muscleman

That's good news! Though I dislike her being our next president, if she does elected, I wish she has solid health to lead our country. :)

As I said a couple times above, I am talking about Sharyl Akitson's book, not Fox news or Infowars. She is an award winning reporter.

None of these claims are new yet you keep pushing them as revelations. But it's useful to get them consolidated in one place, so thanks for that. 1) This was not HRCs decision. 2) This is not quite accurate as O did order rescue teams. The air assets needed to be prepared and refueled before launching. From the US they wouldn't have arrived in time. (You can't park a C-17 in front of the embassy, you need to land at an airport and drive or fly there by helo). Same goes for assets based in Europe, need to be refueled and prepared. Remember, many air assets are tied up in the wars we are fighting. 3) Not true. 4) Regardless of what he called it. This came after the attack and would have no impact on saving lives. 5) See above What you just said is exactly what the government lied and you told them at face value. Sharyl Akitson's book explained about each of the points you mentioned and explained why these points are lies. She also mentioned that every time investigative reporters point out government lies, the officials will say "This is old news". They like to release things in late Friday afternoon just before Congress and reporters go home. Then on Monday when they are questioned, they say, this is old news.

You guys should read Sharyl Aktisonn's book "Stone Walled". She got an award reporting Benghazi. 1. Stevens asked the state department multiple times to increase security. Instead his security team was pulled. 2. There is a 24/7 on call security team in the US. When this attack happened, they wrapped up and sat in their planes for many hours, waiting for the president's order to take off. But they never got the order. 3. There is a team in Italy who could have flown to Benghazi in 2 hours. They never got the order. 4. After the attack, Obama refused to call it terrorist attack until 14 days later. However in the 2012 presidential debate Obama insisted that he started calling it terrorist attack on the next day of the attack. 5. Hillary blamed Stevens for being reckless and not reporting all his travel plans. That's another lie.

The award winning reporter Sharyl Akitsonn wrote a book "stone walled" and it mentioned Benghazi many times. It is a appalling how it was mishandled. When I see how Obama is busy on the golf course while LA was heavily flooded this year, I know he is incapable of handling Benghazi.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/DickingBimbos?src=hash This election is epic live show, guys! ;D

Seattle is controlled by the extreme left. I am feeling bad. They first legalized marijuana and now they are pushing for heroin. I was not interested in elections in the past but now I've felt that the leftists have gone too far and they are going to endanger the society.

Pretty sure the parents of this girl are re-considering their vote for Pneumonia Hillary. http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-hugs-child-despite-contagious-pneumonia/ Yeah. That's why there is conspiracy saying the woman who walked out later is not the real Hillary. When I compare the wrinkles between the two pictures, the one on the right clearly looks younger with less wrinkles. But it could be light effect. https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/does-hillary-have-a-double/ This election is getting interesting. We are going to elect this waling dead, guys! :D

Die hard Hillary supporters are going to vote for her almost no matter what...Will her health issues move some of her borderline supporters to Trump? Yes, maybe, probably not very many... The worse problem is that some percentage of her supporters will move to 3rd party candidates OR will simply not vote. This is by far the worse problem I think. I've seen the 2nd video that just came out on the interwebs. It shows her from a different angle. There is absolutely no question that she collapsed. The question now, is did she have a seizure? I think it is probably that she did. I was previously not inclined to believe that her "coughing" fits were signs of ill health. After seeing this video a few times, there is NOT A DOUBT at all that this woman has very serious health issues... http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-health/index.html CNN said this is no big deal. Just dehydration after pneumonia. However I doubt CNN is telling the truth. Keep in mind that she later came out and hugged a little girl. Pneumonia is highly contagious. I would be surprised if she got pneumonia but hugged a girl anyway just to prove she is fine. https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/does-hillary-have-a-double/ There is also conspiracy saying the woman who came out later in the day was not the real Hillary. I compared the face side by side and it does look like the one on the right is younger.

