goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 02:19:34 PM

Title: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 02:19:34 PM
I almost certainly wouldn't vote for her, but to those who would, I'm genuinely curious: what do you consider to be her accomplishments?

Again, I'm genuinely interested in hearing some pro-Hillary opinions. I don't intend for this to be a food fight. Thanks, and I'll listen off the air.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 10, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Emo EMAW on April 10, 2014, 03:08:56 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

Many people for D or R no matter what.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 10, 2014, 03:11:10 PM
I don't think she'll run due to her health.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 03:11:56 PM
not sure why anyone would vote for a d or r, they are same party
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 10, 2014, 03:25:16 PM
#GaryJohnson2016
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 03:25:47 PM
#GaryJohnson2016

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on April 10, 2014, 03:29:33 PM
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 03:30:20 PM
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 03:36:36 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on April 10, 2014, 03:37:54 PM
I would love a strong challenger against her.  Doubt it happens.  pretty sure she is going to win.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 03:38:08 PM
i don't think this thread is going how k-s-u wanted it to  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 0.42 on April 10, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo

 :eye:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 10, 2014, 03:44:06 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2014, 03:58:53 PM
Laura Bush would be better.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 04:01:56 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Huh. Seems like most of this had more to do with her husband being AG/Governor of Arkansas, and then POTUS. I'm more interested in stuff she's actually accomplished - not positions she was elected/appointed to. Like, what did she do well as SOS? I see she got a law degree from Yale and was an undergrad commencement speaker, so I'm thinking she's pretty intelligent - I'm just trying to figure out what she's got to run on besides holding a lot of positions and being The First Woman President.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 10, 2014, 04:03:13 PM
Elizabeth Warren should be the first woman prez.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 10, 2014, 04:04:15 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Huh. Seems like most of this had more to do with her husband being AG/Governor of Arkansas, and then POTUS. I'm more interested in stuff she's actually accomplished - not positions she was elected/appointed to. Like, what did she do well as SOS? I see she got a law degree from Yale and was an undergrad commencement speaker, so I'm thinking she's pretty intelligent - I'm just trying to figure out what she's got to run on besides holding a lot of positions and being The First Woman President.

Yeah. Mary Brownback has a similar resume. All wives of people in power rise to similar heights, really.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 04:04:31 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Huh. Seems like most of this had more to do with her husband being AG/Governor of Arkansas, and then POTUS. I'm more interested in stuff she's actually accomplished - not positions she was elected/appointed to. Like, what did she do well as SOS? I see she got a law degree from Yale and was an undergrad commencement speaker, so I'm thinking she's pretty intelligent - I'm just trying to figure out what she's got to run on besides holding a lot of positions and being The First Woman President.

how blue were your balls since you had to wait 16 posts to pull this out
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 10, 2014, 04:07:15 PM
As far as past experience, I think Secretary of State and Senator from NY are both bigger than a lot of former Governors or business leaders who run.  International diplomacy experience and national politics experience are both big pluses.  What did she do in those positions?  Tough to say but I can't think of another Senator from NY or Secretary of State that just blew my socks off either.

I know people that would vote for her because of the role they think Bill would play in administration, whether official or not.  If your point is that she is the D frontrunner largely due to her husband, I don't know many that would argue with you.  She is qualified regardless of her husband though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 04:09:34 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Huh. Seems like most of this had more to do with her husband being AG/Governor of Arkansas, and then POTUS. I'm more interested in stuff she's actually accomplished - not positions she was elected/appointed to. Like, what did she do well as SOS? I see she got a law degree from Yale and was an undergrad commencement speaker, so I'm thinking she's pretty intelligent - I'm just trying to figure out what she's got to run on besides holding a lot of positions and being The First Woman President.

Yeah. Mary Brownback has a similar resume. All wives of people in power rise to similar heights, really.

Some people have more ambition for political power than others, and I'm certainly not questioning her ambition, but did you just compare Sam Brownback to Bill Clinton?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 10, 2014, 04:13:36 PM
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Huh. Seems like most of this had more to do with her husband being AG/Governor of Arkansas, and then POTUS. I'm more interested in stuff she's actually accomplished - not positions she was elected/appointed to. Like, what did she do well as SOS? I see she got a law degree from Yale and was an undergrad commencement speaker, so I'm thinking she's pretty intelligent - I'm just trying to figure out what she's got to run on besides holding a lot of positions and being The First Woman President.

Yeah. Mary Brownback has a similar resume. All wives of people in power rise to similar heights, really.

Some people have more ambition for political power than others, and I'm certainly not questioning her ambition, but did you just compare Sam Brownback to Bill Clinton?

Mary's husband as been senator/governor of Kansas for quite some time now. I'm sure she's on the board at Koch Industries or something by now. How could she not be?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 10, 2014, 04:28:34 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 10, 2014, 04:33:58 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?


i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo

This is how Obama was elected - twice.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 10, 2014, 04:36:34 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?

How different is that from being a two term senator of New York?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on April 10, 2014, 04:37:30 PM
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo
This is how Obama was elected - twice.

how many states that went blue would have gone red if the 3rd party votes went to mitt? probably none.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on April 10, 2014, 04:38:06 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?


i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo

This is how Obama was elected - twice.

The 'pubs need to get serious about weeding out the crazies so that their guy doesn't get crazy rubbed all over him before the gen elect'n.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo

This is how Obama was elected - twice.

and W... and clinton...
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 10, 2014, 04:46:36 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?


i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo

This is how Obama was elected - twice.

The 'pubs need to get serious about weeding out the crazies so that their guy doesn't get crazy rubbed all over him before the gen elect'n.

They just need a likeable candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 10, 2014, 04:49:17 PM
'pubs really need to change their stance on marijuana if they want to win the POTUS election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on April 10, 2014, 04:50:49 PM
'pubs really need to change their stance on marijuana if they want to win the POTUS election.

they really need to iron out their stances on which freedoms they want to protect and which freedoms they want to destroy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 10, 2014, 05:46:48 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?

How different is that from being a two term senator of New York?

Seriously, you can't really even compare the two.  It would be like comparing a CEO (governor) to a sales manager (senator). Sales manager probably has more responsibilities than a senator, so probably not the best example.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 06:43:09 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?

How different is that from being a two term senator of New York?

Seriously, you can't really even compare the two.  It would be like comparing a CEO (governor) to a sales manager (senator). Sales manager probably has more responsibilities than a senator, so probably not the best example.

Being governor of a state, especially of a populous state, is far more important, and far better experience for POTUS, than being 1 out of 100 votes in the Senate. It's not really even close. As governor, not only are you the head of the executive branch, you also have to make hard decisions like balancing a budget. How many balanced budgets (or budgets at all, for that matter) have come out of the Senate recently?

In terms of getting elected as an accomplishment, I would also give Ronnie the edge there. He won in CA as a Republican. Of course, those were different times back then and he was at least a semi-famous b movie actor, but Hillary's path to that Senate seat was gold paved.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 06:47:39 PM
good ol' bill clinton was governor, and he was probably the best president of the last 300 years
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 06:49:28 PM
sebelius got elected gov in red state kansas, guess maybe she should be president too

(would support)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on April 10, 2014, 06:52:31 PM
good ol' bill clinton was governor, and he was probably the best president of the last 300 years


12th amendment makes it kind of tricky but I would definitely vote for a Clinton/Clinton ticket in 2016
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 10, 2014, 06:56:34 PM
good ol' bill clinton was governor, and he was probably the best president of the last 300 years


12th amendment makes it kind of tricky but I would definitely vote for a Clinton/Clinton ticket in 2016

Bill would love that. They could never travel together.  :fatty:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 06:59:40 PM
good ol' bill clinton was governor, and he was probably the best president of the last 300 years

Where to begin with this...
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 07:10:11 PM
sebelius got elected gov in red state kansas, guess maybe she should be president too

(would support)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/us/politics/sebelius-resigning-as-health-secretary.html?_r=0&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/us/politics/sebelius-resigning-as-health-secretary.html?_r=0&referrer=) :lol:

You're the best, seven. Never stop.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 07:12:14 PM
sebelius got elected gov in red state kansas, guess maybe she should be president too

(would support)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/us/politics/sebelius-resigning-as-health-secretary.html?_r=0&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/us/politics/sebelius-resigning-as-health-secretary.html?_r=0&referrer=) :lol:

You're the best, seven. Never stop.

that's actually what made me think of her today
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 10, 2014, 07:27:16 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?

How different is that from being a two term senator of New York?

Seriously, you can't really even compare the two.  It would be like comparing a CEO (governor) to a sales manager (senator). Sales manager probably has more responsibilities than a senator, so probably not the best example.

Being governor of a state, especially of a populous state, is far more important, and far better experience for POTUS, than being 1 out of 100 votes in the Senate. It's not really even close. As governor, not only are you the head of the executive branch, you also have to make hard decisions like balancing a budget. How many balanced budgets (or budgets at all, for that matter) have come out of the Senate recently?

In terms of getting elected as an accomplishment, I would also give Ronnie the edge there. He won in CA as a Republican. Of course, those were different times back then and he was at least a semi-famous b movie actor, but Hillary's path to that Senate seat was gold paved.

Does Schwarzenegger winning kind of dampen your argument on how hard it is for an Repub actor to win in CA?

Honestly, I think both positions are really tough to win.  Both were probably won largely on name recognition and a lot of money (Schwarzenegger and Hillary that is, I don't know crap about how Reagan won).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EMAWmeister on April 10, 2014, 08:30:05 PM
 I really have no good reason, but I cannot stand Hilary Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on April 10, 2014, 08:41:37 PM
[quote autho
r=seven link=topic=31932.msg1089984#msg1089984 date=1397161820]
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo

 :thumbs:
[/quote]

Did this last time.. Count me in.

I'm done with traditional parties and their people. 

I believe in ideas more than anything now.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on April 10, 2014, 08:48:45 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?

How different is that from being a two term senator of New York?

Seriously, you can't really even compare the two.  It would be like comparing a CEO (governor) to a sales manager (senator). Sales manager probably has more responsibilities than a senator, so probably not the best example.

Being governor of a state, especially of a populous state, is far more important, and far better experience for POTUS, than being 1 out of 100 votes in the Senate. It's not really even close. As governor, not only are you the head of the executive branch, you also have to make hard decisions like balancing a budget. How many balanced budgets (or budgets at all, for that matter) have come out of the Senate recently?

In terms of getting elected as an accomplishment, I would also give Ronnie the edge there. He won in CA as a Republican. Of course, those were different times back then and he was at least a semi-famous b movie actor, but Hillary's path to that Senate seat was gold paved.

I'm willing to bet you never brought up the gold paths for W or silver one for his dad. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 10, 2014, 09:22:18 PM
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?

Successful 2 term governor of the most populous state in America?

How different is that from being a two term senator of New York?

Seriously, you can't really even compare the two.  It would be like comparing a CEO (governor) to a sales manager (senator). Sales manager probably has more responsibilities than a senator, so probably not the best example.

Being governor of a state, especially of a populous state, is far more important, and far better experience for POTUS, than being 1 out of 100 votes in the Senate. It's not really even close. As governor, not only are you the head of the executive branch, you also have to make hard decisions like balancing a budget. How many balanced budgets (or budgets at all, for that matter) have come out of the Senate recently?

In terms of getting elected as an accomplishment, I would also give Ronnie the edge there. He won in CA as a Republican. Of course, those were different times back then and he was at least a semi-famous b movie actor, but Hillary's path to that Senate seat was gold paved.

Does Schwarzenegger winning kind of dampen your argument on how hard it is for an Repub actor to win in CA?

Honestly, I think both positions are really tough to win.  Both were probably won largely on name recognition and a lot of money (Schwarzenegger and Hillary that is, I don't know crap about how Reagan won).

Arnold kind of won by default after Davis was recalled for rough ridin' up the state. It was anyone but another democrat, but ended up getting another democrat.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 10, 2014, 09:42:12 PM
Hillary is in an insanely strong position for 2016 but I hope that doesn't stay the case.  I do not want her to be the next pres.  Republicans need to find a candidate who isn't whacko stat.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2014, 09:43:55 PM
Elizabeth Warren should be the first woman prez.

Probably the worst person on Earth
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 09:53:34 PM
Hillary is in an insanely strong position for 2016 but I hope that doesn't stay the case.  I do not want her to be the next pres.  Republicans need to find a candidate who isn't whacko stat.

The field still looks pretty thin right now, but I'm hoping for Scott Walker to make a serious run. He's the kind of guy we need to get out fiscal house in order.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2014, 09:57:51 PM
Liz Warren is clinically insane, a bona fide lunatic. Whenever her name comes up as a potential presidential candidate I'm reminded at how rough ridin' off the farm nuts the left is. Find 5 minutes of her on YouTube that isn't completely nuts, not possible.  She is crazy on an ideological level, which is virtually impossible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 10, 2014, 10:14:52 PM
Liz Warren is clinically insane, a bona fide lunatic. Whenever her name comes up as a potential presidential candidate I'm reminded at how rough ridin' off the farm nuts the left is. Find 5 minutes of her on YouTube that isn't completely nuts, not possible.  She is crazy on an ideological level, which is virtually impossible.

 :U R STUPID:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2014, 10:17:20 PM
Liz Warren is clinically insane, a bona fide lunatic. Whenever her name comes up as a potential presidential candidate I'm reminded at how rough ridin' off the farm nuts the left is. Find 5 minutes of her on YouTube that isn't completely nuts, not possible.  She is crazy on an ideological level, which is virtually impossible.

Fauxcahontas could significantly damage if not beat Hillary for the nomination before imploding in the general. But I don't think we'll be this lucky. I assume Hillary is going to buy her off with a prominent position in her admin.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 10, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
Liz Warren is clinically insane, a bona fide lunatic. Whenever her name comes up as a potential presidential candidate I'm reminded at how rough ridin' off the farm nuts the left is. Find 5 minutes of her on YouTube that isn't completely nuts, not possible.  She is crazy on an ideological level, which is virtually impossible.

Fauxcahontas could significantly damage if not beat Hillary for the nomination before imploding in the general. But I don't think we'll be this lucky. I assume Hillary is going to buy her off with a prominent position in her admin.

HC has the nomination locked up minus a huge scandal.  You are seriously underestimating the machine she has ready to engage.  Warren is a speed bump
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2014, 10:31:27 PM
You can't find a 2 minute soundbite of Liz Warren ordering a burger that isn't batshit crazy.  She is nuts, wacko, an astronaut.

Hillary is unappealing because she's an awful person and everyone hates her. They'll run someone else, anyone else, just like 2008.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 10:32:54 PM
You can't find a 2 minute soundbite of *republican primary candidate* ordering a burger that isn't batshit crazy.  She is nuts, wacko, an astronaut.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2014, 10:36:20 PM
You can't find a 2 minute soundbite of *republican primary candidate* ordering a burger that isn't batshit crazy.  She is nuts, wacko, an astronaut.

Just when you were about to convince everyone you weren't a partisan peon.  Work on fortitude
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2014, 10:37:39 PM
just because i don't vote d doesn't mean that the r's aren't all rough ridin' insane
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2014, 10:40:17 PM
just because i don't vote d doesn't mean that the r's aren't all rough ridin' insane

Faker!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on April 10, 2014, 11:00:35 PM
You can't find a 2 minute soundbite of *republican primary candidate* ordering a burger that isn't batshit crazy.  She is nuts, wacko, an astronaut.

Just when you were about to convince everyone you weren't a partisan peon.  Work on fortitude

Seven is just stating fact. 

Just because people don't like Ds doesn't mean they're rigid bad person republicans.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2014, 11:25:56 PM
I bet the Dems are thrilled to have an epithet railing nonsensical hate speech for them.  Really takes them back to when their party was divided over whether or not to support the KKK.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: bones129 on April 10, 2014, 11:55:07 PM
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 24, 2014, 08:32:20 AM
CNN panel starts laughing as State Dept spokeswoman can't name a single accomplishment of SOS Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/23/cnn_panel_breaks_out_in_laughter_after_ap_report_stumps_state_dept_spokeswoman.html).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 24, 2014, 11:27:27 AM
The country is done with Clintons and Bushs. Go away.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 24, 2014, 11:29:47 AM
CNN panel starts laughing as State Dept spokeswoman can't name a single accomplishment of SOS Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/23/cnn_panel_breaks_out_in_laughter_after_ap_report_stumps_state_dept_spokeswoman.html).

. . . and you had one of the most senior correspondents in terms of covering State asking the questions in the presser.

Hilarious.

Hillary has got to be asking why the current Pres didn't get the same treatment in the run-up to 2008.

I mean....why not spell it "HiLLarious"?  Funny name insults are a huge part of your Pit game.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 24, 2014, 11:38:39 AM
CNN panel starts laughing as State Dept spokeswoman can't name a single accomplishment of SOS Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/23/cnn_panel_breaks_out_in_laughter_after_ap_report_stumps_state_dept_spokeswoman.html).

. . . and you had one of the most senior correspondents in terms of covering State asking the questions in the presser.

Hilarious.

Hillary has got to be asking why the current Pres didn't get the same treatment in the run-up to 2008.

I mean....why not spell it "HiLLarious"?  Funny name insults are a huge part of your Pit game.

Thought about it.

well, we have certain customer expectations and FSD/K-S-U name games are a huge part of the "Pit package" we sell.  You can help them out when you see an opportunity.

thanks!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 25, 2014, 02:02:00 PM
CNN panel starts laughing as State Dept spokeswoman can't name a single accomplishment of SOS Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/23/cnn_panel_breaks_out_in_laughter_after_ap_report_stumps_state_dept_spokeswoman.html).

Why would the left wing nutjobs at CNN laugh at a Clinton?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 25, 2014, 02:04:36 PM
CNN panel starts laughing as State Dept spokeswoman can't name a single accomplishment of SOS Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/23/cnn_panel_breaks_out_in_laughter_after_ap_report_stumps_state_dept_spokeswoman.html).

Why would the left wing nutjobs at CNN laugh at a Clinton?

The media is only left wing most of the time.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 26, 2014, 02:13:31 AM
CNN panel starts laughing as State Dept spokeswoman can't name a single accomplishment of SOS Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/23/cnn_panel_breaks_out_in_laughter_after_ap_report_stumps_state_dept_spokeswoman.html).

Why would the left wing nutjobs at CNN laugh at a Clinton?

The media is only left wing most of the time.

Hillary is too far right for the media.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 26, 2014, 02:42:14 AM
Media  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on July 17, 2014, 11:11:51 PM
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night?  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on July 17, 2014, 11:17:39 PM
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night?  :love:

Pretty studly?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 18, 2014, 01:14:27 AM
Hillary seems like a terrible person to me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2014, 06:20:59 AM

How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Huh. Seems like most of this had more to do with her husband being AG/Governor of Arkansas, and then POTUS. I'm more interested in stuff she's actually accomplished - not positions she was elected/appointed to. Like, what did she do well as SOS? I see she got a law degree from Yale and was an undergrad commencement speaker, so I'm thinking she's pretty intelligent - I'm just trying to figure out what she's got to run on besides holding a lot of positions and being The First Woman President.

how blue were your balls since you had to wait 16 posts to pull this out

lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Asteriskhead on July 18, 2014, 07:36:30 AM

How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.

I'm just asking for perceived accomplishments. Let's not get all semantical here.

Well, she cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. She served on the Board of Directors at Walmart. She was a US senator for 8 years, and was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Huh. Seems like most of this had more to do with her husband being AG/Governor of Arkansas, and then POTUS. I'm more interested in stuff she's actually accomplished - not positions she was elected/appointed to. Like, what did she do well as SOS? I see she got a law degree from Yale and was an undergrad commencement speaker, so I'm thinking she's pretty intelligent - I'm just trying to figure out what she's got to run on besides holding a lot of positions and being The First Woman President.

how blue were your balls since you had to wait 16 posts to pull this out

lol

yes, that was fantastic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 08:54:56 AM
It's not a gotcha question. I'm really trying to figure out what the arguments will be for why she'd be a good president. The "accomplishments" I've heard of don't seem to really be accomplishments at all - just holding a series of offices with mediocre performance at best.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2014, 08:56:07 AM
sounds like she's lost the ksuw vote which sucks because I had a feeling it was up for grabs this time around
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Panjandrum on July 18, 2014, 09:10:22 AM
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night?  :love:

Yes, it was a pretty great interview.

