To my Reublican friends

RenegadeCJ wrote: Wow Dog....you are so right in some ways, but so wrong in others.

Don't know what happens with Trump, who knows, but regarding Clinton, I can't imagine anyone moving her way. She is a liar, and if she wasn't a democrat, she would already have been indicted for her actions. I expect the democrat justice department to somehow avoid charging her, but I expect a lot of FBI agents who know the truth to leak things out at some point, and we will see what a criminal she is. Too bad the democrats haven't brought in anyone who will actually make our country in better shape, but no, we will likely see the criminal become president, and step on the gas to drive us over the cliff. Your example of California is crazy. They are taxing like crazy, and have no intention of dealing with their massive unfunded liabilities (typical for a democrat run state). Regarding funding per student, that is irrelevant. You can buy a home for $100k in Oklahoma....you can't compare their student funding to California where $500k buys a 3 bed, 1 bath.

I don't doubt that our entitlement society will continue wanting more from the treasury. You are correct there. But it won't make us better. It will destroy this country. Look at what the ACA has done....doesn't help jobs, that is for sure.

If Clinton is elected, and gets 3 Supreme court nominations, it will be devastating to the fabric of our country, and you can kiss the constitution goodbye. Of course, I know you favor that from our previous conversations, so that will be good for you. It will be interesting times, that is for sure. I just don't get how those who vote for the nanny state think things will be better. At some point, we run out of other people's money.

It is simply demagoguery to claim that Clinton would be indicted if she was not a democrat. Most legal experts outside of the far right wing blogs are of the opinion that Clinton has done nothing that would rise to the level of a criminal indictment. Can you even cite the law that Clinton supposedly broke, or provide the evidence that demonstrates that she broke that law? To the best of my knowledge, the relevant law is 18 U.S.C. Code section 798:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

So Clinton would need to have prior knowledge that the information that she transmitted was classified and that the classified information met one of the four enumerated categories. As pointed out in section (b) the information would need to be marked by a government agency prior to the act. So far, in regard to the information currently released, the information found on her server was classified after the fact, not prior to her transmitting it. Further, as pointed out in (b), the head of a department has considerable leeway as to whom she may transmit the information.

Unless the FBI can uncover a "smoking gun" that demonstrates that she knowingly transmitted classified information regarding intelligence that would benefit a foreign government, that information was marked as such prior to her transmitting it, and that the receiver of that information was not designated by her or another government agency to receive that information, there is nothing to indict.

She may have been guilty of poor judgement, but there is nothing as to this point that indicates she was guilty of criminal activity. Her poor judgement is certainly fair game, but she does have the defense that she did nothing that her predecessors had not also done, including SOS Powell, VP Cheney, DOD Rumsfield, etc.

In regard to buying a home in Oklahoma for $100,000, you are correct (I am a former Okie), but then again that house is in Oklahoma. Oklahoma along with Texas have the highest sales tax rates in the country and the highest rate of uninsured indivduals, which affect the lower earning classes disproportionately. Statistics from the Burea of Labor Statics show that California has led the nation in business and job growth the past couple of years. Employers, particularly those providing high salaries and wages, seek employees who are educated and trainable over just lower income tax rates.

kedc.com/california-remains-no-1-for-business-and-job-growth/

FredHayek wrote: Knowing Hillary, she will auction off the Supreme Court Justice spots to the highest bidders.

I hear the Clinton Foundation is running a special.

As for Reublicans, Libocrats, Demotards, Nazicons, etc., I stand nonplussed. I think of myself as a Constitutionalist who votes for the most qualified candidate in any election, so my choices are getting pretty darn slim these days.

As for California, I sincerely hope their quality of life is so wonderful that people will stop moving here from there, and/or be compelled to make their state the new place-to-be. We're full.

As for Clinton, she's in it for the power . We need a candidate who's in it because they want to lead.