Ethics and integrity apparently have no value or consequences in politics!

@Greg
either party

I would have voted for her last election but not now. There's enough fire to burn her butt with me plus she didn't have it in her to kick Bill out and that sure didn't show much self worth. But then none of them excite me.

I'll take a stab at it...A small group of people who are going to be rather disappointed on November 9, 2016 care?? Am I close?

@ladybeachbum Exactly my thoughts

What politician does not lie?

@EddyFree Yep. You are correct. Barring any issue that comes up that we do not know about yet, that she cannot keep a lid on, she will win. Truthfully, I do not see another candidate, on either side of the aisle, that would have a chance if she is in the race.The concern I have is that this is the best we can come up with as a POTUS. As I said on another thread, I have serious concerns about her ethics. Not only do we have the Benghazi issue, but there were the Travelgate affair and the Filegate affair while Slick Willie was in office, the Whitewater issue when Slick Willie was Governor of Arkansas and the whole Rose Law Firm thing. I really believe that she has some good qualities and could do some good for the country. BUT, the fact that she has proven that she is good at using legal loopholes, blurring the lines, and, perhaps, using down right deception, I cannot vote for her. I cannot support ANYONE who is not willing to submit to complete visibility and public scrutiny in their administration. The other concern I have is the mentality of the voters. I feel that too many people are willing to overlook these questionable affairs and questionable ethics and will put her in office, just because they believe that she will support their individual agenda(s). When I cast my vote, I look at the entire package, not just one aspect or agenda that I champion. I believe that I need to select the person who will do the best for the entire country, not just me. If my agenda has enough merit, it will work itself to the top with or without the POTUS. If it doesn't have enough merit, it never should get to the top. I cannot support someone who is not fully open and straightforward.

@niceguy That is exactly how I feel.

It is a sad testament to our current culture, that so many will vote for, knowing exactly who she is, her dishonesty, and the lack of integrity she displays....all for the sake of liberal ideals. I don't believe all Democrat voters are uninformed...many are well informed, just idealistically bent, and damn all who have a different point of view.

@niceguyI agree with you here...But, anytime you insert money into the equation with people, you aren't going to get very many "wholesome" candidates...Been like that for decades, and I really don't see it changing anytime soon...As I've said before, it's a Representative Democracy...A system that assures that the masses cannot be subjected to by the minority(ie:"powerful")...I guess if you're part of the masses, you're comfortable with it...If part of the minority, you may not like the idea that much...

@EddyFree I have said many times on different threads, we have created a system that has eliminated leaders from the political process. A person who wants to be POTUS must have the "backing" (read the word "backing" as $$$) of their party. And to get this "backing", they sell their souls to the party. Until we have a person who is able to create enough public appeal (like Reagan did) to withstand the pressure of the political system, we are stuck with electing people like Hillary. Actually, technically, we are a Constitutional Democracy, but you have the right idea. I question your implication that minorities are not part of the masses. In fact, they ARE part of the masses. IMO, what people don't understand is that we have many very large, significant issues in this country and that these things will not change over night. When Lincoln freed the slaves, and the North won the Civil War, were blacks immediately treated as equals? Not that I have ever read. The saying goes "How do you eat an elephant? - One bite at a time". Rosa Parks did not set out to save the entire negro race, she just wanted a seat in the front of the bus. And she started a wave, a small one, but a wave. Oliver Brown (Brown vs. Board of Education) did not want to save the negro race, he just wanted his kids to go to public schools that were not "separate but equal". And he started another small wave. But, with the initiation of many of these small waves, things changed. My point is that minorities ARE part of the masses. And that there is a history of changing to learn from. We need to "eat one bite at a time". Martin Luther King showed what can be accomplished by one man motivating the masses. Reagan showed what can be accomplished by one man motivating the masses. (Whether you like Reagan's policies or not - you cannot deny that he motivated the country to follow him!). We are not going to change major problems all at once. We will not wake up tomorrow in a utopia. Things can and will change, but not immediately. And I believe that the problem America has is we want utopia NOW, at any cost. Many people feel, incorrectly, that if I vote for something today, and tomorrow nothing has changed, my vote was not heard. As soon as we accept the fact that change will not happen in one large shift, and focus our efforts on "eating one bite at a time", we will start moving closer to utopia. Again, JMO

@niceguyYou're killing me man!....There are many types of "Minorities"...How do you seriously extract "ethnic minority" from that sentence?I mean, right now, the "Minority Leader" of the House Of Representatives is Nancy Pelosi, definitely not a "Sista"!...If I have to break it down, the "masses" I mention are the vast majority of the population, and the "minority" are the very affluent and powerful(Extremely Wealthy, High-Level Government officials, Kings & Queens, etc.)...Won't comment of the rest because it's so far out of context and would lead down a whole other road I wouldn't care to travel now...

@EddyFree I don't think I said ethnic minorities. I said "minorities" - from your statement "If part of the minority, you may not like the idea that much." If you assumed I was only talking about ethnic minorities because of my examples, then that was my bad. Those were two that came to mind right away. But we could talk about Cesar Chavez with the migrant farm workers or Harvey Milk for gay rights. They all started a wave that bought about change. As for your thought that you were addressing the "Extremely Wealthy, High-Level Government officials, Kings & Queens, etc." when discussing minorities, the same logic, which you do not want to address, applies. Labor unions are a classic example. Let's see - Andrew Carnegie (Extremely Wealthy) was brought down by the United Steel Workers (the masses). We have the Molly Maguires that changed the coal mining industry; The teamsters that brought about change against the "Extremely Wealthy" in the trucking industry. They were all just "the masses" who organized, focused and brought about change against "the Extremely Wealthy". Again, my point is, in this country, we have laws that protect the masses against the "Extremely Wealthy". All we have to do is mobilize the masses to effect change. But, it will not happen right away. We have to take "one bite at a time". And, yes, we have extremely wealthy citizens, many of them in Congress, and no kings or queens, but it doesn't matter if they like it or don't. The country is shaped to be ruled by the masses. That's just how it is.