(Not speaking to her candidacy, but Stewart was on form.)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 09:36:37 AM
sounds like she's lost the ksuw vote which sucks because I had a feeling it was up for grabs this time around

No, I don't vote for Democrats. But I do like to know what the other side is thinking/arguing. Not getting much input here.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 18, 2014, 09:48:08 AM
sounds like she's lost the ksuw vote which sucks because I had a feeling it was up for grabs this time around

No, I don't vote for Democrats. But I do like to know what the other side is thinking/arguing. Not getting much input here.

I bet when you hear about Hillary's accomplishments you might flip, I can tell you are on the fence
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Asteriskhead on July 18, 2014, 09:57:57 AM
sounds like she's lost the ksuw vote which sucks because I had a feeling it was up for grabs this time around

No, I don't vote for Democrats. But I do like to know what the other side is thinking/arguing. Not getting much input here.

 :Wha: No way! I never would have guessed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 11:18:49 AM
So nothing then? There's got to be something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2014, 11:28:39 AM
So nothing then? There's got to be something.

I don't think anyone cares to discuss it with you because you are just going to brush aside anything of merit that is posted as either not being earned because she was the wife of the president or she "did a poor job" by your extreme right wing standards. I mean, that's what you did to the first legitimate response itt.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 18, 2014, 11:37:54 AM
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night?  :love:

Pretty studly?

Her ankles are, for sure.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Asteriskhead on July 18, 2014, 11:42:06 AM
So nothing then? There's got to be something.

I don't think anyone cares to discuss it with you because you are just going to brush aside anything of merit that is posted as either not being earned because she was the wife of the president or she "did a poor job" by your extreme right wing standards. I mean, that's what you did to the first legitimate response itt.

CASE CLOSED
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2014, 11:51:57 AM
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night?  :love:

Pretty studly?

Her ankles are, for sure.

zing!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 18, 2014, 12:01:50 PM
So nothing then? There's got to be something.

I don't think anyone cares to discuss it with you because you are just going to brush aside anything of merit that is posted as either not being earned because she was the wife of the president or she "did a poor job" by your extreme right wing standards. I mean, that's what you did to the first legitimate response itt.

That's not the KSUw I know.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 18, 2014, 12:55:23 PM
I don't take no orders from no woman.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Brock Landers on July 18, 2014, 12:57:48 PM
Is Hillary's age going to be an issue?  I don't think it should/will be but some people will try to make it an issue.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 02:12:36 PM
So nothing then? There's got to be something.

I don't think anyone cares to discuss it with you because you are just going to brush aside anything of merit that is posted as either not being earned because she was the wife of the president or she "did a poor job" by your extreme right wing standards. I mean, that's what you did to the first legitimate response itt.

Gotcha. Nothing else then.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on July 18, 2014, 02:13:07 PM
hope she doesn't get the nomination.  would not vote for.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 02:16:40 PM
Is Hillary's age going to be an issue?  I don't think it should/will be but some people will try to make it an issue.

No, and I really doubt anyone will seriously try to make an issue of it. There are plenty of legitimate things to attack (hypocrisy on wealth and taxes, exagerations and outright falsehoods, her war against Bill's Bimbos, lack of experience, incompetence, just generally being a lousy candidate, etc.) without engendering sympathy with ageism.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 02:18:14 PM
hope she doesn't get the nomination.  would not vote for.

I was hoping she wouldn't get the nomination because I didn't want to run the risk President Hillary, but now I'm kinda hoping she does 'cause holy hell she is just an awful candidate. I think even Romney or McCain would beat her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on July 18, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
hope she doesn't get the nomination.  would not vote for.

I was hoping she wouldn't get the nomination because I didn't want to run the risk President Hillary, but now I'm kinda hoping she does 'cause holy hell she is just an awful candidate. I think even Romney or McCain would beat her.

That's pretty foolish. She'll raise crazy amounts of money and be a great candidate because of it.

That said, like sys, I wouldn't vote for her either.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 02:37:42 PM
hope she doesn't get the nomination.  would not vote for.

I was hoping she wouldn't get the nomination because I didn't want to run the risk President Hillary, but now I'm kinda hoping she does 'cause holy hell she is just an awful candidate. I think even Romney or McCain would beat her.

That's pretty foolish. She'll raise crazy amounts of money and be a great candidate because of it.

That said, like sys, I wouldn't vote for her either.

You're probably right - I guess just best to keep hoping she doesn't get the nomination.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 18, 2014, 02:41:43 PM
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on July 18, 2014, 02:49:57 PM
I don't know, seems like Hillary's family life may be an impediment to running.  I was in line at the grocery store the other day and apparently ole Bill's up to his ole tricks again :facepalm:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 02:53:55 PM
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.

Except 2008?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 18, 2014, 02:59:23 PM
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.

Except 2008?

I missed that
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Daddy Claxton on July 18, 2014, 03:04:48 PM
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.

Except 2008?

Republicans don't know how to win national elections. Hilary will be your next president, KSUW.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.

Except 2008?

Republicans don't know how to win national elections. Hilary will be your next president, KSUW.

You could be right. Still makes me :cry: that Romney lost because of Republicans - not "independents."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Daddy Claxton on July 18, 2014, 08:36:57 PM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 08:57:56 PM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.
Title: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on July 18, 2014, 09:02:43 PM
I'm honestly not goEMAW'ing, I love the crap out of these types of ksudub posts
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 18, 2014, 11:33:01 PM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

They should choose a super rich dismissive white guy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Daddy Claxton on July 19, 2014, 08:21:08 AM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 19, 2014, 02:24:44 PM
Don't you think Hilary's pretty War mongery? Like, doesn't she love going to war? I have no idea it just seems that way.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on July 19, 2014, 02:25:44 PM
Don't you think Hilary's pretty War mongery? Like, doesn't she love going to war? I have no idea it just seems that way.

yes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on July 19, 2014, 02:30:30 PM
If romney runs again he must have zero pride or shame.  I can't imagine being humilited that many times.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on July 19, 2014, 02:31:11 PM

Don't you think Hilary's pretty War mongery? Like, doesn't she love going to war? I have no idea it just seems that way.

Yeah, this is why I hope she doesn't get the nomination
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 19, 2014, 10:03:43 PM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SdK on July 19, 2014, 10:42:32 PM
President Scott Walker doesn't sound good. We will never have a president named Scott or Walker. Should change his name.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on July 20, 2014, 12:36:06 AM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.

Yeah okay, it's not like Romney was a condescending ass with a shameless  rogue corporate background or anything.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 8manpick on July 20, 2014, 10:30:19 AM
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman. People that held that against him were idiots.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on July 20, 2014, 11:02:51 AM
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman.

eh, he can kind of be both.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on July 20, 2014, 11:13:01 AM
Because by golly injun we got such a full disclosure about the current president.   How long are his academic records sealed for?  2030 or something like that?

Plus, there's no "shameless corporate" types filling up the Democratic political cofers?

Just millions of everyday folks sending their $5 bucks at a time?

You're right, Obama is basically another corporatist hack..  Wall Street republicans should be happy with them. Im not arguing that.

As for his schooling, well we've done worse. 

Still doesn't dismiss Romney and his job killing leveraged buyout background.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on July 20, 2014, 11:15:38 AM
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman. People that held that against him were idiots.

Loading up companies with debt and paying yourself millions with it while not worrying about the long term condition of those companies is not great.. Its a conniving financial scheme that hurts people in the process.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on July 20, 2014, 11:35:39 AM
A party is usually not going to through their best candidates against an incumbent.  Romney and Kerry were both pretty bad candidates.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Daddy Claxton on July 20, 2014, 02:32:51 PM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.

Obama won self identified "moderates" in every swing state and by 15 points over all.  Hilary will do the same if not better.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on July 20, 2014, 02:50:45 PM
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.

Obama won self identified "moderates" in every swing state and by 15 points over all.  Hilary will do the same if not better.

Moderates are libtards in denial, idiot
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 23, 2014, 01:59:14 PM
I mean, the Clintons are just really, really vicious politicians. I really hope they aren't rewarded with another term or two in office.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
If history is our guide, the military industrial complex should be hoping for a Hillary win.   I mean, she'll treat the commanders like dirt, but good lord, the industry itself will thrive.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 23, 2014, 04:34:05 PM
I mean, the Clintons are just really, really vicious politicians. I really hope they aren't rewarded with another term or two in office.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html)

Can't imagine why they were angry at that unbiased journalist just trying to write an honest piece examining their daughter.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 23, 2014, 09:23:12 PM
I mean, the Clintons are just really, really vicious politicians. I really hope they aren't rewarded with another term or two in office.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html)

Can't imagine why they were angry at that unbiased journalist just trying to write an honest piece examining their daughter.

There's a big difference between being angry and the level to which the Clinton machine can and will go to exact revenge. Regarding Chelsea, she is apparently a relatively small part of the book and regardless, the nepotistic largess she has enjoyed should be fair game, no?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 23, 2014, 09:28:24 PM
K-S-U-Wildcats! has become the poster that many decide their opinion of his posts without considering the actual content.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2014, 01:01:05 PM
The Clintons are your typical "power couple" subhumans. They are self absorbed, psychopaths who will do anything and harm anyone in their path. One of them is a serial rapist who is constantly waging war on women. The other, a woman, complicit is said war.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 8manpick on July 24, 2014, 01:13:45 PM
The Clintons are your typical "power couple" subhumans. They are self absorbed, psychopaths who will do anything and harm anyone in their path. One of them is a serial rapist who is constantly waging war on women. The other, a woman, complicit is said war.

K-S-U-Wildcats! has become the poster that many decide their opinion of his posts without considering the actual content.
I think that is still FSD (WNTRSD)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Daddy Claxton on July 24, 2014, 01:38:30 PM
 Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on July 24, 2014, 01:39:45 PM
K-S-U-Wildcats! has become the poster that many decide their opinion of his posts without considering the actual content.

interesting if true
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2014, 01:47:36 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on July 24, 2014, 02:06:08 PM
I mean, the Clintons are just really, really vicious politicians. I really hope they aren't rewarded with another term or two in office.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html)

Can't imagine why they were angry at that unbiased journalist just trying to write an honest piece examining their daughter.

Half the article is making excuses to why it is poorly sourced or why nobody is reading it.  The Clinton's won't let people read it.  I tried to buy a copy and Chelsea slapped it out of my hands.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 24, 2014, 02:08:45 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.

How hard will you freak out if she wins?  Granted, I don't think she will because there are enough women who won't vote for her but I cannot imagine the rage that will hit if she does.  It would be worse than Obama winning a second term, right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Daddy Claxton on July 24, 2014, 02:15:50 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.


I just googled "Clinton's are evil" and it appears that some people are, in fact, freaking out. Although I'll grant you that the results of my google search may not be indicative of the average republican.

The chain emails I have been receiving from my father for about a decade would also indicate that some people are freaking out and is more representative of the average republican IMO.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2014, 02:38:11 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.


I just googled "Clinton's are evil" and it appears that some people are, in fact, freaking out. Although I'll grant you that the results of my google search may not be indicative of the average republican.

The chain emails I have been receiving from my father for about a decade would also indicate that some people are freaking out and is more representative of the average republican IMO.

Daddy,

These are anecdotes, and not really of people "freaking out".
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2014, 02:39:03 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.

How hard will you freak out if she wins?  Granted, I don't think she will because there are enough women who won't vote for her but I cannot imagine the rage that will hit if she does.  It would be worse than Obama winning a second term, right?

Go away, idiot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 24, 2014, 03:42:22 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.

How hard will you freak out if she wins?  Granted, I don't think she will because there are enough women who won't vote for her but I cannot imagine the rage that will hit if she does.  It would be worse than Obama winning a second term, right?

Go away, idiot.

so, pretty hard
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 24, 2014, 04:12:37 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.

How hard will you freak out if she wins?  Granted, I don't think she will because there are enough women who won't vote for her but I cannot imagine the rage that will hit if she does.  It would be worse than Obama winning a second term, right?

Way worse. She is way more War Mongery. Bummer about it is that the 'pubs will probably nominate someone equal or greater on the war mongery scale so its pretty much a done deal that we'll have more wars under the next administration.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 24, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.

How hard will you freak out if she wins?  Granted, I don't think she will because there are enough women who won't vote for her but I cannot imagine the rage that will hit if she does.  It would be worse than Obama winning a second term, right?

Way worse. She is way more War Mongery. Bummer about it is that the 'pubs will probably nominate someone equal or greater on the war mongery scale so its pretty much a done deal that we'll have more wars under the next administration.

Maybe Hillary will decide not to run.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on July 24, 2014, 04:15:03 PM
I don't think the right wing will be as pissed because her policies will be closer to theirs. They'll still act pissed, but not as bad as Obama.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on July 24, 2014, 04:18:43 PM
I bet she starts wars because of her period. Girls are so gross
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 24, 2014, 04:23:56 PM
I bet she starts wars because of her period. Girls are so gross

Probably menopause. I hear that is just ghastly.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 24, 2014, 04:59:02 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?

Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.

How hard will you freak out if she wins?  Granted, I don't think she will because there are enough women who won't vote for her but I cannot imagine the rage that will hit if she does.  It would be worse than Obama winning a second term, right?

Way worse. She is way more War Mongery. Bummer about it is that the 'pubs will probably nominate someone equal or greater on the war mongery scale so its pretty much a done deal that we'll have more wars under the next administration.

Maybe Hillary will decide not to run.
Will Bill tell her how to run the economy? Cause I could get behind that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on July 24, 2014, 10:49:12 PM
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?



Nobody is freaking out, Daddy.  These are objectively and demonstrably awful people, the kind of people Democrats typically vote for.

How hard will you freak out if she wins?  Granted, I don't think she will because there are enough women who won't vote for her but I cannot imagine the rage that will hit if she does.  It would be worse than Obama winning a second term, right?

Way worse. She is way more War Mongery. Bummer about it is that the 'pubs will probably nominate someone equal or greater on the war mongery scale so its pretty much a done deal that we'll have more wars under the next administration.

Maybe Hillary will decide not to run.
Will Bill tell her how to run the economy? Cause I could get behind that.

eff that idea! 

NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagal, failure to regulate derivatives, stripping of commodity rules.  Big WOOF in the long run.

He's lucky that ecommerce began to take shape and people began to buy more technology
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 25, 2014, 12:40:21 AM
I don't think the right wing will be as pissed because her policies will be closer to theirs. They'll still act pissed, but not as bad as Obama.

She'd still be liberal, but probably not as extreme as Obama, at least with respect to foreign policy. On the home front, she'd be just as bad. On the whole, a Hillary presidency would be more upsetting to me than Obama's second term because (1) it would basically be Obama's third term and (2) the Clintons are just such despicable people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on July 25, 2014, 06:57:25 AM
I don't think the right wing will be as pissed because her policies will be closer to theirs. They'll still act pissed, but not as bad as Obama.

She'd still be liberal, but probably not as extreme as Obama, at least with respect to foreign policy. On the home front, she'd be just as bad. On the whole, a Hillary presidency would be more upsetting to me than Obama's second term because (1) it would basically be Obama's third term and (2) the Clintons are just such despicable people.

Would it be more or less upsetting than Rand Paul?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 25, 2014, 08:15:46 AM
Rand still has a couple of years to change my mind, but right now, he's just not as likable to me as his father is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 25, 2014, 05:20:42 PM
Republicans should be ecstatic if Hillary runs, she's repulsive to all demographics, even more than most Republicans currently are.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on July 25, 2014, 07:21:04 PM
Republicans should be ecstatic if Hillary runs, she's repulsive to all demographics, even more than most Republicans currently are.

Based on nothing but intuition, I think most women won't vote for her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on July 25, 2014, 09:03:59 PM
Republicans should be ecstatic if Hillary runs, she's repulsive to all demographics, even more than most Republicans currently are.

Based on nothing but intuition, I think most women won't vote for her.

Like most women in the United States, most women who are registered to vote or most women who vote in the election?  Because if it is the last one I will offer 10 to 1 odds at $100.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 25, 2014, 09:19:18 PM
Republicans should be ecstatic if Hillary runs, she's repulsive to all demographics, even more than most Republicans currently are.

Based on nothing but intuition, I think most women won't vote for her.

Like most women in the United States, most women who are registered to vote or most women who vote in the election?  Because if it is the last one I will offer 10 to 1 odds at $100.

 :lol:

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on July 25, 2014, 10:23:03 PM
Republicans should be ecstatic if Hillary runs, she's repulsive to all demographics, even more than most Republicans currently are.

Based on nothing but intuition, I think most women won't vote for her.

Like most women in the United States, most women who are registered to vote or most women who vote in the election?  Because if it is the last one I will offer 10 to 1 odds at $100.

Just amazing bbs'n by spracs, my goodness. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 27, 2014, 03:41:11 PM
I don't think the right wing will be as pissed because her policies will be closer to theirs. They'll still act pissed, but not as bad as Obama.

She'd still be liberal, but probably not as extreme as Obama, at least with respect to foreign policy. On the home front, she'd be just as bad. On the whole, a Hillary presidency would be more upsetting to me than Obama's second term because (1) it would basically be Obama's third term and (2) the Clintons are just such despicable people.

Would it be more or less upsetting than Rand Paul?

Much worse. Paul might be pretty awesome, except for some pretty bizarro foreign policy. But while we're speculating about thing that'll never happen, can we just resurrect Reagan?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on July 27, 2014, 03:50:15 PM
I don't think the right wing will be as pissed because her policies will be closer to theirs. They'll still act pissed, but not as bad as Obama.

She'd still be liberal, but probably not as extreme as Obama, at least with respect to foreign policy. On the home front, she'd be just as bad. On the whole, a Hillary presidency would be more upsetting to me than Obama's second term because (1) it would basically be Obama's third term and (2) the Clintons are just such despicable people.

Would it be more or less upsetting than Rand Paul?

Much worse. Paul might be pretty awesome, except for some pretty bizarro foreign policy. But while we're speculating about thing that'll never happen, can we just resurrect Reagan?

Reagan would be primaried as a rino
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: HELLHAMMER on July 27, 2014, 08:58:38 PM
Reagan damn sure would have made Putin blink years ago.

And Hillary is a $!#* (NSA will have me killed or audited by morning now).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 15, 2014, 11:46:55 AM
Ho hummm, just another story that would destroy a presidential candidacy, if that candidate were a Republican and the MSM cared to cover it.... http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/benghazi-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/ (http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/benghazi-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/)

Quote
As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
 
According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.
 
At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.

“I was not invited to that after-hours endeavor, but I heard about it and decided to check it out on a Sunday afternoon,” says Maxwell.
 
He didn’t know it then, but Maxwell would ultimately become one of four State Department officials singled out for discipline—he says scapegoated—then later cleared for devastating security lapses leading up to the attacks. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were murdered during the Benghazi attacks.
 
Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” He describes it as a large space, outfitted with computers and big screen monitors, intended for emergency planning, and with small offices on the periphery.
 
When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.
 
“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”
 
A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says in walked two high-ranking State Department officials.
 
In an interview Monday morning on Fox News, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, named the two Hillary Clinton confidants who were allegedly present: Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff and former White House counsel who defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial; and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who previously worked on Hillary Clinton’s and then Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: hjfklmor on September 15, 2014, 08:35:58 PM
Ho hum
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: jmlynch1 on September 15, 2014, 08:43:17 PM
A party is usually not going to through their best candidates against an incumbent.  Romney and Kerry were both pretty bad candidates.
so was dole, that was a great example of a whatevs give him an attaboy nom
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 15, 2014, 10:33:13 PM
Realistically if HIllary gets nonominated, she will be the next President.  The 20% of the electorate who are uninformed about issues will be motivated by emotion and history when they vote as happened in the 2008 election.  There was great euphoria the night Obama was elected, especially in the media that helped create Obama the rock star.  People were excited about the historical event of having our first black president and his magical promises. I see a lot of Republicans who would  be a better President  than Hillary, but not really anyone who would defeat her.  Bill was a better President when both branches of Congress had a conservative Republican majority.  Conservatives must make sure to gain contol of both branches of Congress, so we can slow the growth of very liberal concepts and at a minimum maintain a balance of influence on public policy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 15, 2014, 10:39:33 PM
Hillary is a well documented sub-human, electing her would be like making Roman Polanski president
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 15, 2014, 11:38:23 PM
the "low information voter" might be my favorite neocon talking point.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 16, 2014, 03:07:40 PM
the "low information voter" might be my favorite neocon talking point.

