some of your partner's DNA is to ask if one of his closest female relatives would be willing to contribute an egg to be fertilized by you for artificial insemination. I think that is the least expensive, practically available method you could pursue. I hope this helps.

It's a familiar political tactic, which investigators on both side of the congressional isles have frequently employed to sway public opinion. Unfortunately, an often uninformed public and our general distrust of politicians have made this tactic a very effective political tool.

Hillary's allegedly criminal email violations were caught, investigated, and found non-prosecutorial. Nixon's conspiracy was caught, investigated, and prosecuted. As Delta1212 commented, "Not even the same level." We all know all politicians, as the average human does, lie. In the whole of human history, what politician hasn't lied? That really isn't much of a revelation about a class of individuals who would say anything to advance their political ambitions and goals. It's negligently naïve to receive every politico's utterance as truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Our primary interest should be whether their lies have violated our laws and harmed our nation--according to our nation's investigative branch, Hillary's alleged prevarications haven't.

The distinction between Tricky Dick and Hillary is that he actually conspired to commit and conceal a crime. An FBI investigation, led by a Republican appointed and endorsed agent, has found no prosecutorial criminality in any of Hillary's email related actions. From the very beginning, this was a political effort by a Republican led congress to undermine the candidacy of the strongest and likely Democratic successor to Obama. It is likely that once she is elected, the Republicans will ceaselessly continue to undermine her effectiveness as President as they openly and callously did Obama's presidency to the detriment of needed social programs, effective governance, and a qualified judiciary in need of a properly vetted Supreme Court nominee, which they have ignored. As Donald Trump embodies, Republicans have become a vindictive, selfish, intolerant, and bigoted brood.