Did you say facts? and then you post from Fox News.You have a lot to learn about this country my friend. Fox news is as real as WWF. Again its Clinton vs brain dead scumbag traitor who goes on foreign news channel and criticize our President. Facts? Here you go. Is a video good enough fact?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/11/hillary-clinton-has-medical-episode-at-911-ceremony-source-says.html "The Democratic presidential nominee appeared to faint on her way into her van and had to be helped by her security, the source said." From now on, I will just post facts and stop commenting on them, to avoid being called childish, racist, conspirator etc. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/ Hillary just insulted 100 million American people. I think I am one of those deplorables. BTW, as an immigrant, I didn't even know what deplorable means until yesterday. Just looked it up in the dictionary! ;D

From the time when this judge took over the case to the time of this decision, that's pretty fast. Humes said the longer it took the better. This judge probably started writing this opinion as soon as she got the case assigned. So if these cases rule against us, we will have standing in court of claims as taking, right? I wonder what happened behind the scene. First the prior judge found he had a few shares, and quit. Then this happened right away. Is there still any law and order in this administration?

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/09/seals-forced-abort-hostage-rescue-mission-obama-vacationed/ Obama was too busy golfing to take care of the SEALS. Leftists may jump in and argue that this is false news and blah blah, but we all knew he did the same thing when Louisiana was flooded.

For those of you who think this election will not change your life one way or another, read this: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/heroin-other-drug-users-may-get-a-safe-use-site-in-seattle/ Seattle is controlled by extreme leftists. After legalizing marijuana a few years ago, they now want to legalize heroin. If Hillary gets elected, there is a chance that she will push this everywhere in the US. How do you like about that? I already know what leftist will reply to this, like, safe-use-site does not mean legalizing heroin. Use your common sense, guys!

I don't know if Hillary Clinton would be a great president, but I will take the over on expectations of her success. 1. Historically, Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating when she is in office than when she is running for office. The Gallup favorability ratings from 1992 through 2015 show ebbs in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2007, and 2016, when she was campaigning for First Lady, Senator, and President; they peak during her actual time in office. When she left her most recent position as Secretary of State in 2013, she had a 64% favorability rating, compared to 38% now. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-approval-rating-secretary-state-w/ 2. Hillary Clinton works well with Republicans. In 2006, the NYT had a story on her ability to form bipartisan alliances. It quotes Lindsey Graham calling her a "smart, prepared, serious senator" who "has managed to build unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans." He says, "I don't want her to be president. We're polar opposites on many issues. But we have been able to find common ground." The NYT continues: "With Senator Trent Lott, she worked on improving the Federal Emergency Management Agency. With Representative Tom DeLay it was foster children. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, jumped in with her on a health care initiative, and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, was a partner on legislation concerning computerized medical records. The list goes on: Senator Robert Bennett on flag-burning; Senator Rick Santorum on children's exposure to graphic images; Senator John Sununu on S.U.V. taillights; Senator Mike DeWine on asthma. And virtually every Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose Republican chairman, John Warner, speaks admiringly of Mrs. Clinton's "remarkable core of inner strength." For the most part, she avoids sharply ideological issues in her work with Republicans, which she promotes through a steady stream of photo-ops and press releases from her office." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/nyregion/from-senator-clinton-a-lesson-in-tactical-bipartisanship.html 3. She listens. When Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000, she kicked it off by doing a "listening tour" across the state of New York. These were derided at the time, the New Yorker published "she tried to elevate nodding into a kind of political philosophy." During Clinton's travels, she stuffed notes from her conversations and readings into suitcases, and after she became Senator, blocked out "card-table time" to categorize the notes and draft legislation to address them. Her listening tour to kick off the 2016 campaign led her to be the first candidate to focus on a plan to fight opiate addiction. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-10-billion-drug-addiction-fight/ Her campaign events continue to focus on listening to the concerns and suggestions of others rather than mega-rallies: "“I’m taking a lot of notes,” Hillary Clinton admitted to the panel on national security on Wednesday. The small group of invited service members and their families chuckled. Hillary Clinton, policy wonk, was in the building. Days after delivering two speeches where she sharply criticized Donald Trump over his approach to national security, Clinton’s five-person panel discussion in one of the nation’s most concentrated hubs of service members and military families took a different approach to drawing a contrast with Trump. Clinton had come, she told the small room of invited guests, to “do a lot more listening than talking.”" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/15/clinton-goes-full-policy-wonk-to-draw-contrast-with-trumps-reckless-ideas/ I saw this being shared by one of my extreme left friend on FB, and I start to wonder if "vox" on our board is the same person as VOX on FB? https://www.facebook.com/Vox/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED In China, there is a group of people being called the "50 cent party", whose job is to surf online everyday and whenever they see things against their government, they post replies to either spin rumors or lies to explain, or directly attack the guy, and the government pays them 50 cents per post. The cost of doing the above in China annually has exceeded the military budget, ironically. VOX in FB seems like the US version one of those "50 cent party" guys.