Take Chad Taylor off the ballot!!! Our constituents will vote for him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 17, 2014, 03:29:09 PM
Ho hummm, just another story that would destroy a presidential candidacy, if that candidate were a Republican and the MSM cared to cover it.... http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/benghazi-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/ (http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/benghazi-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/)

Days later, still crickets from the MSM on "the latest scandal that would destroy Hillary Clinton's pseudo-candidacy if she were a Republican" (tm).

Pete Wehner puts it this way:

Quote
This charge needs to be fully examined and Mr. Maxwell’s account needs to be corroborated or refuted. (The House investigation into this matter begins tomorrow and will hopefully shed more light on it.) But if Mr. Maxwell’s report is true–and on the surface he appears to be a credible witness–it would amount to a very serious coverup and evidence of widespread corruption that would almost surely have to involve Mrs. Clinton.
 
The elite media’s indifference to this story continues to be quite telling. The vast number of journalists decided a long time ago that they were utterly indifferent to the Benghazi story, regardless of the facts, and for reasons that undoubtedly have to do with their political bias. Among many reporters the bias is so pronounced and endemic they aren’t even aware of their blinding double standards. But the rest of us are.
 
I can promise you that if the details of the Benghazi story were identical but it had happened in the Bush, Reagan, or Nixon administration, there would be a fierce, relentless, around-the-clock investigation led by the major media outlets. There would be a gleam in the eye of every political reporter who lives in the Acela Corridor. Journalists would be eager to afflict the comfortable, speak truth to power, hold politicians accountable, and seek to wipe misconduct from the face of the political earth. Every managing editor would want to emulate Ben Bradley; every reporter would want to be Woodward and Bernstein.
 
It would be a feeding frenzy in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
 
But not in this case. Not with the Obama administration. Not with Hillary Clinton. Because many in the elite media have a narrative–the truth about what happened about Benghazi doesn’t really matter–and they’re sticking to it. Some reporters may go through the motions now and again, but that’s all. There’s no driving ambition to get to the bottom of this story. They would really rather not know. And the fact that they would really rather not know tells you a very great deal of what’s wrong with American journalism today. Elite journalists are as infected by ideology and motivated reasoning–in this case, by motivated reporting–as members of the DNC or the Obama White House. But at least those being paid by the DNC and the White House don’t pretend to be objective.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/09/16/media-bias-and-the-benghazi-scandal/ (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/09/16/media-bias-and-the-benghazi-scandal/)

There is perhaps no worse example of current media bias and how it impacts our political system. Well, maybe the blind eye to the IRS targeting scandal....
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 18, 2014, 11:01:42 PM
BEWARE OF THE HILDABEAST!!!!!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 04, 2014, 05:44:26 PM
 :ROFL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30#t=75 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30#t=75)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on December 04, 2014, 11:06:01 PM
Since Renodog died a fat old possum has been coming into my garage.  I was beside myself.  I threw a picture of Hillary on the floor - scared the hell out of the possum.  Then my semi-gay confused young tomcat crapped on the picture.  Possum is back, I suppose the crapped stained picture looks like its momma.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on December 04, 2014, 11:39:03 PM
Sorry to hear about your dog, reno
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on December 04, 2014, 11:42:20 PM
:ROFL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30#t=75 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30#t=75)


tapped out  :blindfold:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on December 07, 2014, 04:32:13 PM
George Bush Jr believes brother Jeb could beat Hillary.  I think I like this.  Anybody but Cruz, Perry, Paul or Romney probably have a chance.  We might need a woman on the ticket.  Bush would appeal to moderates.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on December 13, 2014, 12:17:39 PM
Reports say she is rethinking a run.  Wild eyed lefties are backing Elizabeth Warren.  Will Hillakillery run as a level headed centrist or a mean 'ol nasty bitter snarling liberal.  I do no think Obama and Moooochelle like her.  What will Bill do?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on December 13, 2014, 04:49:26 PM
Bush vs Clinton for infinity
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2014, 08:41:26 AM
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20525/ (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20525/)

Quote
College students at Florida International University were shocked recently to discover that not only is Hillary Clinton 67 years old, but she also hasn’t driven a car since 1996.
 
Lauren Cooley, a field representative with Turning Point USA, recently asked 20 students if they knew these fun facts about the possible 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.
 
Of those interviewed at the public research university, home to roughly 50,000 students, only six guessed Clinton is in her 60s, but of those, they still thought she was younger than 67, Cooley told The Fix. Most thought she is in her 40s or 50s, and expressed surprise at her real age, according to a video of the interviews.
 
But they were even more stunned to learn Clinton gets chauffeured around everywhere, and by her own admission has not driven a car since 1996. Several students interviewed said they thought she drove herself around, and expressed amazement after learning the truth.

“Students tend to be uninformed about the candidates they support,” Cooley said in an email to The College Fix. “When confronted with the truth – that Hillary is a career politician and is out of touch with the American people – college students quickly changed their tune and Hillary lost her appeal.”
 
Cooley said asking students questions they will be surprised to learn the answers to is a good way to help snap them into reality.
 
“Asking questions is one of the most powerful ways to open someone’s eyes to an idea they may otherwise disagree with because questions often spark a genuine search for the truth,” she stated. “The questions asked in the video forced students to confront the idea that Hillary Clinton may just be a career politician that is out of touch with the average, American citizen.”

Serious questions: Have college students always been this stupid, or is this a symptom of Americans getting dumber overall, or is it a matter of there being too many colleges with too lax admission standards?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 16, 2014, 08:54:46 AM
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20525/ (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20525/)

Quote
College students at Florida International University were shocked recently to discover that not only is Hillary Clinton 67 years old, but she also hasn’t driven a car since 1996.
 
Lauren Cooley, a field representative with Turning Point USA, recently asked 20 students if they knew these fun facts about the possible 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.
 
Of those interviewed at the public research university, home to roughly 50,000 students, only six guessed Clinton is in her 60s, but of those, they still thought she was younger than 67, Cooley told The Fix. Most thought she is in her 40s or 50s, and expressed surprise at her real age, according to a video of the interviews.
 
But they were even more stunned to learn Clinton gets chauffeured around everywhere, and by her own admission has not driven a car since 1996. Several students interviewed said they thought she drove herself around, and expressed amazement after learning the truth.

“Students tend to be uninformed about the candidates they support,” Cooley said in an email to The College Fix. “When confronted with the truth – that Hillary is a career politician and is out of touch with the American people – college students quickly changed their tune and Hillary lost her appeal.”
 
Cooley said asking students questions they will be surprised to learn the answers to is a good way to help snap them into reality.
 
“Asking questions is one of the most powerful ways to open someone’s eyes to an idea they may otherwise disagree with because questions often spark a genuine search for the truth,” she stated. “The questions asked in the video forced students to confront the idea that Hillary Clinton may just be a career politician that is out of touch with the average, American citizen.”

Serious questions: Have college students always been this stupid, or is this a symptom of Americans getting dumber overall, or is it a matter of there being too many colleges with too lax admission standards?

They always have been and always will be.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on December 16, 2014, 08:55:25 AM
20 students  :surprised:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2014, 09:19:16 AM
20 students  :surprised:

Do you doubt that a larger sampling would produce different results? I'm not even sure if it matters what schools were surveyed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 16, 2014, 09:33:34 AM
students are idiots and have been for decades.  Look at the clowns at Texas Tech in that one video.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on December 16, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
In defense of higher education, it IS a degree mill in Florida that we are talking about. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on December 16, 2014, 11:15:46 AM
Hillary Clinton's age and the fact that she does not drive a car are the key campaign issues that most voters will be considering I would hope.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on December 16, 2014, 11:18:35 AM
Hillary Clinton's age and the fact that she does not drive a car are the key campaign issues that most voters will be considering I would hope.

Her age would not be a problem if she were a man, but the reality is that it will matter to a lot of people for some stupid reason.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on December 16, 2014, 11:27:14 AM
It is just terrible evidence that college students are not engaged in politics.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on December 16, 2014, 11:29:47 AM
I'm not surprised she hasn't driven a car since her husband was president but I was mildly surprised that she was 67. She looks very good for 67.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 16, 2014, 11:30:11 AM
It is just terrible evidence that college students are not engaged in politics.

also, a slick way for KSUW to point out that Hillary is 67 and doesn't drive.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 16, 2014, 11:41:38 AM
I'm not surprised she hasn't driven a car since her husband was president but I was mildly surprised that she was 67. She looks very good for 67.

Looks like an average 70 year old to me.

(http://i.imgur.com/PsG65G5.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2014, 01:08:09 PM
To be fair, I was also surprised to learn that Hillary is 67. She claims she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who was the first man to summit Everest in 1953. But that would mean that Hillary could only be, at most, 61 or 62. :dunno:

Or, maybe Hillary's mom was a big fan of Edmund Hillary before he summited Everest? That must be it. It's not like this is something Hillary would lie about just because she thought it sounded cool to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on December 16, 2014, 01:10:10 PM
Why are liberal women so hated?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 16, 2014, 02:00:12 PM
(http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515c5469e201a511dc023e970c-pi)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 16, 2014, 02:06:42 PM
(http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515c5469e201a511dc023e970c-pi)

I lol'd
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 16, 2014, 02:15:01 PM
In defense of higher education, it IS a degree mill in Florida that we are talking about.

No, FIU is a pretty tough school. The people interviewed probably aren't going to graduate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on December 16, 2014, 02:26:20 PM
In defense of higher education, it IS a degree mill in Florida that we are talking about.

No, FIU is a pretty tough school. The people interviewed probably aren't going to graduate.

Good chance, considering they have a 4-year graduation rate of 20% :sdeek: 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 16, 2014, 02:27:16 PM
In defense of higher education, it IS a degree mill in Florida that we are talking about.

No, FIU is a pretty tough school. The people interviewed probably aren't going to graduate.

Good chance, considering they have a 4-year graduation rate of 20% :sdeek:

Yeah, that is what a real school looks like, though. Only the strong survive.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on December 16, 2014, 02:28:46 PM
In defense of higher education, it IS a degree mill in Florida that we are talking about.

No, FIU is a pretty tough school. The people interviewed probably aren't going to graduate.

Good chance, considering they have a 4-year graduation rate of 20% :sdeek:

Yeah, that is what a real school looks like, though. Only the strong survive.

(You're joking about FIU, right?)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 16, 2014, 02:34:19 PM
In defense of higher education, it IS a degree mill in Florida that we are talking about.

No, FIU is a pretty tough school. The people interviewed probably aren't going to graduate.

Good chance, considering they have a 4-year graduation rate of 20% :sdeek:

Yeah, that is what a real school looks like, though. Only the strong survive.

(You're joking about FIU, right?)

I honestly know almost nothing about FIU. I'm not joking about those students not graduating, though. 3 or 4 of them might make it, tops.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 16, 2014, 08:19:17 PM
I'm telling you guys, Hillary would be a godsend for Pubs. Not quite Palin good, but close.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on December 16, 2014, 08:26:17 PM
Yoda looks pretty good for 67....
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 16, 2014, 09:17:37 PM
I'm telling you guys, Hillary would be a godsend for Pubs. Not quite Palin good, but close.

I bet you know that's wrong
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: massofcatfan on December 17, 2014, 12:16:38 PM
Why are liberal women so hated?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2XwUk5QndYU/Se_R6gmlN0I/AAAAAAAAA58/HlfnMlE3Di0/s400/SarahPalinShrugging.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 03, 2015, 08:54:18 AM
Hillary used a private e-mail address exclusively during her time as SoS, not subject to archival.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-hillary-broke-law_873502.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-hillary-broke-law_873502.html)

Amazing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 04, 2015, 09:36:02 AM
Hey guys, if you want to contact Hillary, her e-mail address is [email protected]. I can't guarantee you won't be added to a fundraising list.

I guess ol' HDR prefers to go by Rodham - but at least she kept Clinton in the domain name. Yes, Bill and Hillary - a love for the ages.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on March 04, 2015, 06:24:34 PM
A lot of people making connections between this and Brownback/Romney when they were governor.

This is way worse.  Yes, it is bad when the chief executive of a state tries to do the people's business without any transparency or oversight and specifically in concert with outside interests.

It is worse when someone representing the US to the world, who serves at the pleasure of the President does the same.  Did Obama approve this?  Who knew when?  It is impossible to believe that the CIA didn't know/monitor, but how could anyone sign off on this is beyond me.  And if Clinton really brazenly did this without any permission it is maybe worse.  The diplomatic cables of the US should be one of the highest priorities for secrecy and running it through someone's personal website set up not because it is more secure, but to provide an end around for subpoena is truly awful.

Even though Bill is maybe the most likable person on the planet on a surface level, they are both really terrible people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 04, 2015, 06:44:41 PM
I ask anyone who would even consider voting for HDR to out themselves right now, so I can laugh in your stupid face.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on March 04, 2015, 06:45:36 PM
I wouldn't have voted for her before! :don'tcare:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Tobias on March 04, 2015, 06:50:55 PM
as an IT professional this stunt makes me cringe
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on March 04, 2015, 06:56:23 PM
not surprising from known illuminati and bildeberg member Hilary
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: chum1 on March 04, 2015, 07:26:43 PM
This makes me want to vote for her more. eff the police.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 04, 2015, 08:13:12 PM
This makes me want to vote for her more. eff the police.

 :Wha:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on March 04, 2015, 10:26:01 PM
I wasn't going to vote for her either.  Too connected, and this stunt proves it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on March 05, 2015, 11:43:02 PM
Hilliary, getting the big flush, and the chain is being pulled by liberals.  Its funny watching the left media eat their own.   Like watching diseased chickens peck each other to death.  Can Bill the Thrill save her or will he get revenge fo years of celibacy?  Will Warm Em Up Al "babY" Gore run again?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 10, 2015, 08:41:57 AM
Just more lying lies from the wimp.

When first asked by CBS about when he learned of the Hillary private e-mails, Obama did his standard Sergeant Schultz routine - "durrrrr, I learned about it the same time you did in the news reports, honest!" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/07/obama-hillary-email_n_6824304.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/07/obama-hillary-email_n_6824304.html)

Then they realized how easy it would be to expose that lie once Hillary's e-mails were produced. The office of the wimp has now "revised" the answer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/09/white-house-yes-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-e-mailed-each-other/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/09/white-house-yes-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-e-mailed-each-other/)

But still, Obama like totally didn't know it was a private e-mail server, according to Josh not-so Earnest.. I mean, who could have guessed that clintonemail.com was not a government account? :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 10, 2015, 10:32:46 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/08/politics/hillary-clinton-email-lindsey-graham/index.html

Lindsey weighs in.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: AbeFroman on March 10, 2015, 11:45:20 AM
I just signed up [email protected] for like 50 porn websites
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 10, 2015, 12:33:24 PM
I just signed up [email protected] for like 50 porn websites

No, you've got your Clintons mixed up. The address you should have used was [email protected].
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on March 10, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
as an IT professional this stunt makes me cringe

i bet its the name thats the worst part, right? clintonemail.com? obviously its email. clintonmail.com would have been better. an elite would have chosen @clinton.com, but maybe that was taken by some small timey ISP
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Tobias on March 10, 2015, 04:24:13 PM
they block stuff from my @raegan.com account that gets through to whitehouse.gov just fine :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Benja on March 10, 2015, 05:12:57 PM
A lot of people making connections between this and Brownback/Romney when they were governor.

This is way worse.  Yes, it is bad when the chief executive of a state tries to do the people's business without any transparency or oversight and specifically in concert with outside interests.

It is worse when someone representing the US to the world, who serves at the pleasure of the President does the same.  Did Obama approve this?  Who knew when?  It is impossible to believe that the CIA didn't know/monitor, but how could anyone sign off on this is beyond me.  And if Clinton really brazenly did this without any permission it is maybe worse.  The diplomatic cables of the US should be one of the highest priorities for secrecy and running it through someone's personal website set up not because it is more secure, but to provide an end around for subpoena is truly awful.

Even though Bill is maybe the most likable person on the planet on a surface level, they are both really terrible people.

This makes me sad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Benja on March 10, 2015, 05:14:27 PM
I wasn't going to vote for her either.  Too connected, and this stunt proves it.

lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on March 10, 2015, 05:21:10 PM
I already have Hillary fatigue.  Her pants suits look like the garb Chinese communist wear.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 10, 2015, 06:10:55 PM
I already have Hillary fatigue.  Her pants suits look like the garb Chinese communist wear.

Oh wow, is this the new Facebook thing that's going to explode? Not 10 seconds after I read this I heard one of the am neocon radio hosts call it her chairman mao outfit
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 10, 2015, 10:18:55 PM
Clinton calls on a "totally random" Turkish journalist at her presser today for the very first question, who promptly asks whether there would be such a fuss if she wasn't a woman.  :facepalm:

We've got 18 more long months of this... and a lot longer if she wins.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/10/first_question_to_hillary_would_this_be_happening_if_you_were_a_man.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/10/first_question_to_hillary_would_this_be_happening_if_you_were_a_man.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 10, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
Hillary just gave the pubs 45 minutes worth of double-talking and outright lying soundbites in their campaign against her.
 
The bits and pieces I heard were really bad. Who is advising this lunatic? ??
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 11, 2015, 09:08:06 AM
(http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/xk/EE6I3Peu9SaPzfsTuiEsBNjN4w/www.powerlineblog.com/i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/03/11-p1lcf.jpg,qresize=531,P2C600.pagespeed.ce.Ilji1twDwwSKxu4A_o8i.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 11, 2015, 09:16:14 AM
Explaining this one away might be pretty tricky
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: AbeFroman on March 11, 2015, 10:06:19 AM
I hope Hillary and those 47 Senators all go to jail.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: chum1 on March 11, 2015, 11:09:19 AM
We need more badasses like Hillary in charge.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: chum1 on March 11, 2015, 02:21:31 PM
We need more badasses like Hillary in charge.

There's a reason why, despite attempts to redirect, Hillary may go down as one of the most nondescript, possibly even one of the most bumbling SOS's in modern U.S. history.

I know one and only one thing about any SOS ever: Hillary Clinton gave zero fucks about the email rules. That's all I need to know.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 11, 2015, 08:49:02 PM
She mumped up Benghazi pretty hard. Total boss
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 12, 2015, 10:33:47 AM
She mumped up Benghazi pretty hard. Total boss

Speaking of which... Hillary hasn't released a single e-mail from the day this photo was taken on board a plane headed for Libya.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-hasn-shared-emails-day-famous-photo-article-1.2146686 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-hasn-shared-emails-day-famous-photo-article-1.2146686)

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2146684.1426168534!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/usa-politics-clinton-email.jpg)

She was probably just doing some Pinterest or solitare.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 12, 2015, 06:14:49 PM
Would you say that if she was a man?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on March 12, 2015, 08:19:27 PM
I have no doubt she could be mean ass cold tough.  She could make steers with her bare hands.  Wanting to be the first woman President is not a good reason to select her.  I Am still trying to figure out her latest outfits.  Is it a Moa moo moo or a space alien suit.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on March 12, 2015, 08:26:22 PM
I hadn't seen her picture in a while, she looks like crap.   How do powerful wealthy people let themselves go like that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Headinjun on March 12, 2015, 08:39:12 PM
I hadn't seen her picture in a while, she looks like crap.   How do powerful wealthy people let themselves go like that.

