I think the vast majority of politicians get funds from sources that will make people wonder why.

I thought Saudi was a "little" more liberal in their social reform than other Muslim nations. I thought I read a couple of years ago that women can drive a car. But only alone or with other women. They can't drive men. And I don't know about children.

While they officially can't have fashion magazines and the like if they don't create a scene they can have them.

It's a long way from the West but better than Iraq.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

It doesn't surprise me.
The Clintons are rich people, who act like they are poor so that they can "buy" the lower class vote.

It's kind of funny.....in a sad way. You hear constantly from the left how horrible Donald Trump is as far as his dealings with women. Yet they ignore how Bill Clinton treated women (like Monica Lewinsky)SP? when he was actually "on the job" (pardon the pun) in the White House.
We heard over and over how "that was his personal life, and had nothing to do with how he was doing as president".
Yet Trump is attacked. I don't know if what has been said about Trump is true or not. All I am saying is that it is a double standard. If you are going to hold republicans responsible for their actions, then you should hold democrats to the same standards. If you are willing to ignore what the guy (or woman) is doing, or has done, then you can't attack the other side for the same indiscretions.

Or am I wrong about that?

Hillary accepting money from a anti woman country is wrong. But as usual, "the end justifies the means" for some.

I really don't see any real positive solution as far as this up coming election goes. I'm not thrilled with EITHER side.
I'm getting sick and tired of having to vote for "the lesser of two evils".

As many voted for Obama simply because of the color of his skin, many will vote for Hillary because of her gender. And that is just another thing that is so sad about today's United States.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

If I wanted to care about money with the Clinton foundation, it would be about how much goes to help people and how much goes to "other". But even if we believe the numbers 75million given to causes, is better than zero. Will I ever give to them, heck no, I have much better places to give that I know helps people more.

If a person is swayed on who to vote for by campaign talking points and commercials, we would be better of if they didn't vote. When I don't vote for Hillary, it won't be because of where money came from. It won't be because he husband is a dufass. It will because I do not believe she would be good for the country.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

My recommendation is to write in "None of the Above."

A vote for the lesser of two evils is, by definition, a vote for evil.

I don't know about anyone else, but my moral conscience tells me that voting for evil is wrong. The country may be going to hell in a handbasket, but some of us -- the Christians, anyway -- need to say, "Hell, no, I won't go."

You don't save the American experiment by voting for those who you believe will continue its corruption. You either vote for someone who you believe will reverse the trend, or you take action that shows your non-support.

Originally Posted by: Wade