I think slashing the tax rate is hard for a couple reasons: 1. Everything related to the tax code is a political football. Recently, even really minor, but necessary funding changes are hard to pass (e.g. see Zika). Even with a Republican Congress, Senate, and President, I think it would be hard to make big changes to the tax code, and that's a huge change. 2. Figuring out what to cut is hard. I have no idea how much tax revenue would be lost by doing this, but let's assume that it's 35% (assuming similar cuts to payroll taxes). So where do we cut the budget? Defence is 16% now, but Trump says he wants to boost defence. So let's say he's increasing that to 20%. Then we need to find 39 percentage points of cuts. Interest payments are 6%. Defaulting on the debt is a really stupid idea. Maybe Trump would do it, but it seems unlikely, and it only saves 6%, so let's assume he wouldn't. Discretionary is 16%. Let's cut that. No more EPA, no more Department of Education, no more FDA, no more SEC, no more budget office, no more Federal Parks or Federal Courts or Prisons or Veteran Affairs, no more help in the next earthquake or hurricane, all that sort of stuff. I think people might object to some of this, and we'd have criminals running around everywhere, no way to enforce laws or contracts, so that wouldn't be easy, but screw it. So now we need another 23 percentage points of our budget cut. We have another 49 percentages points in healthcare and social security and 13 percentage points in other mandatory spending like unemployment compensation and child tax credits. So, to get these 23 percentage points, he'd have to cut 37% of social security and healthcare benefits. So we're taking a program that people supposedly paid into, and are relying on for their retirement, and screwing them over. A big chunk of these benefits largely accrue to Trump's "old white men" base, and Medicare is hugely popular with both this base and the electorate generally. Plus, watching dear old grandma starve to death on the street on national TV would upset people. So, I think he'd have a hard time doing that too. To me, this implies that it's really hard to make big tax cuts, not really easy. Not to say it couldn't be done. Rather, if it were done, I think it would probably lead to civil war. I think ObamaCare could be cut. It hasn't been out long enough and has had enough problems that people probably wouldn't fight for it strongly. Really, the right strategy is to cut ObamaCare and replace it by single payer--same outcomes as privatized healthcare at two-thirds the price. This might be a way to achieve your tax cut, if you are able to take all the money put into privatized medicine and toss it into the federal budget while shifting to a single payer system. But the healthcare lobby is too strong for that to realistically happen, either. Besides, it's nice that Americans are willing to grossly overpay for healthcare, since it results the development of technology that wouldn't get created otherwise, benefiting everyone. Thank you! That's very helpful! :D

Please excuse my ignorance. But isn't ObamaCare that forces everyone to have a healthcare plan with a lot of coverages that people don't even need, and then VRX and others took this opportunity to raise drug prices and got the insurance to pay for it? I also don't see the claim of how ObamaCare benefited insurers. Multiple insurers quit due to huge losses. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/16/aetna-obamacare-affordable-care-act-exchanges/88825798/ I also don't see how the claim of "the large majority of the country was unaffected". My healthcare costs skyrocketed. All of my middle class friends saw the same thing. TN's state regulator just approved a state wide 62% premium increase in 2017. Other states have 40-50% increases. How can you call this "large majority of the country was unaffected"?

Regulations (all regulations) are always created to benefit the corporations who own the politicians. This is how the system works. Liberals have never understood this and for all their anti-corporatist talk, they are the biggest pushers of corporatist/crony-capitalist policies. The liberal mind can be summed up as follows: Intentions matter more than results. Actually helping the sick and the poor doesn't matter at all as long as you intended to help them. Pushing policies that create a corporatist/crony-capitalist oligarchy is ok as long as you intended the opposite. Socialists of all stripes never learned where the road paved with good intentions leads. This is becoming more and more like China and the rest Communist world. Ideology triumphs results. My friends are all saying this. If US becomes China or Mexico one day, then why the hell did we work so hard to get the legal status here? I think Trump's Hispanic supporters may be thinking about the same thing. If US becomes like Mexico, then why did they come here? We come here for American values and American dreams. We are not here to change it into China and Mexico. Obama and Hillary seem to be doing just that.