Not germane to electability.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 12, 2015, 09:45:55 PM
I hadn't seen her picture in a while, she looks like crap.   How do powerful wealthy people let themselves go like that.
[/quote

Hillary was never exactly attractive. But aging is crueler to women than men. Just the way it is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 14, 2015, 10:59:49 AM
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/03/Textual-Relations-copy.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 14, 2015, 11:05:12 AM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/03/Bills-Private-Server-copy.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SdK on March 15, 2015, 12:49:34 PM
When do I get to vote for her?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2015, 03:55:30 PM
Just horrible, horrible people
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 16, 2015, 07:48:57 PM
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/03/Textual-Relations-copy.jpg)

How hard did you laugh at that?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 19, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
Will the female demographic surge to boost Hillary the same way the black demographic did for Obama? No. Not even close. Here's one of several reasons why... I give you uber-feminist Camille Paglia:

Quote
Hillary does not have it. Hillary is a mess. And we're going to reward the presidency to a woman who's enabled the depredations and exploitation of women by that cornpone husband of hers? The way feminists have spoken makes us blind to Hillary's record of trashing [women]. They were going to try to destroy Monica Lewinsky. It's a scandal! Anyone who believe in sexual harassment guidelines should have seen that the disparity of power between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime. He's a sex criminal! We're going to put that guy back in the White House? Hillary's ridden on his coattails. This is not a woman who has her own career, who's made her own career! The woman who failed the bar exam in Washington! The only reason she went to Arkansas and got a job in the Rose law firm was because her husband was a politician.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/19/camille_paglia_rips_clintons_were_going_to_reward_the_presidency_to_a_woman_who_enabled_a_sex_criminal.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/19/camille_paglia_rips_clintons_were_going_to_reward_the_presidency_to_a_woman_who_enabled_a_sex_criminal.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 19, 2015, 08:04:30 PM
It's really quite amazing she's able to hold herself out as a feminist while staying married to that pig faced serial rapist monster. Thank you, progressive media, for you biased and filtered propaganda
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on March 19, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
It's really quite amazing she's able to hold herself out as a feminist while staying married to that pig faced serial rapist monster. Thank you, progressive media, for you biased and filtered propaganda
Celebrity marriage is not the same as human marriage
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on March 19, 2015, 11:53:39 PM
What Bill did to Monica was pretty despicable, no doubt.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 20, 2015, 09:30:55 AM
I wasn't aware Hillary failed the bar exam. That should be pretty damaging, if true.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 20, 2015, 09:38:37 AM
I wasn't aware Hillary failed the bar exam. That should be pretty damaging, if true.

I don't recall ever hearing about this either, despite it being known since before her 2008 run, which just goes to show how "damaging" it will be: not at all. Now if it was Sarah Palin, the media would be screaming it from the roof tops. It just goes to show how important it is to cultivate an aura of intelligence even if you're not terribly bright and a mediocre student at best.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 20, 2015, 10:10:57 AM
I wasn't aware Hillary failed the bar exam. That should be pretty damaging, if true.

I don't recall ever hearing about this either, despite it being known since before her 2008 run, which just goes to show how "damaging" it will be: not at all. Now if it was Sarah Palin, the media would be screaming it from the roof tops. It just goes to show how important it is to cultivate an aura of intelligence even if you're not terribly bright and a mediocre student at best.

Sarah Palin always got a bad rap for her intelligence.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 20, 2015, 12:30:13 PM
She's (a) a woman, and (b) a Clinton. These are extremely important things to liberals.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 20, 2015, 12:31:55 PM
Also white and Christian, these things are very important to neocons
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 20, 2015, 01:03:13 PM
On paper, Hillary has got to be the worst candidate ever.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 20, 2015, 02:55:30 PM
On paper, Hillary has got to be the worst candidate ever.

I'll bet you could find somebody worse if you really went back and looked.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 20, 2015, 10:06:29 PM
also old and rich, very important things to neocons
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on March 20, 2015, 10:11:52 PM
This country needs newt gingrich.  Old, white, rich and most importantly not a woman.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 20, 2015, 11:18:29 PM
So  brave

http://news.yahoo.com/monica-lewinsky-takes-cyber-bully-fight-ted-221146111.html

I wonder what the going rate for 10 years of silence is these days? Nothing a little Hamas money can't handle.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 21, 2015, 09:49:47 AM
If she does run we will really get to put your "the American public is stupid and just votes for the best looking/hip candidate" theory to the test.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: slobber on March 21, 2015, 11:42:04 AM

Also white and Christian, these things are very important to neocons

No one can attack women, unless its ProgLibs attacking a conservative woman.
No crap, conservative women are just the worst.


Gonna win 'em all!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on March 21, 2015, 11:52:46 AM
So  brave

http://news.yahoo.com/monica-lewinsky-takes-cyber-bully-fight-ted-221146111.html

I wonder what the going rate for 10 years of silence is these days? Nothing a little Hamas money can't handle.



Quote
The 41-year-old brunette

Really? Goddam, Glenn Chapman.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 21, 2015, 12:01:19 PM
Also white and Christian, these things are very important to neocons

Christian, yes. White, not really. In fact, most conservatives would love to run a conservative Obama if such a candidate existed. Ben Carson is wildly popular among the grass roots.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 21, 2015, 12:02:35 PM
also old and rich, very important things to neocons

Definitely not true. Paul Ryan? Marco Rubio? Scott Walker?

Old, young, rich, poor, while, black - conservatives want a candidate who is (a) conservative, and ;b) polished enough and aggressive enough to win.

Liberals on the other hand, are so obsessed with finding a woman candidate - a Clinton if possible, but if not Fauxahontas - that they don't seem to realize just what terrible people and candidates they are.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on March 21, 2015, 12:11:07 PM
Is Ben Carson the guy that says prison sex proves homosexuality is a choice?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 21, 2015, 12:17:58 PM
they want an "obama", good grief ksuw
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 21, 2015, 01:37:16 PM
dax, just so we are all on the same page, please post any pro hillary sentiment from the resident proglibs from the history of this board (maybe bold it even!  :lol: ).  i think most of us are in agreement that we don't want her as a president.  you trying to shoehorn some untrue belief on this subject is very daxian tho.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 21, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
so... not much pro-hillary stuff around here?  shocking
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on March 21, 2015, 02:01:21 PM
lol dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 21, 2015, 02:02:21 PM
it's amazing what he puts in his head
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 21, 2015, 07:56:32 PM
they want an "obama", good grief ksuw

It's really pathetic how every time I demonstrate the stupidity of one of your snarky little comments, you grasp for anything to twist into a jab of "racism" in response. Very trollish.

Obama is a gifted orator who oozes charisma. He's as close to a movie star as politicians come. He also appeals to and turns out the currently monolithic black demographic. So absolutely conservatives would be tripping over themselves to nominate a conservative version of him. Unfortunately, as gifted as Ben Carson is, he's no Obama.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 21, 2015, 08:40:51 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 22, 2015, 08:35:20 AM
Admitting that you're a ProgLib is to admit you're delusional, close-minded, ignorant and a bigot. So 7 has that out there, regardless of whether he typed on this blog how much he likes Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on March 22, 2015, 10:29:12 AM
Yup, that's me to a T
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 22, 2015, 01:03:52 PM
We've got that. Thanks
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 22, 2015, 07:39:29 PM
Not sure how I missed this or why it's not been addressed here, but CBS has a show called madame secretary on tv right now

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 24, 2015, 02:24:28 PM
They love her. They really love her. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/24/reports-msm-reporters-give-hillary-standing-ovation-after-she-takes-no-questions-jokes-about-email-scandal/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/24/reports-msm-reporters-give-hillary-standing-ovation-after-she-takes-no-questions-jokes-about-email-scandal/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on March 25, 2015, 10:46:10 PM
The media is helping Hilliary with getting every bad thing she does to slide off.  Now we are learning her brother got very special treatment from Homeland Security on a business deal.  How much more slime is going to belched up out the Hilliary cesspool hell?  Bill was covered with teflon.  Hilliary is covered with with slimey, stinky, slick armpit grease.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 26, 2015, 08:49:13 AM
Again, 18 months - at least - of bullshit like this... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/26/hillary-super-volunteers-warn-reporter-against-using-sexist-words/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/26/hillary-super-volunteers-warn-reporter-against-using-sexist-words/)

The "coded sexist words" include...
- polarizing
- calculating
- disingenuous
- insincere
- ambitious
- inevitable
- entitled
- over confident
- secretive
- will do anything to win
- represents the past
- out of touch

Basically, every word that perfectly described Hillary. No, I'm not making this up. (But I'm starting to wonder if the "Hillary Super Volunteers" that sent the tweet is some right-wing parody group?)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 31, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
How do you know when Clinton is lying? Her mouth is moving. So much for the whole "it was just more convenient to only use one device" bullshit excuse - that she trotted out jsut two weeks ago. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/31/hilary-clinton-email/70708314/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/31/hilary-clinton-email/70708314/)

Again, is the Democrat bench so weak, or the blinders so heavy, that she'll actually get the nomination?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on March 31, 2015, 09:48:07 AM
you forgot "bossy"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Brock Landers on March 31, 2015, 10:46:27 AM
you forgot "bossy"

Bossy has been a sexist code word for a long time. The above list is for the trendy new sexist code words.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 31, 2015, 02:39:11 PM
"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"
By Paul Harvey
Conveniently Forgotten Facts.
Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black panther named Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty. Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him.
When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbro took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Connecticut.
Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers?
In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail.
The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College.
Isn't that something!!!
As a '60s radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head and a few years later, in the same state, you can become an assistant college dean!
Only in America!!!
Erica Huggins was the woman who served the Panthers by boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture .. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a California School Board.
How in the world do you think these killers got off so easily?
Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers.
These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during their trial.
One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a California School Board. He is now head of the United States Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton.
O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant college dean? No, neither!
The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world." She is none other than the former Democratic senator from the State of New York---- our former First Lady, and the Secretary of State, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And now, as Paul Harvey said; "You know the rest of the story".
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Brock Landers on March 31, 2015, 02:58:27 PM
When your grandmother sent that to you, how many "FW:" were in the subject line?  I'm guessing 4.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 31, 2015, 03:05:11 PM
When your grandmother sent that to you, how many "FW:" were in the subject line?  I'm guessing 4.

I pulled it off of GPC's World Forum, actually. The subject was "is this real?"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Brock Landers on March 31, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
When your grandmother sent that to you, how many "FW:" were in the subject line?  I'm guessing 4.

I pulled it off of GPC's World Forum, actually. The subject was "is this real?"

lmao
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 01, 2015, 09:45:30 AM
Hillary gets another opportunity to lie her ass off in front of congress. Looks like the pubs are going to get another 45 minutes of sound for the 2016 election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Havs on April 03, 2015, 12:03:43 PM
The Republican Party is going to win in 2016 anyway, based on trends in Senate elections and past Presidential Elections. Might as well put up Hillary (who I don't like) and get her last presidential run out of her system before 2024 and a Democrat is elected again.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 03, 2015, 12:37:53 PM
The Republican Party is going to win in 2016 anyway, based on trends in Senate elections and past Presidential Elections. Might as well put up Hillary (who I don't like) and get her last presidential run out of her system before 2024 and a Democrat is elected again.

I wish I had your confidence. I don't, at all. It still appears to me that the Democrats will have an advantage in 2016 in the electoral college. I believe statisticians who are a lot smarter than me, like Sean Trende and Nate Silver, agree. The Dems are also technologically superior to the GOP, and Obama built an amazing turnout machine for national elections - something that I presume will roll over to the next candidate (even Hillary).

Now is Hillary the strongest candidate? Or will she be so Nixonian, incompetent, and polarizing that self-described independents, blue collar Dems, and even a near majority of women will flee in droves? I kinda think it's going to be the latter, but I was also quite confident that there was no chance in hell that Romney, with his message and resume and state of the economy, would lose to Obama. And then he did - not because he failed to win the independents, but because the base stayed home. That greatly undermines my confidence in my own electoral prognostication.

So, I'd still prefer that she lose the primary (but to whom??) because I'd rather not take the chance of such a despicable person being our president for 4-8 years.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 03, 2015, 02:55:27 PM
So, I'd still prefer that she lose the primary (but to whom??) because I'd rather not take the chance of such a despicable person being our president for 4-8 years.

good luck with not having a despicable person as president
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 03, 2015, 05:14:33 PM
Just a quick thought about our dear ol' horned boss cow Hilliary.  You are a reflection of the company you keep. Hill's crooked cohort in crime Terry McCullife, VA gov., signed a executive order that says you can't ask anyone you are considering for a state job if they have a criminal record.  This approach would help HHillary fill government positions in her administration.   First Hubbie can be in charge of school lunches and bring back fatso fare.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 03, 2015, 06:08:22 PM
So, I'd still prefer that she lose the primary (but to whom??) because I'd rather not take the chance of such a despicable person being our president for 4-8 years.

good luck with not having a despicable person as president

You might not agree with their politics, but would you really rate any of the GOP hopefuls anywhere near Hillary on the despic-o-meter? Serious question.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 03, 2015, 06:13:30 PM
Hillary might actually be the worst person on earth. B.O. is way up there. I'm sure there are bad pubs, but none of them currently have the cache to invoke the treachery and terror that those two have in their short periods in power.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 03, 2015, 06:50:09 PM
Unfortunately all the "nice guy" republicans seem like dexter serial killers or just plain crazy. I liked McCain a lot until he had to play to the mouth breathing r majority
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on April 03, 2015, 07:19:08 PM

So, I'd still prefer that she lose the primary (but to whom??) because I'd rather not take the chance of such a despicable person being our president for 4-8 years.

good luck with not having a despicable person as president

You might not agree with their politics, but would you really rate any of the GOP hopefuls anywhere near Hillary on the despic-o-meter? Serious question.

Great question.

I would say Christie is Clintons equal.

Huckabee is worse for actively selling his followers fake cancer cures for money.

The rest are probably less despicable than Hillary.  Cruz would probably be impossible to be in a room with for longer than 15 minutes, so maybe that is worse if we are just talking about personally?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on April 03, 2015, 07:21:08 PM
What happened to Bush 3.0?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 03, 2015, 07:26:03 PM
What happened to Bush 3.0?

He seems like a pretty decent person. The pubs hate him, though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2015, 10:08:27 AM
What happened to Bush 3.0?

He seems like a pretty decent person. The pubs hate him, though.

He doesn't hate the right people enough.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 04, 2015, 11:48:30 AM
Lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 04, 2015, 12:51:00 PM
Jeb vs Hilliria.  Nice grandpa against old crazed mean grandma.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on April 04, 2015, 01:01:27 PM

Jeb vs Hilliria.  Nice grandpa against old crazed mean grandma.

This made me lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 04, 2015, 03:31:43 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 04, 2015, 05:54:50 PM
Hillaria is the digestive track illness you get when fed too much Hillary Rotgut Clinton crap.  Head for the can, its gonna blooooooooooooooow!!  Hang onto the handicap bars or launch yourself to the moon.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 08, 2015, 12:54:19 PM
Has Hillary already won? Her tech machine is going to successfully mine every lazy, dumbass, uninformed voter in the country. Not to mention the ways in which Google will manipulate the online media coverage and drive traffic to favorable websites.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on April 08, 2015, 01:38:16 PM
Has Hillary already won? Her tech machine is going to successfully mine every lazy, dumbass, uninformed voter in the country. Not to mention the ways in which Google will manipulate the online media coverage and drive traffic to favorable websites.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer/)


You sound like a Phog poster claiming Duke's recent championship was predetermined by referees. Please keep going. :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 08, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
Has Hillary already won? Her tech machine is going to successfully mine every lazy, dumbass, uninformed voter in the country. Not to mention the ways in which Google will manipulate the online media coverage and drive traffic to favorable websites.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer/)


You sound like a Phog poster claiming Duke's recent championship was predetermined by referees. Please keep going. :love:

I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just have tremendous respect for the turnout machine Obama built and I'm concerned that Hillary will do even better. Turnout matters. A lot. It decided the 2012 election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on April 08, 2015, 02:04:44 PM
Pretty distinct possibility that this election will hold worse candidates than W and Gore?  Seems like that is saying a lot.  How far back do you have to go before you find an R and D on both sides that are as uninspiring? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 08, 2015, 02:20:42 PM
Pretty distinct possibility that this election will hold worse candidates than W and Gore?  Seems like that is saying a lot.  How far back do you have to go before you find an R and D on both sides that are as uninspiring?

Obama/Romney
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Institutional Control on April 08, 2015, 02:27:32 PM
Bush/Kerry
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 08, 2015, 02:44:42 PM
I think we will end up with a very intriguing Bush/Clinton matchup. If I had to vote today, I'd choose Bush.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2015, 11:06:13 AM
Hillary will announce her candidacy on Sunday, and she'll do it with a pre-produced video. Meticulously scripted, rehearsed, and re-shot as many times as necessary to get it just right, without a pesky reporter in sight. How perfectly Hillary.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-announcement-sunday/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-announcement-sunday/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 10, 2015, 11:52:28 AM
You can try to guzzy her up, but I still see a mean wild eyed nanny goat that butts and bites everything in site, and go through any dang fence she chooses to get what she wants.  If Hilliary was a man the political vultures would not even sniff her carcass.  She is not qualified to be President of Kansas.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 10, 2015, 11:49:28 PM
Heard she was going to announce on social media.  Just a few weeks ago when the email scandal broke she acted if she was techno-amish.  Now all of a sudden she is saavy.  She best ditch the commie garb and put on something American looking like jeans, overalls, or boots.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 12, 2015, 04:59:08 PM
Mean evil grandma, no telling what she will do to us grand kiddies.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 12, 2015, 05:14:48 PM
this is going to be such a great election  :excited:  (for entertainment, not for the country)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 12, 2015, 06:08:33 PM
this is going to be such a great election  :excited:  (for entertainment, not for the country)

For the Pit
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 13, 2015, 08:18:44 AM
Hopefully she'll hook up with her secretary and get enough votes to get in. This country loves that kinda crap!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 13, 2015, 08:58:27 AM
I don't think she gets the nomination.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 13, 2015, 09:11:55 AM
Can't wait for the protests over these posters that contain the forbidden "coded words".

Let me know when they start
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 13, 2015, 10:28:14 AM
I don't think she gets the nomination.

Who do you think will get it? So far, not a single other Democrat has even filed paperwork, have they?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 13, 2015, 10:45:02 AM
I don't think she gets the nomination.

Who do you think will get it? So far, not a single other Democrat has even filed paperwork, have they?

Whoever is putting up those signs
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 13, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
I don't think she gets the nomination.

Who do you think will get it? So far, not a single other Democrat has even filed paperwork, have they?

At best, her campaign and candidacy can meet someone's expectations since everyone has been expecting this for 8 years.  She won't be able to really impress anyone.  Once the primaries start, the bigger story than Hillary winning the first couple will be who showed better than expected.  Whoever it is will get some momentum and pull it out in the end.

I would take the field over Hillary thought not one candidate in particular.  As far as democrats running, O'Malley is almost certainly going to give it a shot and could win. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 13, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
The media doesn't like her and won't support her, just like 2008. They'll pick a younger, better looking person, like O'Malley.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 13, 2015, 11:40:56 AM
Yea, Hillary is starting to look super old.  That won't help.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 13, 2015, 12:29:20 PM
O'Malley sounds Irish
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 13, 2015, 12:32:02 PM
I have zero idea who omally is
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 13, 2015, 12:33:43 PM
Hillary is such a repulsive person that I would honestly prefer that the Dems nominate a stronger candidate. That seems preferable to the risk - and risk at all - that she wins the general. And I actually think it would be a pretty big risk based on the current GOP field.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 13, 2015, 12:38:46 PM
The best part so far: KSUw posting twice a day that HC is repulsive.  You couldn't set the OU high enough on the # of these posts until election day
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 13, 2015, 01:10:18 PM
Hillary is such a repulsive person that I would honestly prefer that the Dems nominate a stronger candidate. That seems preferable to the risk - and risk at all - that she wins the general. And I actually think it would be a pretty big risk based on the current GOP field.

I really don't want Hillary, either. In a hypothetical Ted Cruz vs Hillary race, I'd vote for Ted.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 13, 2015, 01:35:52 PM
I have zero idea who omally is

http://martinomalley.com/ (http://martinomalley.com/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 13, 2015, 04:18:43 PM
I have zero idea who omally is

http://martinomalley.com/ (http://martinomalley.com/)

He could benefit quite a bit for being the alternative to Hillary before other candidates start to clutter up the field
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on April 13, 2015, 08:01:56 PM
If elections are won and lost on logos alone, Hillary just lost.  Awful.  Also, the red arrow pointing right is  :jerk: and meant to subconsciously mind eff conservative mouth breathers*.

Note: not to imply that all conservatives are mouth breathers.  I mean the actual mouth breathers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 13, 2015, 08:14:35 PM
If elections are won and lost on logos alone, Hillary just lost.  Awful.  Also, the red arrow pointing right is  :jerk: and meant to subconsciously mind eff conservative mouth breathers*.

Note: not to imply that all conservatives are mouth breathers.  I mean the actual mouth breathers.

yes, it's repulsive
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on April 13, 2015, 09:22:31 PM
man election years are so annoying. we're still like a year and a half away. this is going to be annoying
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on April 13, 2015, 09:39:37 PM
man election years are so annoying. we're still like a year and a half away. this is going to be annoying

learn to love it and it ends up being lots of fun. Like, count how many times K-S-U says Hillary's an awful person in this thread and tell me there isn't something to enjoy there.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on April 13, 2015, 10:02:36 PM
man election years are so annoying. we're still like a year and a half away. this is going to be annoying

learn to love it and it ends up being lots of fun. Like, count how many times K-S-U says Hillary's an awful person in this thread and tell me there isn't something to enjoy there.

i guess.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on April 13, 2015, 10:07:22 PM
Its like a coaching search, for America's coach :kstatriot:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on April 13, 2015, 10:13:50 PM
Who is the athletic director?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 13, 2015, 10:21:23 PM
Who is the athletic director?

The racist tuck fan base.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 14, 2015, 11:46:23 AM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on April 14, 2015, 11:49:10 AM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected?

lulz, gpc world forum
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 14, 2015, 11:50:13 AM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 14, 2015, 12:33:40 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 14, 2015, 12:39:08 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 14, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 14, 2015, 01:09:52 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 14, 2015, 01:16:40 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?

My opinion is that your rights must coexist with the rights of others. That is why you don't have the right to engage in speech that places other people in physical danger (the shouting fire in a theater example), or breaking into someone's provate property to yell at them, or shutting down a street in protest (which gets to your permit question, but even then the government cannot arbitrarily restrict the location).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 14, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?

My opinion is that your rights must coexist with the rights of others. That is why you don't have the right to engage in speech that places other people in physical danger (the shouting fire in a theater example), or breaking into someone's provate property to yell at them, or shutting down a street in protest (which gets to your permit question, but even then the government cannot arbitrarily restrict the location).

Well, when you give $1 million to a candidate you completely devalue the $100 I give to the other candidate, thus violating my first amendment rights.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 14, 2015, 01:22:17 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?

My opinion is that your rights must coexist with the rights of others. That is why you don't have the right to engage in speech that places other people in physical danger (the shouting fire in a theater example), or breaking into someone's provate property to yell at them, or shutting down a street in protest (which gets to your permit question, but even then the government cannot arbitrarily restrict the location).

Well, when you give $1 million to a candidate you completely devalue the $100 I give to the other candidate, thus violating my first amendment rights.

There is no first amendment right to equality of speech. This is not socialism. If you can afford a bigger megaphone, you're allowed to buy it (or should be).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on April 14, 2015, 01:36:44 PM
At some point, and on some issues, you have to agree, at least hypothetically, that such an approach could be detrimental to the country and it's ppl.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 14, 2015, 01:41:12 PM
At some point, and on some issues, you have to agree, at least hypothetically, that such an approach could be detrimental to the country and it's ppl.

Ah, but who decides? Our elected representatives? The very people with a vested interest in protecting their own incumbency and power? That's exactly why we have the first amendment, and why the founders put it first.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 14, 2015, 01:43:21 PM
At some point, and on some issues, you have to agree, at least hypothetically, that such an approach could be detrimental to the country and it's ppl.

Ah, but who decides? Our elected representatives? The very people with a vested interest in protecting their own incumbency and power? That's exactly why we have the first amendment, and why the founders put it first.

Just install term limits and the conflict of interest goes away.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 14, 2015, 05:45:31 PM
Term limits are against free speech
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 14, 2015, 08:18:50 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/XzUHetV.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 14, 2015, 09:15:00 PM
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004)

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

Would need a constitutional amendment, or a bunch of judges making up new law.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 15, 2015, 03:45:12 PM
Hillary sits down to coffee in Iowa with "ordinary people" - who were recruited from DNC central casting. I don't think there has even been a more inauthentic candidate. Congrats Dems.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 15, 2015, 04:28:23 PM
Hillary sits down to coffee in Iowa with "ordinary people" - who were recruited from DNC central casting. I don't think there has even been a more inauthentic candidate. Congrats Dems.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html)

Didn't want to take a chance with any random unwashed Iowan.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 15, 2015, 05:20:22 PM
Will ksuw survive this election? I'm not so sure  :ohno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on April 15, 2015, 05:37:13 PM
Will ksuw survive this election? I'm not so sure  :ohno:

the stuff he is bringing really is great.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Tobias on April 15, 2015, 05:42:26 PM
sorry cf3, i wish it was election season 24/7
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Institutional Control on April 17, 2015, 08:25:41 AM
I almost want HRC to win just to see all the heads explode. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 17, 2015, 09:11:30 AM
I I felt the same way about Herman Cain. All the racist leftists that make a living propagating race problems would have flipped lid if there was a black president telling everyone enough is enough.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 17, 2015, 09:37:28 AM
I I felt the same way about Herman Cain. All the racist leftists that make a living propagating race problems would have flipped lid if there was a black president telling everyone enough is enough.

And then he would get all creepy on the ladies
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 17, 2015, 10:01:42 AM
I I felt the same way about Herman Cain. All the racist leftists that make a living propagating race problems would have flipped lid if there was a black president telling everyone enough is enough.

And then he would get all creepy on the ladies

Didn't even think about that. Double lid blown.

"Misogynistic Presidents and Black People belong to us"  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 18, 2015, 10:15:29 AM
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/04/Hillary-Confusion-copy.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 18, 2015, 10:17:52 AM
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/04/Hillary-Accomplishments-copy.jpg)

Yup. But she is a woman and a Clinton, which are way more important accomplishments.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 18, 2015, 11:33:43 AM
Ha ha, I would love to know if the journalist that asked that question followed up or just accepted it and moved on. I'd guess the latter.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 18, 2015, 12:01:49 PM
That's amazing
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 18, 2015, 12:27:37 PM
Ksuw found Facebook  :excited:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 18, 2015, 12:29:22 PM
Hey CFoD, say goodbye to your Facebook thread kingship
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: kitten_mittons on April 19, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
I don't trust anyone whose s/o cheats on them and they decide to stay with them. I feel like they have low self-esteem.  Or they are like house of cards people.  So either way, they are unfit to run the country.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on April 19, 2015, 08:11:01 AM
I don't trust anyone whose s/o cheats on them and they decide to stay with them. I feel like they have low self-esteem.  Or they are like house of cards people.  So either way, they are unfit to run the country.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


So pretty much every first lady ever.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: kitten_mittons on April 19, 2015, 08:15:23 AM
I don't trust anyone whose s/o cheats on them and they decide to stay with them. I feel like they have low self-esteem.  Or they are like house of cards people.  So either way, they are unfit to run the country.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


So pretty much every first lady ever.
Maybe.  I've never voted for any of them to be president, either.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 19, 2015, 10:14:11 AM
I don't trust anyone whose s/o cheats on them and they decide to stay with them. I feel like they have low self-esteem.  Or they are like house of cards people.  So either way, they are unfit to run the country.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


So pretty much every first lady ever.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that neither of the Bushes cheated on their wives. Probably not Obama or Reagan either. The Clintons are in a league of their own when it comes to corruption and nastiness.

This is kind of like if the GOP nominated Newt Gingrich. Except that Newt is actually smart and accomplished.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 19, 2015, 10:17:17 AM
there's lots of things to not like about hillary, her husband cheating on her is like not even on the board.  don't care one bit
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on April 19, 2015, 10:36:45 AM
You know professional actor Ronald Reagan had plenty of strange in his heyday. I mean c'mon.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 19, 2015, 11:36:37 AM
You know professional actor Ronald Reagan had plenty of strange in his heyday. I mean c'mon.

the hollywood elite love gangbangs
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 19, 2015, 12:12:05 PM
there's lots of things to not like about hillary, her husband cheating on her is like not even on the board.  don't care one bit

Like mittons said, it's not about cheating or being cheated on. It's about being cheated on and then continuing in a sham marriage for political expediency. They don't even live together or like each other. Not only that, but Hillary played a key role in managing Bill's cheating by tearing the women down. Team Clinton even had a private name for it - managing Bill's "bimbo eruptions."

She is despicable. But she want to be president. And millions of loyal Dems want her to be both the nominee and president.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 19, 2015, 12:25:30 PM
yeah, i have zero interest in her "arrangement".  just like i have zero interest if a candidate is gay or likes to get freaky with feet or something.  doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 19, 2015, 12:35:34 PM
yeah, i have zero interest in her "arrangement".  just like i have zero interest if a candidate is gay or likes to get freaky with feet or something.  doesn't matter.

Did you just equate being gay to being a horrible person?  :sdeek:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 19, 2015, 12:37:28 PM
there's lots of things to not like about hillary, her husband cheating on her is like not even on the board.  don't care one bit

Plenty to attack her over, this ain't it though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 19, 2015, 12:37:51 PM
only if you're a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) with no reading comprehension
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 19, 2015, 03:05:01 PM
only if you're a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) with no reading comprehension

Somebody is very touchy about having their words twisted to be accused of bigotry.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on April 20, 2015, 01:31:36 AM
only if you're a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) with no reading comprehension

Somebody is very touchy about having their words twisted to be accused of bigotry.
Shut up, bigot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 22, 2015, 01:37:08 PM
The Thrill from Bill World Clinton fund is in the name of Bill, C-hellsy, and Ms. MG Clinton.  Therefore tainted donatations that some are calling bribes for action from the State Department when Hillarious was SOS should be investigated.  If bribes, she should withdraw from the race.  It is funny watching her syncopath butt sniffers yowling on the media that this is a right wing plot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 22, 2015, 01:49:25 PM
Should Bill run as her VP?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on April 22, 2015, 01:51:59 PM
The Thrill from Bill World Clinton fund is in the name of Bill, C-hellsy, and Ms. MG Clinton.  Therefore tainted donatations that some are calling bribes for action from the State Department when Hillarious was SOS should be investigated.  If bribes, she should withdraw from the race.  It is funny watching her syncopath butt sniffers yowling on the media that this is a right wing plot.

lol ok
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 27, 2015, 08:45:27 AM
Clintons for Cash.  They give you a favor, then you pay them $250,000 to give a speech.  They are just helping a friend - no bribes.   When caught - hey we have stupid accountants who make mistakes.  The media seems to ignorant to know how to add.  MS MG and Bill the Thrill live on. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 27, 2015, 12:09:16 PM
What does MG stand for?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: LickNeckey on April 27, 2015, 12:34:54 PM
So if I am following this correctly.

A politician accepted money and there is some fear that said money is feared to have influenced said politician.

 :confused:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 27, 2015, 12:57:47 PM
So if I am following this correctly.

A politician accepted money and there is some fear that said money is feared to have influenced said politician.

 :confused:

That's an oversimplification. By a lot. The Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, donated $2.35 million to Clinton's "foundation" to influence the State Department (over which Clinton was SoS) to approve its purchase of Uranium One, which controls 20% of the United States' uranium reserves. Clinton, of course, never disclosed the donations. At the same time this deal was going down, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

It's all here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2)

Still confused? There are really no words that can adquately describe the rank corruption of the Clinton Machine.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on April 27, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
Sounds like some first amendment hating
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 27, 2015, 01:11:50 PM

Can you really call yourself a feminist if you allow your husband to rape every woman within arms reach?

I wonder if the Clinton Foundation will donate to PACs that support hillary.  I really wonder if the democrats will allow her to finish off the party for b.o., or try and resurrect with someone else.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 27, 2015, 01:12:24 PM
Hillary says it was just a mistake that they didn't report the Russian money; just sloppy accounting. As everyone knows, accountants, by nature, aren't detail oriented.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 27, 2015, 01:16:43 PM
Hillary says it was just a mistake that they didn't report the Russian money; just sloppy accounting. As everyone knows, accountants, by nature, aren't detail oriented.

Reads: will be sure to cover it up better going forward. Now, who else is willing to pay for "preferred" government status?

 I bet they have a clinton foundation rewards program. A million points gets you a lucrative government contract, ten million gets you a business monopoly, and twenty million gets you a get out of jail free card for atrocities against women and homosexuals.

#thinkleft
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 27, 2015, 02:00:56 PM
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) link=topic=31932.msg1358545#msg1358545
I bet they have a clinton foundation rewards program. A million points gets you a lucrative government contract, ten million gets you a business monopoly, and twenty million gets you a get out of jail free card for atrocities against women and homosexuals.

#thinkleft

:lol: If they're not already doing this, they totally should.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 27, 2015, 03:45:34 PM
But you know, I'm sure we'll get this all sorted out once Clinton produces all those e-mails from her tenure as SoS...


...that she kept on a home server and then irretrievably deleted. How convenient.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 27, 2015, 04:09:02 PM
(http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdown.jpg)

I'm guessing the funneling of money from the Foundation to HRC's campaign falls somewhere under "Other Expenses." The Foundation sure is doing an efficient job, though, right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 27, 2015, 04:22:24 PM
Best circle jerk in months  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on April 27, 2015, 04:31:57 PM
Best circle jerk in months  :love:

It's more of a wonky-circle jerk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 27, 2015, 05:38:43 PM
What does MG stand for?
Mean Grannie.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 27, 2015, 05:43:49 PM
Can I use that too?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 27, 2015, 06:13:05 PM
Can I use that too?
Yes, please do so.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 28, 2015, 12:44:41 PM
Is a circle jerk more or less sophomoric than an itch-manhattan townie dick holding festival?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on April 28, 2015, 01:02:20 PM
I love Hillary and super hope she wins because the conservative meltdown will be increds. Man. Can you imagine if "ProgLibs" becomes a thing?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on April 28, 2015, 01:29:35 PM
Nope. Hillary Clinton (D) is all that matters because it would make the butthurt worst :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 28, 2015, 01:44:16 PM
Yes, Jeb Bush is the POTUS we need.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 28, 2015, 01:45:15 PM
Hillary vs Jeb in the general election are the campaigns we deserve.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 28, 2015, 01:54:14 PM
I actually have hardcore ProgLib relatives who like Jeb.

Well, they probably aren't that hardcore.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 28, 2015, 01:59:48 PM
I've never voted against someone I like. It's just so rare to get an opportunity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 28, 2015, 02:03:27 PM
Pretty sure Jeb is a ProgLib, just not a far left Proglib.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 28, 2015, 02:25:12 PM
He's a ProgCon.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 28, 2015, 02:49:11 PM
The problem with Jeb is that his immigration policies will kill him in the primaries, and his last name will kill him if he somehow outspends his way into the general. Other than that, he's totally electable. Which is to say, he isn't.

Also, can we please drop all this Prog___ crap? It's libtard and neocon.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 28, 2015, 02:52:21 PM
Let's not let Lib7's homophobic slurs distract from the fact that Hillary used her brief, yet disastrous, stint as SoS to enrich herself financially to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Or the fact that she is a well documented liar and hypocrite, and basically will say anything to win and harm anyone in her way. She is the prototypical subhuman.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on April 28, 2015, 03:21:00 PM
If someone like Jeb Bush wins they'll be a butthurt earthquake for the ages Skinny . . . and suddenly things like the National Debt and actually having a Federal budget will matter again to Libs all across the land.  The peace movement will instantly feel reinvigorated and libs far and wide will be questioning foreign policy in places like Syria.   

I'd probably be down for that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 28, 2015, 05:33:44 PM
Sorry jeb, you just don't hate mexicans enough to get republican votes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 28, 2015, 05:48:13 PM
Who's your early vote, dax? I bet you're a cruz guy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 28, 2015, 08:42:40 PM
A lot of projection from lib7 going on in this thread.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 28, 2015, 09:36:59 PM
A Mr. Meanass Repub-sickem cannot defeat the queen of mean especially when the media paints her as a vunerable, kind, but yet strong fighter for squirrels, girls, the disadvantaged, and the civic morons.  Ms. MG Clinton can only be beaten by Nice Ol' Grandpa who has saged wisdom -  Jeb.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 29, 2015, 01:08:12 PM
In response to the Baltimore riots, Hillary just called for an overhaul of the crime policies put in place by her prospective shadow co-president, Bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-calls-for-overhaul-of-crime-policies-put-in-place-under-bill-clinton/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-calls-for-overhaul-of-crime-policies-put-in-place-under-bill-clinton/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on April 29, 2015, 01:10:38 PM
I'm sure it's already been discussed, but what would be the male equivalent to the First Lady in a female president situ? If it's something like The First Gentleman, that would be pretty badass imo.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 29, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
I'm sure it's already been discussed, but what would be the male equivalent to the First Lady in a female president situ? If it's something like The First Gentleman, that would be pretty badass imo.

Male Force One
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on April 29, 2015, 01:16:10 PM
I'm sure it's already been discussed, but what would be the male equivalent to the First Lady in a female president situ? If it's something like The First Gentleman, that would be pretty badass imo.

Male Force One

Isn't that a Low-T supplement already?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on April 29, 2015, 01:42:54 PM
In response to the Baltimore riots, Hillary just called for an overhaul of the crime policies put in place by her prospective shadow co-president, Bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-calls-for-overhaul-of-crime-policies-put-in-place-under-bill-clinton/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-calls-for-overhaul-of-crime-policies-put-in-place-under-bill-clinton/)

Hello fellow ditto-head  :thumbs: :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 29, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
I think we all need to just start accepting crime and being victims of crime as a the new American way. Prisons are too full and we have our quota of each race in jail.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 29, 2015, 02:01:15 PM
In response to the Baltimore riots, Hillary just called for an overhaul of the crime policies put in place by her prospective shadow co-president, Bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-calls-for-overhaul-of-crime-policies-put-in-place-under-bill-clinton/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-calls-for-overhaul-of-crime-policies-put-in-place-under-bill-clinton/)

Hello fellow ditto-head  :thumbs: :thumbs:

I saw this in the Post (via RealClearPolitics.com, the best aggregator of news pieces and op-eds) - hence my link. Is Rush talking about it today? That makes sense.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on April 29, 2015, 02:22:20 PM
I think we all need to just start accepting crime and being victims of crime as a the new American way. Prisons are too full and we have our quota of each race in jail.

for some specific races, their catch has far exceeded the quota. they have to dump it back
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 29, 2015, 02:36:36 PM
I think we all need to just start accepting crime and being victims of crime as a the new American way. Prisons are too full and we have our quota of each race in jail.

for some specific races, their catch has far exceeded the quota. they have to dump it back

That's what I'm (and Hillary) saying.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on April 29, 2015, 08:50:00 PM
Just read in FX News the Bill the thrill and Ms. MG Crime fighter Clinton World Do-Goodie Fund has only really donated 10% of its 2 billion to needy causes.  With control of country would Hillary jeopardizenthe US for money for the First Money Grubber Bill.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 03, 2015, 11:40:00 AM
Just read in FX News the Bill the thrill and Ms. MG Crime fighter Clinton World Do-Goodie Fund has only really donated 10% of its 2 billion to needy causes.  With control of country would Hillary jeopardizenthe US for money for the First Money Grubber Bill.