Thank you! What's the reason that you think slashing the tax rate is hard? How about the other points, like voiding ObamaCare? I believe anyone who followed VRX long enough on this board should be sick with ObamaCare. And we all know how much more expensive healthcare has become in the past four years. Four years ago, I was paying nothing and my employer (Microsoft) pays everything for healthcare. That was no longer possible due to huge expense hikes, so now both me and my employer have to pay a lot more than before, and I thought, well, if my money goes to subsidize the low income people for their healthcare, maybe it is not that bad. Then last year people told me the definition of low income has changed and my friend earning $30k a year had to pay huge premiums. Then all of the VRX shit came and I realized that the true winner of ObamaCare are these pharma companies.

This is an interesting statement, because I think almost everyone I've heard from portrays this election as a choice between bad and worse. Out of curiosity, is there anyone on the board who is sincerely delighted with either Trump or Clinton being a nominee and thinks they'll do a great job as president? (And I don't mean from a libertarian perspective like "this candidate will do so badly at the job that they'll bring down the whole political system, and that'll be great!") I am inclined to think Trump will do fine, but I am not sure if he will do great. I am inclined to believe Hillary will be disastrous. Let's look at their policies. 1. Trump will slash tax rate from 35% to 15%. This will be good for us and easy to do. 2. Trump will void Obamacare. Anyone who followed VRX and a few other pharma stocks know Obamacare's biggest winners are these pharma companies, not low income Americans. Small businesses are being choked to death by Obamacare. This should be easy to do. 3. Trump will stop illegal immigrantion. Maybe? This is really hard to do, but at least he will try. 4. No more squandering of tax payer's money. Hopefully. This depends on his personal judgement, so it is hard to say. But if you look at Obama's clean energy scandal, squandering $90 bn of tax payer money, giving billion dollar loans to CCC rated electric car companies just months before they file chp 11? That's extremely irresponsible for our tax payer money. Then let's look at Hillary's policies. Basically anything Obama did, she wanted to do more. 1. Bring more people to Obamacare. Come on! We already had enough premium increases. The state of TN just approved 62% premium hike. I am sure people will be furious there. 2. More tax hikes. Come on, show me you can use the money prudently first! 3. Bring in more refugees. German's situation today is US's situation tomorrow. Guess you're as dumb as your username would suggest. Right now Trump's national support rate is 45% vs Clinton's 42%. You have balls to insult half of Americans. But seriously, I welcome any constructive discussions of the above bullet points. If anyone think these are not what Hillary and Trump's directions, or you think I am missing any other major bullet points, please let me know.

At least we will have a president pushing for the right direction. Also keep in mind that Republican holds majority in senate and house. It will be easier for Trump to work with them than Hillary.

This is an interesting statement, because I think almost everyone I've heard from portrays this election as a choice between bad and worse. Out of curiosity, is there anyone on the board who is sincerely delighted with either Trump or Clinton being a nominee and thinks they'll do a great job as president? (And I don't mean from a libertarian perspective like "this candidate will do so badly at the job that they'll bring down the whole political system, and that'll be great!") I am inclined to think Trump will do fine, but I am not sure if he will do great. I am inclined to believe Hillary will be disastrous. Let's look at their policies. 1. Trump will slash tax rate from 35% to 15%. This will be good for us and easy to do. 2. Trump will void Obamacare. Anyone who followed VRX and a few other pharma stocks know Obamacare's biggest winners are these pharma companies, not low income Americans. Small businesses are being choked to death by Obamacare. This should be easy to do. 3. Trump will stop illegal immigrantion. Maybe? This is really hard to do, but at least he will try. 4. No more squandering of tax payer's money. Hopefully. This depends on his personal judgement, so it is hard to say. But if you look at Obama's clean energy scandal, squandering $90 bn of tax payer money, giving billion dollar loans to CCC rated electric car companies just months before they file chp 11? That's extremely irresponsible for our tax payer money. Then let's look at Hillary's policies. Basically anything Obama did, she wanted to do more. 1. Bring more people to Obamacare. Come on! We already had enough premium increases. The state of TN just approved 62% premium hike. I am sure people will be furious there. 2. More tax hikes. Come on, show me you can use the money prudently first! 3. Bring in more refugees. German's situation today is US's situation tomorrow.

But how about Angela Merkel's disastrous refugee policies that changed the lives of so many German people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany 1200 women were raped publicly on the street. Their lives were forever changed. And this is just one incident. Smaller crimes happen almost everyday in Germany now.

So you really think this woman is emotionally stable? :o http://theantimedia.org/former-secret-service-hillary-beat-bill/