Fox news
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 03, 2015, 12:06:44 PM
I'm sure there are a lot of charities that struggle to donate 10% of what they raise (e.g., some 5 year old sells lemonade for 50 cents a cup then donates the proceeds to his youth group). I would think when you start to exceed about $5k in annual donations the marginal cost of operations begins to dramatically decline.  At $2 billion, you ought to be donating 95%+ to charity or have your 501c3 card pulled, because you're just stealing from people under the pretense of charity.

5% of $2 billion is $100 million fwiw.  Most mutual funds manage that amount of money at around 1%, including marketing a fund raising costs, and paying people a helluva lost smarter and more worthwhile than the Clinton subhumans
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 03, 2015, 01:05:16 PM
Team HRC says the 10% number is misleading, because a lot of the Foundation's charity work is performed by salaried employees of the Foundation - not grants to outside charities. So in other words, it's really ok because they pissed the money away on their own employees' lavish meals, galas, and travel expenses, not to mention Bill's library. Amazing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 03, 2015, 01:58:54 PM
Team HRC says the 10% number is misleading, because a lot of the Foundation's charity work is performed by salaried employees of the Foundation - not grants to outside charities. So in other words, it's really ok because they pissed the money away on their own employees' lavish meals, galas, and travel expenses, not to mention Bill's library. Amazing.

Buncha 1%er scum
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on May 06, 2015, 09:40:38 PM
MG Clinton is promising things to everyone even if it is against the law.  Yesterday she said she would make every illegal alien a citizen..  Just crap on the constitution lady - a president is suppose to uphold the law.  Damn crooked Arkansawer wildhog mobster.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2015, 06:17:04 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ljK0Si6.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on May 07, 2015, 06:27:11 PM
Hah awesome
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on May 07, 2015, 07:09:29 PM
stink lines even lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 07, 2015, 07:36:10 PM
Is that a gigantic novelty pine tree air freshner hanging from a stop light?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2015, 07:50:29 PM
Is that a gigantic novelty pine tree air freshner hanging from a stop light?

I think so, yes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2015, 08:22:55 PM
They're all over LA today as posters and giant air fresheners hung on stuff. She's in town for a fund raiser.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2015, 08:26:30 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ph853z0.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on May 07, 2015, 08:30:24 PM
To be fair, that's a very youthful and flattering depiction.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on May 16, 2015, 02:43:25 PM
If burnt steak Hillary gets elected will neanderthalrepubs have to go through wussyman and sensitive dude training?  What will men be liberated of?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 17, 2015, 07:06:39 PM
I posit that there has never been a bigger corporate shill running for president than Hillary Clinton.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on May 17, 2015, 07:40:01 PM
I posit that there has never been a bigger corporate shill running for president than Hillary Clinton.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money)

I guess it depends on your definition.  Steve Forbes has run for president.  That said, a potential Bush-Clinton fundraising bonanza showdown would certainly be a depressing reflection of our democracy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on May 17, 2015, 09:33:07 PM
Jeb's cash is honest.  Get rid of the electrorial college if you want to diminish the impact of cash - then a vote in Kansas is just as valuable as one from the left or right nut coast.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 18, 2015, 08:43:12 AM
I posit that there has never been a bigger corporate shill running for president than Hillary Clinton.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money)

I guess it depends on your definition.  Steve Forbes has run for president.  That said, a potential Bush-Clinton fundraising bonanza showdown would certainly be a depressing reflection of our democracy.

Sorry - I meant the general. I've pretty much already assumed Hillary's got the primary in the bag.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on May 19, 2015, 08:46:26 AM
Good investment in the Clinton's.  Think of the wonderful and loving interviews if she becomes Prezsumpremo.  Dax is right, crazy world - no ethic standards for the liberal press.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 19, 2015, 09:11:09 AM
Another day, another Clinton lie exposed. Turns out she had multiple email addresses on her private server, and used them to exchange intelligence memos. Including memos by Clinton hatchet-man Sid Blumenthal, an employee of the Clinton Foundation.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/what-sidney-blumenthals-memos-to-hillary-clinton-said-and-how-they-were-handled.html?_r=0&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/what-sidney-blumenthals-memos-to-hillary-clinton-said-and-how-they-were-handled.html?_r=0&referrer=)

Quote
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
MAY 18, 2015

In 2011 and 2012, Hillary Rodham Clinton received at least 25 memos about Libya from Sidney Blumenthal, a friend and confidant who at the time was employed by the Clinton Foundation. The memos, written in the style of intelligence cables, make up about a third of the almost 900 pages of emails related to Libya that Mrs. Clinton said she kept on the personal email account she used exclusively as secretary of state. Some of Mr. Blumenthal’s memos appeared to be based on reports supplied by American contractors he was advising as they sought to do business in Libya. Mr. Blumenthal also appeared to be gathering information from anonymous Libyan and Western officials and local news media reports. What follows are descriptions of some of the memos and how they were handled by Mrs. Clinton and her aides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html?_r=0)

Quote
When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.

Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview.

Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.
 
Sidney Blumenthal was advising Mrs. Clinton and a business venture.Credit Sara Krulwich/The New York Times
But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.

While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, “message guidance” and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on May 19, 2015, 09:16:20 AM
I think Sidney Blumenthal is closer to Middle East Drudge Report than intelligence officer.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on May 19, 2015, 09:33:44 AM
You know you live in a crazy mixed up world when a TV network signs George Stephanopoulos to a $105 million dollar contract.   Grats to George and his representation.

Dax hates free market capitalism
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 28, 2015, 09:02:37 AM
How did the Clinton Foundation spend its money? Well, we know from their own tax filings that only 10% went to charitable grants to - you know - actual charities. Supposedly, most of the money was spent on "in-house" charity work, like paying Clinton hatchet-man Sid Vicious $10,000 a month.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 28, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
How did the Clinton Foundation spend its money? Well, we know from their own tax filings that only 10% went to charitable grants to - you know - actual charities. Supposedly, most of the money was spent on "in-house" charity work, like paying Clinton hatchet-man Sid Vicious $10,000 a month.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html)

The primaries are going to be nasty
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 28, 2015, 09:48:07 AM
How did the Clinton Foundation spend its money? Well, we know from their own tax filings that only 10% went to charitable grants to - you know - actual charities. Supposedly, most of the money was spent on "in-house" charity work, like paying Clinton hatchet-man Sid Vicious $10,000 a month.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html)

The primaries are going to be nasty

I'm still thinking it'll be a coronation for the Queen Bee. And I wouldn't say it's "nasty" to expose the Clinton Foundation as a massive political money laundering and influence peddling operation, if that's what you meant.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 28, 2015, 12:23:14 PM
There are going to be more Democrat candidates, but I think they're sitting back saving money while they watch Hillary blow cash and dig herself deeper in a hole. I still think Martin O'Malley will get the nomination.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 28, 2015, 07:22:22 PM
How did the Clinton Foundation spend its money? Well, we know from their own tax filings that only 10% went to charitable grants to - you know - actual charities. Supposedly, most of the money was spent on "in-house" charity work, like paying Clinton hatchet-man Sid Vicious $10,000 a month.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359.html)

The primaries are going to be nasty

I'm still thinking it'll be a coronation for the Queen Bee. And I wouldn't say it's "nasty" to expose the Clinton Foundation as a massive political money laundering and influence peddling operation, if that's what you meant.

I mean there is lots of dirt on her and they will use it
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 29, 2015, 03:05:12 PM
This is in the NYT, so I guess it must be true: Charity Pays Bill Clinton $500,000, in Exchange for Clinton Agreeing to Accept "Lifetime Achievement Award" from Supermodel at Said Charity Event (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/an-award-for-bill-clinton-came-with-500000-for-his-foundation.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1)

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on May 29, 2015, 03:52:49 PM
Ok. So?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on May 29, 2015, 03:57:22 PM
im not clicking it but who is the supermodel
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on May 29, 2015, 04:40:16 PM
Turd in a pantsuit, Hillary the icon.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 30, 2015, 06:11:59 AM
This is in the NYT, so I guess it must be true: Charity Pays Bill Clinton $500,000, in Exchange for Clinton Agreeing to Accept "Lifetime Achievement Award" from Supermodel at Said Charity Event (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/an-award-for-bill-clinton-came-with-500000-for-his-foundation.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1)

This probably isn't the best way to start an article: "To commemorate the 10th Anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. . ."

Also, that charitable event doesn't sound very charitable.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2015, 08:44:11 AM
This is in the NYT, so I guess it must be true: Charity Pays Bill Clinton $500,000, in Exchange for Clinton Agreeing to Accept "Lifetime Achievement Award" from Supermodel at Said Charity Event (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/an-award-for-bill-clinton-came-with-500000-for-his-foundation.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1)

This probably isn't the best way to start an article: "To commemorate the 10th Anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. . ."

Also, that charitable event doesn't sound very charitable.

No, but it's exactly the kind of "fundraiser" you would expect to be organized by a New York socialite / supermodel. And Bubba was only too happy to attend to get his "lifetime achievement award" - as long as he also got his 500k. He's "got to pay the bills" you know.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on May 30, 2015, 09:42:26 AM
Ksuw just can't stand that people are willing to pay for the clintons time. Hates free market capitalism I guess
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 30, 2015, 10:09:39 AM
I read a McClatchey article yesterday claiming Hillary came from modest means. Lol

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 30, 2015, 10:11:12 AM
Ksuw just can't stand that people are willing to pay for the clintons time. Hates free market capitalism I guess

That's why I don't get the charges against the FIFA people. Just a bunch of free marketeers
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 30, 2015, 10:13:39 AM
Jeff Skilling - free market capitalism
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 30, 2015, 10:46:14 AM
You guys spend a lot of time reading up on The Clintons
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on May 30, 2015, 11:36:53 AM
If momma dogooder and daddy dogooder are using the Clinton World Do Good founation to hustle and grub for money, think what they will do with the Presidency. Welcome to the pimp house.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2015, 04:09:48 PM
Ksuw just can't stand that people are willing to pay for the clintons time. Hates free market capitalism I guess

Clinton: Some Tsunami Relief Fund wants to give me a Lifetime Achievement Award? Pass.

Sid Vicious: But sir, you'll get to hit on supermodels.

Clinton: Fine, but I still want my 500 grand. I got bills to pay.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 30, 2015, 04:18:16 PM
Yeah, getting a half million to talk to a supermodel sounds awful
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on May 30, 2015, 05:36:19 PM
Surprised dirt is still being dug.  There is enough out to make sure she never wins.   :dunno: 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 30, 2015, 05:49:21 PM
Surprised dirt is still being dug.  There is enough out to make sure she never wins.   :dunno:

Hastert came along and made her look pretty clean
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on May 30, 2015, 06:05:16 PM
Well I guess Bernie is rapey too, so, maybe there is a need for more dirt?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2015, 08:56:06 PM
He demanded $500,000 to receive an award from a charity. Not to give a speech to some corporation, but a charity. That 500k could have been spent on actual charity work, but slimeball bubba decided it would be better spent feathering the nest of his own foundation - a political money laundering operation. The Clintons are truly despicable people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2015, 10:58:11 PM
Hastert came along and made her look pretty clean

Quote
If Dennis Hastert molested a student, he needs a lawyer with a lot of experience defending child rapists. He needs Hillary Clinton.

BOOM!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 30, 2015, 11:17:54 PM
Dude
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 30, 2015, 11:20:49 PM
Surprised dirt is still being dug.  There is enough out to make sure she never wins.   :dunno:

Hastert came along and made her look pretty clean

He should have started a charitable foundation and hired the guy at $250k/yr to give 10% away. Boom. Clean.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 30, 2015, 11:28:46 PM
Surprised dirt is still being dug.  There is enough out to make sure she never wins.   :dunno:

Hastert came along and made her look pretty clean

He should have started a charitable foundation and hired the guy at $250k/yr to give 10% away. Boom. Clean.

He should stop being a sinister criminal
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 30, 2015, 11:40:56 PM
Surprised dirt is still being dug.  There is enough out to make sure she never wins.   :dunno:

Hastert came along and made her look pretty clean

He should have started a charitable foundation and hired the guy at $250k/yr to give 10% away. Boom. Clean.

He should stop being a sinister criminal

Well, yeah, they all should, but who would run the country?  :Ugh:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 30, 2015, 11:46:56 PM
Surprised dirt is still being dug.  There is enough out to make sure she never wins.   :dunno:

Hastert came along and made her look pretty clean

He should have started a charitable foundation and hired the guy at $250k/yr to give 10% away. Boom. Clean.

He should stop being a sinister criminal

Well, yeah, they all should, but who would run the country?  :Ugh:

Me and you buddy, but I have to disclose I will always accept speaking fees from models and I've never molested a child and paid them over $1.4 million in hush money
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on May 31, 2015, 07:03:35 AM
I will take 5% less on speaking fees than DickStone, FYI.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 31, 2015, 10:26:53 AM
I will take 5% less on speaking fees than DickStone, FYI.

You get what you pay for
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2015, 04:28:12 PM
Hillary has a really interesting definition of "grassroots." Hey little people - you can ask me a question for as little as $1,000!

(https://prod01-cdn01.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/06/hrcemail.png)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2015, 05:44:59 PM
Who the eff fundraises when running for president? What a bitch  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 01, 2015, 06:12:27 PM
Brother Dr. Carson says it's OK to get paid for speschew while running for president.  Awshucks Huckleberry is running to parlay into a good radio gig. Others will increase their status as lobbyist near like Santorum.  To me Jeb and kasich seek to be running because they think they can make a difference.  Hillary comes first, then second, then being the first women, and the good old US about 20th on the list.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2015, 08:53:45 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/01/queen-hillary-to-adoring-subject-go-to-the-end-of-the-line/ (http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/01/queen-hillary-to-adoring-subject-go-to-the-end-of-the-line/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 02, 2015, 10:57:02 AM
KSUW is an excellent source for all things Hillary
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 02, 2015, 11:10:06 AM
KSUW is an excellent source for all things Hillary

I love how nothing he posts has anything to do with her policy proposals. NOTHING! :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2015, 11:15:02 AM
KSUW is an excellent source for all things Hillary

I love how nothing he posts has anything to do with her policy proposals. NOTHING! :love:

I'm pointing out her corruption. Regardless of policy, we shouldn't have any family that corrupt back in the WH.

But I'd also be happy to discuss her policy proposals. What is she running on? (Besides being a woman, a Clinton, and a former SOS that presided over a steller run of amazing decisions in the middle east).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 02, 2015, 11:20:53 AM
yes, asking someone to stand in line for autographs is very corrupt :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 02, 2015, 11:42:54 AM
KSUW is an excellent source for all things Hillary

I love how nothing he posts has anything to do with her policy proposals. NOTHING! :love:

Character is more important than policy proposals.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on June 02, 2015, 11:45:48 AM
The awfulness of her new logo is not getting enough play.  We should probably spend some more time on that too. 

I mean, a red arrow pointing right.  Is she trying to Jedi mind eff the really dumb portion of the 'pubs?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2015, 01:31:31 PM
yes, asking someone to stand in line for autographs is very corrupt :lol:

Fine. Corrupt and/or just generally nasty/entitled/arrogant, etc. But mainly it's the corruption that bothers me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2015, 10:19:20 PM
KSUW is an excellent source for all things Hillary

I love how nothing he posts has anything to do with her policy proposals. NOTHING! :love:

Well well well, we've got our first hillarybot.

Why don't you tell us about hillary ' s great policies and how her actual conduct is lock stock and barrel in line with those policies

rough ridin' lemming.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 02, 2015, 10:23:09 PM
Hillary's policies suck, I will never vote for her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on June 02, 2015, 10:23:25 PM
Don't have a dog in this Hillary rude to people in a line fight, but I thought this guy made some good points.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/06/01/hillary-to-autographseekers-go-to-the-end-of-the-line-n2006610 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/06/01/hillary-to-autographseekers-go-to-the-end-of-the-line-n2006610)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 02, 2015, 10:26:54 PM
Hillary's policies suck, I will never vote for her.

typical libtard robotic response :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 02, 2015, 10:28:29 PM
Someone needs to make HER go to the end of the line. Her imperioousness is neither attractive nor welcome. Not sure who she thinks died and made HER Queen (and therefore entitled), but she needs a wake-up call as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2015, 10:45:35 PM
Hillary's policies suck, I will never vote for her.

You're lying on a messageboard. Which is perfectly okay. But you should identify yourself irl as a lemming.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 02, 2015, 10:47:04 PM
i love how angry the neocons get when libs don't like hillary  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on June 02, 2015, 10:50:02 PM
Republicans running in 2016 I'd vote for against Hillary:

1) Kasich
2) Paul

Democrats

1) Bernie Sanders
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 02, 2015, 10:53:50 PM
 Mean Grannie strikes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 02, 2015, 10:55:44 PM
the few paragraphs i've read about kasich, i could def get behind him
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on June 02, 2015, 11:04:50 PM
the few paragraphs i've read about kasich, i could def get behind him

President Nixon on twitter is strong for him.  Endorsed quite early.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2015, 11:12:20 PM
Why are libtards so angry about freedom?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on June 02, 2015, 11:14:24 PM
Why are libtards so angry about freedom?
'Cause its not free!!!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2015, 11:17:00 PM
Why are libtards so angry about freedom?
'Cause its not free!!!!

Why are they so angry about having to pay for things? NO $$$?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 03, 2015, 04:34:35 PM
Hey look, a Clinton "policy" we can discuss! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/03/clinton-to-call-for-at-least-20-days-of-early-voting-nationwide/?wpisrc=al_alert-politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/03/clinton-to-call-for-at-least-20-days-of-early-voting-nationwide/?wpisrc=al_alert-politics)

Yes, we need to make it as easy as possible to buss the libtard drones to the polls...

In other news, 8 out of 10 likely voters favor mandatory voter ID (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/voter-identification-laws-poll/2014/03/25/id/561643/).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 03, 2015, 07:49:26 PM
So are you against early voting because

1) MG suggested it
2) you think it will hurt your team
3) actual reason

I'd really love to know
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 03, 2015, 10:44:56 PM
So are you against early voting because

1) MG suggested it
2) you think it will hurt your team
3) actual reason

I'd really love to know

I'm against *long* early voting periods because it allows both parties to engage in "banking" of votes from people who are generally so uninformed and unengaged that they shouldn't be voting in the first place.

To a point, making it easier to vote is a good thing. But if you go too far, to the point the political machines are all but casting votes for the drones, you actually start to disenfranchise the people who should be voting - the ones who actually educate themselves.

Now from a Dem v GOP perspective, there's no question that the Democrats rely more heavily on getting the ignorant and/or unengaged to the polls. Which is why Democrats always want to make it easier to vote, whereas the GOP would prefer to tighten things up.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390669/trouble-early-voting-john-fund (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390669/trouble-early-voting-john-fund)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/29/problems-with-early-voting-and-the-promise-of-future-voting/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/29/problems-with-early-voting-and-the-promise-of-future-voting/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 03, 2015, 10:46:34 PM
lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 03, 2015, 11:14:29 PM
MS MG Clinton should just put a big old warning light in her butt to remind us that she wants a big centralized queendom government. The federal government sets the date when the president is chosen, but the states determine how voting is done. She wants to usurp thr constitution.   Voting going on for her for 20 days would be like having dry heavea and projectile diarrhea for a year.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2015, 09:55:13 AM
Do I sense a movement in the ProgLib Force?   With the increasing reality setting in that Hillary will be the nominee, the new talking point (well, actually the old talking point if you think about it) will be to discuss policy PROPOSALS and policy PROPOSALS only?   Past POLICY, current non policy ongoings and happenings and all things of that ilk, need not apply. 

If so, bravo ProgLibs, bravo!

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on June 04, 2015, 10:15:46 AM
I think the Clinton reality will force a lot of moderate D's to find and vote for a moderate R.  Seems like the 'Cons couldn't eff this one up unless they put forth a Bachman type. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 04, 2015, 05:06:14 PM
I think the Clinton reality will force a lot of moderate D's to find and vote for a moderate R.  Seems like the 'Cons couldn't eff this one up unless they put forth a Bachman type.

I think it will be Bush, which should be very interesting, because I don't think a whole lot of moderate D's are any more willing to vote for another Bush than they are Hillary. Should be fun.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 04, 2015, 05:08:50 PM
Our country is so mumped!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on June 04, 2015, 05:53:19 PM
Do I sense a movement in the ProgLib Force?   With the increasing reality setting in that Hillary will be the nominee, the new talking point (well, actually the old talking point if you think about it) will be to discuss policy PROPOSALS and policy PROPOSALS only?   Past POLICY, current non policy ongoings and happenings and all things of that ilk, need not apply. 

If so, bravo ProgLibs, bravo!

Did you read what actual people wrote on here?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2015, 08:18:30 PM
Another Clinton policy idea: automatic voter registration at 18. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111535/Hillary-Clinton-plays-raucous-HALF-arena-black-university-claims-opponents-want-disempower-disenfranchise-people-color.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111535/Hillary-Clinton-plays-raucous-HALF-arena-black-university-claims-opponents-want-disempower-disenfranchise-people-color.html)

That's our Democrats! Voting shouldn't require any thought or effort at all. The less thought the better! Just trust in the D! The D will provide!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 04, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 04, 2015, 09:35:38 PM
We should make voting as hard as Josh Duggar at a family reunion.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 04, 2015, 09:36:26 PM


Another Clinton policy idea: automatic voter registration at 18. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111535/Hillary-Clinton-plays-raucous-HALF-arena-black-university-claims-opponents-want-disempower-disenfranchise-people-color.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111535/Hillary-Clinton-plays-raucous-HALF-arena-black-university-claims-opponents-want-disempower-disenfranchise-people-color.html)

That's our Democrats! Voting shouldn't require any thought or effort at all. The less thought the better! Just trust in the D! The D will provide!

Great url
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on June 04, 2015, 09:54:49 PM
voters should not have to register.  it's a stupid and outdated idea.  didn't read the article, but if that's what clinton is suggesting, then she's right.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2015, 10:12:29 PM
voters should not have to register.  it's a stupid and outdated idea.  didn't read the article, but if that's what clinton is suggesting, then she's right.

Are you seriously suggesting that there be no advance verification of a person's residency and eligibility to vote in a certain precinct? Just take care if all that at the polls, or not even there? Thats stupid. That's why we require registration.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on June 04, 2015, 10:15:11 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that there be no advance verification of a person's residency and eligibility to vote in a certain precinct? Just take care if all that at the polls, or not even there? Thats stupid. That's why we require registration.

i'm suggesting a national voter id card, like any nation not filled with paranoid dumbasses would use.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2015, 10:42:35 PM
Serious question: Would anyone disagree that this country is getting dumber by the day? We live in times where the biggest story isn't NSA wiretapping, or immigration, or healthcare, or ISIS, but oscar Jenner's sex change. We live in times where significantly more people can identify a picture of _____ Kardashian than the Vice President or Speaker of the House.  (And frankly, even the intelligence of those leaders is pretty suspect).

Why, then, would anyone who genuinely loves this country want to make it easier, not harder, for such morons to be herded to the polls? I understand why partisan Dems want it - they are banking on the stupid and/or lazy to vote for the party with the bigger handouts. By why anyone else would want to further dumb down the voting electorate is beyond me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 04, 2015, 10:46:46 PM
'bias! Get in here!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 04, 2015, 10:49:38 PM
Adolf Hillary  Clinton unbelievably advocated compulsory voter registration.  Voting is not  right
 It is a privilege. Crooked and corrupt governments make people vote. If I am too lazy to register, then I should not vote.  The liberacists will howl civil rights as they care more.about their power instead of empowering the downtrodden.  Give this power greedy crook the power of the president and she will Obama look like a 2 year old that can't do anything but babble and whizz himself.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Tobias on June 04, 2015, 10:51:48 PM

'bias! Get in here!

I'm always here :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: GregKSU1027 on June 04, 2015, 11:11:50 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that there be no advance verification of a person's residency and eligibility to vote in a certain precinct? Just take care if all that at the polls, or not even there? Thats stupid. That's why we require registration.

i'm suggesting a national voter id card, like any nation not filled with paranoid dumbasses would use.
Guess what though. We are the nation filled with paranoid dumbasses.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 04, 2015, 11:32:22 PM
We used to be really dumb tho
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 04, 2015, 11:39:22 PM
We used to be really dumb tho

Every generation thinks things are falling apart.  It's called change. Dumb bullshit truism, ksuw.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 04, 2015, 11:43:13 PM
She is pandering to blacks. They ain't going to vote for a dried up.mean white ripper.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 07:02:22 AM
We used to be really dumb tho

Every generation thinks things are falling apart.  It's called change. Dumb bullshit truism, ksuw.

Still waiting for anyone to explain why lowering the bar even more for the voting electorate is a good idea.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 05, 2015, 07:11:39 AM
Good grief
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on June 05, 2015, 07:15:58 AM
Only male land owners with greater than 5 mil net worth should be able to vote. The proleteriat should be kept from shaping the country.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2015, 07:29:51 AM
No voter registration, no voter identification and an open border aka ProgLib Utopia.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Institutional Control on June 05, 2015, 08:39:15 AM
Voter ID cards putting an undue hardship on the poor is as just as big of straw man as the thought that there is widespread voter fraud that only voter ID cards will solve.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 05, 2015, 08:50:54 AM
We should make voting as hard as Josh Duggar at a family reunion.
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2015, 08:52:39 AM
It doesn't take wide spread voter fraud for voter fraud to be effective.   Why is that so hard to understand?   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 08:54:51 AM
Still waiting for anyone to explain why lowering the bar even more for the voting electorate is a good idea.

Still waiting... Seriously, I'm not trying to play gotcha - I really want to know who thinks this is a good idea and why.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 05, 2015, 08:56:40 AM
Still waiting for anyone to explain why lowering the bar even more for the voting electorate is a good idea.

Still waiting... Seriously, I'm not trying to play gotcha - I really want to know who thinks this is a good idea and why.

What if the dummies vote only counts as 3/5 of a vote?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 11:19:52 AM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on June 05, 2015, 11:20:43 AM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

maybe to save money and shrink the goverment?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on June 05, 2015, 11:22:02 AM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

maybe to save money and shrink the goverment?

someones probably going to pop out and destroy me on this, but i really think filing your tax return should be your voter registration
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 05, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 05, 2015, 11:36:49 AM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

There are people way, way smarter than you who would like to keep you from voting.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 05, 2015, 11:37:21 AM
You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 05, 2015, 12:42:05 PM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

maybe to save money and shrink the goverment?

someones probably going to pop out and destroy me on this, but i really think filing your tax return should be your voter registration

Anybody from any country can file a US tax return, you don't even need a social security number. They will even give you a child tax credit check back in return. You don't even need to pay anything in.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 12:47:21 PM
You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?

I answer that in two parts. First, I suppose it's possible that there's a lot of smart, engaged people out there who just don't vote because they don't have the time to jump through a couple of rudimentary hoops like registering and presenting an ID, but I really doubt it. So, I think I'm making a pretty safe assumption that making it easier to vote than it already is is going bring in lots of additional stupid and/or lazy people to the electorate (if not outright fraud) on net. Do you agree so far?

Second, who do those lazy and/or stupid people vote for? There are certainly stupid and/or lazy Republican voters, but I think the majority will by and large vote for the party that will give them more handouts. I think that is a fair assumption to make.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 05, 2015, 12:52:05 PM
You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?

I answer that in two parts. First, I suppose it's possible that there's a lot of smart, engaged people out there who just don't vote because they don't have the time to jump through a couple of rudimentary hoops like registering and presenting an ID, but I really doubt it. So, I think I'm making a pretty safe assumption that making it easier to vote than it already is is going bring in lots of additional stupid and/or lazy people to the electorate (if not outright fraud) on net. Do you agree so far?

Second, who do those lazy and/or stupid people vote for? There are certainly stupid and/or lazy Republican voters, but I think the majority will by and large vote for the party that will give them more handouts. I think that is a fair assumption to make.

1.) I fixed your quote function blunder

2.) So, you're admitting that your opposition to making voting easier is that you *think* that it will cause more people to vote for the party you oppose, based on nothing but your gut feelings?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 12:53:43 PM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea

That's a flippant non-answer. Why is it good for democracy? We don't have a democracy, by the way, but a representative republic, precisely because we believed it would be a better form of government to not put every issue to the people for direct voting. Not unlike setting a threshold for voting in the first place.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 12:59:30 PM
You assume that the vast majority of people who don't vote now but would vote if it were easier would vote for D.  Why do you assume that?

I answer that in two parts. First, I suppose it's possible that there's a lot of smart, engaged people out there who just don't vote because they don't have the time to jump through a couple of rudimentary hoops like registering and presenting an ID, but I really doubt it. So, I think I'm making a pretty safe assumption that making it easier to vote than it already is is going bring in lots of additional stupid and/or lazy people to the electorate (if not outright fraud) on net. Do you agree so far?

Second, who do those lazy and/or stupid people vote for? There are certainly stupid and/or lazy Republican voters, but I think the majority will by and large vote for the party that will give them more handouts. I think that is a fair assumption to make.

1.) I fixed your quote function blunder

2.) So, you're admitting that your opposition to making voting easier is that you *think* that it will cause more people to vote for the party you oppose, based on nothing but your gut feelings?

Yes. It's no secret that oppose most democrat policies. I believe that electing a party to power based on handouts will put our country into a death spiral. So, I don't think that giving Democrats more power is good for this country, and I therefore don't believe that loosening voting requirements is good for this country.

I've answered all of your questions, now how about answering mine. Do you disagree with my assumptions? If so, why?

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 01:00:16 PM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

There are people way, way smarter than you who would like to keep you from voting.

We're talking about lowering requirements - not raising them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 05, 2015, 01:13:37 PM
I'm not convinced that your assumptions are correct, no.  For instance, I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but I would have if I could have done it online, and I would have voted for Romney (Texas, tho).  So, I didn't even have to venture beyond my own personal space to find one example that goes against your assumption.  That makes me think, surely there are many others.  How many others? Well, I don't know.  While I appreciate your honesty about your personal motivations for opposing the policy, I don't think politically-biased assumptions carry enough weight to win a policy argument. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 05, 2015, 01:20:44 PM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea

That's a flippant non-answer. Why is it good for democracy? We don't have a democracy, by the way, but a representative republic, precisely because we believed it would be a better form of government to not put every issue to the people for direct voting. Not unlike setting a threshold for voting in the first place.

It may or may not be "good" for democracy, but making it as easy as possible for every eligible voter to vote is the right thing to do.

Rather than disenfranchising a voting bloc you consider "lazy and dumb", perhaps candidates could do something to educate and reach out to those people and make them less "lazy and dumb". Wouldn't finding a way to make a large segment of the population more educated and productive be a good thing for society?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on June 05, 2015, 01:23:13 PM
Not ignoring a large portion of society may prove to actually be a good idea and solution for resolving problems that occur in that community and cost everyone money. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on June 05, 2015, 01:40:13 PM
It is disingenuous to argue, as KSUW seems to, that he favors a continuation of the status quo.  The status quo is dynamic--more restrictions/ID verifications/fewer voting days etc.  establishing a new line and then defending them means that the conversation is broader than "right now."  Because this issue is dynamic both in actual policy proposals (both democrats and republicans favor shifts to the status quo) policy preferences and in ideologies it is completely reasonable to discuss the alternative.  It is not a slippery slope to talk about more restrictions.

You made clear why you think that restricting the voting pool makes sense, others have shared why they think it is bad.  Why do you keep implying people are making bad faith arguments?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 03:16:20 PM
You made clear why you think that restricting the voting pool makes sense, others have shared why they think it is bad.  Why do you keep implying people are making bad faith arguments?

I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on June 05, 2015, 03:21:11 PM
I'm genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.

a rational society should aim to make everything easier for the members of that society.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 03:23:03 PM
I'm not convinced that your assumptions are correct, no.  For instance, I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but I would have if I could have done it online, and I would  :ROFL:have voted for Romney (Texas, tho).  So, I didn't even have to venture beyond my own personal space to find one example that goes against your assumption.  That makes me think, surely there are many others.  How many others? Well, I don't know.  While I appreciate your honesty about your personal motivations for opposing the policy, I don't think politically-biased assumptions carry enough weight to win a policy argument.

As I already said, it's possible that at least some people are intelligent and engaged and still could not vote due to our minimal requirements. You're evidently one such person, though I am a little dubious as to why voting was such a burden for you (I don't know what advanced and mail balloting is permitted in Texas). That doesn't change my overall opinion that, if you're smart and engaged, it's really not that hard at all to vote, so the additional voters that lower standards would yield will be, on net, dumber/lazier. If you disagree, fine. I freely admit I'm just going off my gut instinct. If you have anything more definitive to the contrary, please share.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 03:25:44 PM
I'm genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.

a rational society should aim to make everything easier for the members of that society.

Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense at all. We impose standards for all sorts of things. Driving, college admission, etc. There is not always merit to "making everything easier."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 03:31:21 PM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

It's really only a good idea if you think democracy is a good idea

That's a flippant non-answer. Why is it good for democracy? We don't have a democracy, by the way, but a representative republic, precisely because we believed it would be a better form of government to not put every issue to the people for direct voting. Not unlike setting a threshold for voting in the first place.

It may or may not be "good" for democracy, but making it as easy as possible for every eligible voter to vote is the right thing to do.

Rather than disenfranchising a voting bloc you consider "lazy and dumb", perhaps candidates could do something to educate and reach out to those people and make them less "lazy and dumb". Wouldn't finding a way to make a large segment of the population more educated and productive be a good thing for society?

To your first point, that's sys's argument and I addressed it above.

To your second point, that's a nice thought but it's not very realistic. It's also not a reason to lower standards. It is perhaps a remedy to lowered standards but, as I said, not very realistic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on June 05, 2015, 03:39:33 PM
There is not always merit to "making everything easier."

humans aren't very rational.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 05, 2015, 03:43:09 PM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

There are people way, way smarter than you who would like to keep you from voting.

We're talking about lowering requirements - not raising them.

2 sides of a coin.  Millions of people who are smarter than you wish you couldn't vote.  But they let you anyway.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 05, 2015, 03:44:13 PM
I'm not convinced that your assumptions are correct, no.  For instance, I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but I would have if I could have done it online, and I would  :ROFL:have voted for Romney (Texas, tho).  So, I didn't even have to venture beyond my own personal space to find one example that goes against your assumption.  That makes me think, surely there are many others.  How many others? Well, I don't know.  While I appreciate your honesty about your personal motivations for opposing the policy, I don't think politically-biased assumptions carry enough weight to win a policy argument.

As I already said, it's possible that at least some people are intelligent and engaged and still could not vote due to our minimal requirements. You're evidently one such person, though I am a little dubious as to why voting was such a burden for you (I don't know what advanced and mail balloting is permitted in Texas). That doesn't change my overall opinion that, if you're smart and engaged, it's really not that hard at all to vote, so the additional voters that lower standards would yield will be, on net, dumber/lazier. If you disagree, fine. I freely admit I'm just going off my gut instinct. If you have anything more definitive to the contrary, please share.

Being smart and engaged (how do you determine that, and who judges?) are not requirements for voting.  The tide of history is clear that virtually every action taken w/r/t voting has been aimed at expanding the franchise and making voting less burdensome.  It seems ridiculous to leave barriers in place that could be removed without creating additional risks for fraud or abuse simply out of fear of how those Americans would choose to spend their one vote. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 05, 2015, 03:52:59 PM
I'm genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.

a rational society should aim to make everything easier for the members of that society.

Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense at all. We impose standards for all sorts of things. Driving, college admission, etc. There is not always merit to "making everything easier."

Restrictions on driving have direct safety implications - restrictions on voting do not.


Quote
To your second point, that's a nice thought but it's not very realistic. It's also not a reason to lower standards. It is perhaps a remedy to lowered standards but, as I said, not very realistic.

Why is it unrealistic for your team to appeal to "dumb/lazy" people? And I think having a government that represents a larger percentage of its citizens is raising standards, not lowering them.

Why do you think voting is a good thing in general?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on June 05, 2015, 04:58:44 PM
Restrictions on driving have direct safety implications - restrictions on voting do not.

more to the point.  we aren't discussing easing or reducing restrictions on voting.  we are discussing making it easier to vote for all people that are already currently eligible to vote.  it is an unqualified benefit to society.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 05, 2015, 09:33:56 PM
Can anyone explain why showing ID to vote is a bad idea? Which eligible voters in the US are not able to obtain a local, state, or federal identification card? I have never heard a truly logical argument against.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on June 05, 2015, 09:35:39 PM
Can anyone explain why showing ID to vote is a bad idea? Which eligible voters in the US are not able to obtain a local, state, or federal identification card? I have never heard a truly logical argument against.

it's a good idea.  sometimes i feel like people aren't reading the thread.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 05, 2015, 09:42:49 PM
most rational people are fine with it as long as it doesn't cost anything
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 05, 2015, 10:48:51 PM
This week the race card. Next republicans get branded as women haters by the Queen Genital Ripper.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 06, 2015, 05:19:40 PM
It makes.me.sick how the media swarms over MG like bull peter gnats.  They don't care about the bull as long as they can suck blood from his happy cow tools.  Soon they are likely to flock to another bull. Just like last time when they chased young Obullma.  Even though a steer.
Title: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Tobias on June 06, 2015, 07:06:46 PM
*bowl
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 08, 2015, 09:38:34 AM
Restrictions on driving have direct safety implications - restrictions on voting do not.

more to the point.  we aren't discussing easing or reducing restrictions on voting.  we are discussing making it easier to vote for all people that are already currently eligible to vote.  it is an unqualified benefit to society.

I think she's also proposing universal automatic registration, too, right? If you're not registered, you're not eligible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 08, 2015, 09:44:36 AM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

There are people way, way smarter than you who would like to keep you from voting.

We're talking about lowering requirements - not raising them.

2 sides of a coin.  Millions of people who are smarter than you wish you couldn't vote.  But they let you anyway.

Yeah, I don't think any part of that statement is true. :gocho: I also think it's pretty silly to argue that imposing such tight voting restrictions that the electorate is cut to a few "millions of people" is really the same thing as requiring someone to register in advance, present an ID, and all the other minimal thresholds most states currently have for voting.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 08, 2015, 09:48:01 AM
I'm not convinced that your assumptions are correct, no.  For instance, I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but I would have if I could have done it online, and I would  :ROFL:have voted for Romney (Texas, tho).  So, I didn't even have to venture beyond my own personal space to find one example that goes against your assumption.  That makes me think, surely there are many others.  How many others? Well, I don't know.  While I appreciate your honesty about your personal motivations for opposing the policy, I don't think politically-biased assumptions carry enough weight to win a policy argument.

As I already said, it's possible that at least some people are intelligent and engaged and still could not vote due to our minimal requirements. You're evidently one such person, though I am a little dubious as to why voting was such a burden for you (I don't know what advanced and mail balloting is permitted in Texas). That doesn't change my overall opinion that, if you're smart and engaged, it's really not that hard at all to vote, so the additional voters that lower standards would yield will be, on net, dumber/lazier. If you disagree, fine. I freely admit I'm just going off my gut instinct. If you have anything more definitive to the contrary, please share.

Being smart and engaged (how do you determine that, and who judges?) are not requirements for voting.  The tide of history is clear that virtually every action taken w/r/t voting has been aimed at expanding the franchise and making voting less burdensome.  It seems ridiculous to leave barriers in place that could be removed without creating additional risks for fraud or abuse simply out of fear of how those Americans would choose to spend their one vote.

You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy. As for barriers that could be removed "without creating additional risks for fraud," that's part of the problem. I think adding additional convenience often does invite opportunities for fraud. Weren't you suggesting online voting a couple of pages ago?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 08, 2015, 11:25:09 AM
So nothing, huh? Nobody wants to explain why it's a good idea to make the voting electorate even dumber/lazier as a whole than it already is?

There are people way, way smarter than you who would like to keep you from voting.

We're talking about lowering requirements - not raising them.

2 sides of a coin.  Millions of people who are smarter than you wish you couldn't vote.  But they let you anyway.

Yeah, I don't think any part of that statement is true. :gocho: I also think it's pretty silly to argue that imposing such tight voting restrictions that the electorate is cut to a few "millions of people" is really the same thing as requiring someone to register in advance, present an ID, and all the other minimal thresholds most states currently have for voting.

the people I know who are smarter than you want people who aren't as smart as them to just stay home on election day.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 08, 2015, 11:27:23 AM
I'd still like to hear why K-S-U thinks democracy/representative republics/voting is a good idea in general.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 08, 2015, 11:30:51 AM
You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy.

I like how you believe we are in a growing idiocracy and want to cut education spending.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 08, 2015, 12:09:35 PM
You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy.

I like how you believe we are in a growing idiocracy and want to cut education spending.

There seems to be no correlation between education spending and the growing idiocracy, so why throw good money after bad?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 08, 2015, 01:39:30 PM
You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy.

I like how you believe we are in a growing idiocracy and want to cut education spending.

There seems to be no correlation between education spending and the growing idiocracy, so why throw good money after bad?

Maybe if you ignore all data and believe that we are actually in a growing idiocracy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 08, 2015, 01:41:15 PM
Lol at the idea that voters are less-informed now than in the past when you could choose to get your news from CBS, ABC or NBC if you were lucky enough to own a television. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 08, 2015, 01:55:18 PM
Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on June 08, 2015, 01:57:54 PM
Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

i would also ask that the electoral college rules for each state be changed to the nebraska system. proportional electorate vote distribution is the only way we will ever have a chance at a 3rd party being relevant
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 08, 2015, 01:59:58 PM
Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

What if I am in Iraq fighting ISIS?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 08, 2015, 02:25:05 PM
Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

What if I am in Iraq fighting ISIS?

See #1. Or fill out an absentee ballot. Or grab Mary and ride your camel towards Bethlehem.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 08, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
Here's the most rational way to look at this:

1) Voting should be as easy as possible without relaxing on the already embarrassingly de minimus voter authentication process.

2) The government is responsible for voting, all third party voter registration mills should be shuttered as inherently and obviously corrupt.

3) Voting is done on Voting Day.  There is no early voting. If you have enough time to vote, you have enough time to hear all of the candidates out.

4) Party affiliations are to be removed from the ballott.

What if I am in Iraq fighting ISIS?

See #1. Or fill out an absentee ballot. Or grab Mary and ride your camel towards Bethlehem.

I can vote in Bethlehem?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Spracne on June 08, 2015, 04:06:07 PM
Pennsylvania?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on June 09, 2015, 09:59:31 AM
Interesting Re: voting restrictions  (I don't necessarily think the conclusion is logical)

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/8/8740897/informed-voters-may-not-be-better-voters (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/8/8740897/informed-voters-may-not-be-better-voters)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 13, 2015, 04:45:14 PM
The Old Razzle Dazzle Mean Boss Cow, MG Clinton took another try at announcing for President.  she said Republicans are living in yesterday, but she wants to be like FDR. He has been dead for t0 plus years and young voters don't have a clue who he is.  She sounds like Obama in drag
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2015, 06:32:57 PM
So I guess she's already relaunching her campaign less than a month after she "launched" it with a youtube video - and the media appears to mostly be reporting it with a straight face. She wants to build an FDR/Obama coalition, whatever that means. I'm just gonna guess that means a lot of "free" stuff.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 14, 2015, 08:56:10 AM
She's not going to be able to launch over the fact that she sucks
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 14, 2015, 09:35:44 AM
She's not going to be able to launch over the fact that she sucks

This is a very good point
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2015, 01:08:25 PM
The potential to be :runaway: THE FIRST :runaway: will cover a lot of flaws, corruption, and just general repulsivity. There are tens of millions of people who will vote for her for that reason alone - and no, not all of them were going to vote Dem anyway.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 14, 2015, 01:12:06 PM
I think a lot women will vote against her for not leaving her two-timing serial rapist husband.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 14, 2015, 01:54:23 PM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 14, 2015, 03:41:42 PM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.
[/quote)
WE ARE SCREEEEEEEWED now you can be something if you think you are. Bill the Thrill could feel your pain and other things too. So Ms. MG Clinton will know what it is like to be black, poor, hispanic, nice, gay, and a fighter for freedom cause thought she was.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2015, 12:16:01 AM
well she did have that affair w/ Yoko
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 15, 2015, 07:42:19 AM
I see Hillary is still trying to pull off the southern preacher / Obama speaking cadence, and it's still just as cringeworthy. I'm guessing she's got some sort of public speaking coach who tells her this will make her sound less shrill.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/14/marco_rubio_ad_slams_clintons_yesterday_reference_yesterday_is_over.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/14/marco_rubio_ad_slams_clintons_yesterday_reference_yesterday_is_over.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: massofcatfan on June 15, 2015, 08:57:34 AM
Here is her campaign playlist (no Tammy Wynette?) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/hillary-clinton-spotify-playlist (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/hillary-clinton-spotify-playlist)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on June 15, 2015, 09:14:12 AM
Cringe worthy is right.  yeeesh.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ShellShock on June 15, 2015, 09:43:09 AM
After Benghazi and the coverup, how is she even being remotely being considered for a presidential nomination?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2015, 09:49:01 AM
After Benghazi and the coverup, how is she even being remotely being considered for a presidential nomination?

The democratic party is just a pile of crap for the most part.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ednksu on June 15, 2015, 09:49:34 AM
After Benghazi and the coverup, how is she even being remotely being considered for a presidential nomination?
Oh, you mean the coverup that the 'Pub investigation determined there was no coverup?  That coverup?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ednksu on June 15, 2015, 09:50:36 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2015, 09:51:25 AM
After Benghazi and the coverup, how is she even being remotely being considered for a presidential nomination?
Oh, you mean the coverup that the 'Pub investigation determined there was no coverup?  That coverup?

So the attack really was all about that Youtube video?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ednksu on June 15, 2015, 09:54:15 AM
After Benghazi and the coverup, how is she even being remotely being considered for a presidential nomination?
Oh, you mean the coverup that the 'Pub investigation determined there was no coverup?  That coverup?

So the attack really was all about that Youtube video?
Ummm 404 coverup
Being wrong happens, get over it and move on.  Sorry that the party of "no" couldn't even gin up enough proof to prove the claim of a coverup.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on June 15, 2015, 09:55:17 AM
It is pretty sad that the party knew she was going to be running and still couldn't find anyone better to shove in front.  It's like they want the Pubs to take it. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2015, 09:57:26 AM
It is pretty sad that the party knew she was going to be running and still couldn't find anyone better to shove in front.  It's like they want the Pubs to take it.

There is still some hope that O'Malley does well in his campaign and debates. The lack of other candidates is going to give him a very big spotlight for an extended period of time.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 15, 2015, 10:03:13 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ednksu on June 15, 2015, 10:03:16 AM
It is pretty sad that the party knew she was going to be running and still couldn't find anyone better to shove in front.  It's like they want the Pubs to take it.

There is still some hope that O'Malley does well in his campaign and debates. The lack of other candidates is going to give him a very big spotlight for an extended period of time.
Its pretty bad that the Dems are only fielding her.  Once again people will be looking for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for a candidate. 
Also it seems like the Dems are just sitting back for the 'Pubs to self destruct again. Eventually the 'Pubs will learn and will destroy the recordings (47% lol) or they will be smart enough to not make those comments and then the Dems will be in trouble.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ShellShock on June 15, 2015, 10:05:21 AM
After Benghazi and the coverup, how is she even being remotely being considered for a presidential nomination?
Oh, you mean the coverup that the 'Pub investigation determined there was no coverup?  That coverup?

I mean the coverup with destroying evidence...twice
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2015, 10:06:56 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

It's going to be killing Bin Laden. Obama has been mostly ineffective.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ednksu on June 15, 2015, 10:10:41 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

While I believe that Obama will go down as a moderate, president with a few highs and lows, the fact that you don't see that comment as racist and bigoted (or should I say BIgOT?) is troubling on a fundamental level.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 15, 2015, 10:30:40 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

While I believe that Obama will go down as a moderate, president with a few highs and lows, the fact that you don't see that comment as racist and bigoted (or should I say BIgOT?) is troubling on a fundamental level.

Sorry that you are fundamentally troubled by the common sense notion that we ought not to be voting for a person simply because they'll be "the first _____."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 15, 2015, 10:34:42 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

It's going to be killing Bin Laden. Obama has been mostly ineffective.

Only the most rabidly partisan liberals will really give Obama the credit for killing OBL - even popular movies such as Zero Dark Thirty give the credit where it belongs: the intelligence community and special forces. The first line of Obama's bio will be always be "the first black president." I don't think that's really debatable.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2015, 10:44:45 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

It's going to be killing Bin Laden. Obama has been mostly ineffective.

Only the most rabidly partisan liberals will really give Obama the credit for killing OBL - even popular movies such as Zero Dark Thirty give the credit where it belongs: the intelligence community and special forces. The first line of Obama's bio will be always be "the first black president." I don't think that's really debatable.

No, just about everyone will give the credit to Obama, just like Bush gets the credit for capturing Hussein.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 15, 2015, 11:51:14 AM
It is pretty sad that the party knew she was going to be running and still couldn't find anyone better to shove in front.  It's like they want the Pubs to take it.

There is still some hope that O'Malley does well in his campaign and debates. The lack of other candidates is going to give him a very big spotlight for an extended period of time.

You realize omalley was so bad that Maryland elected a pub governor for the first time in decades, right?  The dems have zero talent right now. As for the pubs, all their talent is still adjusting to the big leagues, as Edna points out.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ednksu on June 15, 2015, 12:00:34 PM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

While I believe that Obama will go down as a moderate, president with a few highs and lows, the fact that you don't see that comment as racist and bigoted (or should I say BIgOT?) is troubling on a fundamental level.

Sorry that you are fundamentally troubled by the common sense notion that we ought not to be voting for a person simply because they'll be "the first _____."

That isn't what that comment was about and you are ducking it because you know you're wrong.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2015, 12:01:55 PM
It is pretty sad that the party knew she was going to be running and still couldn't find anyone better to shove in front.  It's like they want the Pubs to take it.

There is still some hope that O'Malley does well in his campaign and debates. The lack of other candidates is going to give him a very big spotlight for an extended period of time.

You realize omalley was so bad that Maryland elected a pub governor for the first time in decades, right?  The dems have zero talent right now. As for the pubs, all their talent is still adjusting to the big leagues, as Edna points out.

I like the fact that I still really have no idea who O'Malley is. He basically has a clean slate to make himself presentable to the voting public. The biggest names in politics are usually the worst people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 15, 2015, 03:27:06 PM
Hillary said she is not about yesterday.  She a Same One Rut Democrat.  Spending more money is always the answer even when something is broken. In Iowa she said she would double spending for Head start.  In January, it was reported this program does nut increase the literacy of poor and minority youthies.  My grandpa use to say don't waste money by jamming it up a rathole; so MG wants to cram 2$ up a rathole.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 17, 2015, 06:54:03 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/the-clinton-foundation-non-profit-groups-fees-119030.html?hp=t1_r (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/the-clinton-foundation-non-profit-groups-fees-119030.html?hp=t1_r)

Quote
When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.

Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.

Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which has come under scrutiny for its fundraising and fiscal management, has taken in as much as $11.7 million in payments from other nonprofit groups. The money was paid for speeches given by Hillary Clinton; her husband, the former president; and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, since the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 2001, according to a POLITICO analysis of a list of speeches voluntarily released last month by the foundation.

The groups range from smaller charities like Long Beach’s Boys and Girls Club and an AIDS service provider, Chicago House, to public policy advocacy groups, large universities and trade associations.

The cash, according to Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian, allowed the foundation “to effectively and efficiently use our resources to implement programs that are fighting HIV/AIDS and childhood obesity, increasing opportunity for women and girls, lifting people out of poverty and combating climate change.”

Few of the groups talked publicly about their payments for Clinton speeches, citing concerns about angering the family or violating provisions in the speaking arrangements.
But fundraising experts and people affiliated with some nonprofits on the list — including the Boys and Girls Club — grumbled that the hefty price tag for securing a Clinton speech is a significant drain on small charities’ fundraising and that community-based nonprofits could put the money to better use.

It’s not uncommon for charities to build fundraising events around speakers with “star power” to sell tickets, even if the strategy doesn’t always pay dividends, said Marc A. Pitman, a nonprofit fundraising coach. Such speakers are often expected to return some portion of the speaking fee as a “gift to the club or sponsorship of an event or underwriter for some outreach.” It’s less common, he said, for “a bigger nonprofit to raise funds by speaking to smaller nonprofits. I don’t know of any other foundation that collects speaking fees.”

A Boys and Girls Club volunteer who helped plan Hillary Clinton’s appearance said the arrangement “felt more like a pay-to-play type thing.”
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 17, 2015, 07:16:27 AM
This is how the Clinton Foundation worked. They collected hundreds of millions in speaking fees and donations - sometimes from foreign governments and even other charities! - and laundered the money through the foundation. They gave less than 10% of the money raised in direct grants to other charities.

Most of the foundation money went to hazy "administration" costs - some of which may have been spent on charitable endeavors like giving out condoms in Africa, but much was also spent on building and paying an army of Clinton Cronies like Sid Vicious. More money was spent influence-peddling conferences, and other fundraisers.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/ (http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/)

Quote
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model .?.?. doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 17, 2015, 07:17:43 AM
Lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ShellShock on June 17, 2015, 07:43:09 AM
If this is turning into the Democrats trying to capture the female voters so Hilary actually gets the nomination, I would hope to god that the Republicans fight fire with fire and put Condoleezza Rice against her so she can destroy her. I would watch every single debate with popcorn in hand to see the smug grin get smacked off that bitches face.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 17, 2015, 09:13:35 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

While I believe that Obama will go down as a moderate, president with a few highs and lows, the fact that you don't see that comment as racist and bigoted (or should I say BIgOT?) is troubling on a fundamental level.

Sorry that you are fundamentally troubled by the common sense notion that we ought not to be voting for a person simply because they'll be "the first _____."

That isn't what that comment was about and you are ducking it because you know you're wrong.

That is precisely what the quote was about. Only a libtard would twist it into something racist. How do I know? Because he was referring to Obama and Hillary Clinton. Hillary isn't black. The thing they have in common is the demographic symbolism of being "the first _____." He was the first black president. She would be the first woman president. He was saying that we shouldn't be voting for someone based on them being "the first."

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 17, 2015, 09:18:08 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

It's going to be killing Bin Laden. Obama has been mostly ineffective.

Only the most rabidly partisan liberals will really give Obama the credit for killing OBL - even popular movies such as Zero Dark Thirty give the credit where it belongs: the intelligence community and special forces. The first line of Obama's bio will be always be "the first black president." I don't think that's really debatable.

No, just about everyone will give the credit to Obama, just like Bush gets the credit for capturing Hussein.

Bush got the credit for capturing Hussein because he started the war - for better or worse - that resulted in his capture and execution. Obama contributed nothing to OBL's capture other than dithering for months before finally approving the strike.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 17, 2015, 09:19:39 AM
Ksuw has been invigorated by donald trump!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on June 17, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
Ksuw has been invigorated by donald trump!

Who hasn't?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 20, 2015, 10:43:26 AM
Hillary and others of her ilk are to damn stupid to be President. First they are howling and spitting as they wag their tongues for gun control after Charlestown. Ban assult weapons and restrict the sale of guns to nut jobs.  Mop hair boy was given a handgun by his dad for his birthday. Their demands would not have stopped this Kkk wannabe.  Bush criticized  Clinton early in week for taking the stance that Christians must accept progressive policies even if they conscientiously oppose them.  Posta fired back progressives are against the way ISIS and the Taliban treat women, and asked if it was OK for them to to do this on grounds of religious freedom. Stupid at the edge of insanity for.a.comment.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 21, 2015, 10:14:31 AM
i wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.

naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.

"...one demographically symbolic president is enough"

/not a party of bigots

Still obsessing over that comment huh? I don't think it's racist or, frankly, inaccurate to point that being the first black president will probably be Obama's biggest success.

It's going to be killing Bin Laden. Obama has been mostly ineffective.

Only the most rabidly partisan liberals will really give Obama the credit for killing OBL - even popular movies such as Zero Dark Thirty give the credit where it belongs: the intelligence community and special forces. The first line of Obama's bio will be always be "the first black president." I don't think that's really debatable.

No, just about everyone will give the credit to Obama, just like Bush gets the credit for capturing Hussein.

Bush got the credit for capturing Hussein because he started the war - for better or worse - that resulted in his capture and execution. Obama contributed nothing to OBL's capture other than dithering for months before finally approving the strike.

Lucky he started the dumbest war we've ever fought!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 21, 2015, 01:52:34 PM
Hillary's Twitter account is insufferable
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on June 28, 2015, 07:13:22 PM
She is really drawing big crowds.  You hear scant policy statement specifics from her.   I don't agree with Bernie Sanders, but at least he has a principled backbone.  MG backbone is a poll.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on July 06, 2015, 01:41:26 PM
I cannot believe how stupid some people are when they say they will vote for Hillary because she is a woman.  I suppose this is why she will not talk to  the media.  Even if some of these dumb assessment knew her positions they would still vote for her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: AbeFroman on July 07, 2015, 11:21:29 AM
Hillary didn't support gay marriage in 2008  :surprised:. I don't like that she panders to them now about how she's fighting for them (for the record Abe was always pro-gay marriage). Vote Abe.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: gatoveintisiete on July 24, 2015, 04:12:37 PM
As of today, what are the odds Hillary is the D-nominee?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on July 24, 2015, 05:41:56 PM
Probs 60%-70%?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 24, 2015, 05:52:21 PM
Hillary didn't support gay marriage in 2008  :surprised:. I don't like that she panders to them now about how she's fighting for them (for the record Abe was always pro-gay marriage). Vote Abe.

You're already the Sausage King, don't be greedy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on July 24, 2015, 09:37:31 PM
As of today, what are the odds Hillary is the D-nominee?
I would say about 40%.  This email stuff is doing damage.  At some point Ohole will turn on her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: bones129 on July 25, 2015, 12:57:10 AM
Not likely.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on July 29, 2015, 12:10:35 PM
The double talker squawker Hillary Clinton is at it again.  She found  the practice of Planned Hamburger selling disected babies parts disgusting, but she supports this organization.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on July 29, 2015, 12:21:03 PM
All medical procedures are disgusting
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: ChiComCat on July 29, 2015, 02:49:10 PM
Why is a politician never allowed to change their mind?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: AbeFroman on July 29, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
All medical procedures are disgusting

This. Remember what TLC was like before it was all about little people and weirdo cult families that blame their daughters for getting molested?  :Yuck:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on July 31, 2015, 10:48:19 PM
With each new email from hell day,  Hillary stands on turd island waiting for the uncle Joe flush. At that point Sanders fads away like a mammoth fart.  And weird cousin Trump or nice grandpa Jeb is our next president.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 12, 2015, 11:08:24 AM
I know the amorous eaffair with Donald the Dufus is even suckling headline juice from MG, important news is breaking.  She gave her server and thumb drives to the FBI.  The crap is hitting the fan.  It was top secret stuff on an unsecured server that was private.  I think she broke the law as well as lie about everything.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2015, 11:33:36 AM
I haven't read all the stuff.  What kind of Internet connection did Hillary have on the server and did it have a firewall (not that it really matters because unless you're running the absolute best stuff, the pro's employed by governments and well funded criminal/terrorist organizations can blow right through lessor stuff once they've found you).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on August 12, 2015, 12:17:57 PM
Let me start by saying, I am fine with her being held accountable by the law.  That said, this will be the first time in my lifetime, that I am aware of, that this would mean a rough ridin' thing other than her simply not being elected to public office.

Let me also note that I don't want her elected to, or serving in/under, any further public office.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on August 12, 2015, 01:07:12 PM
how is it possible that our cybersecurity experts were not aware of this? it isnt. a lot more people than her should be going down for letting her get away with it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2015, 03:08:47 PM
Let me start by saying, I am fine with her being held accountable by the law.  That said, this will be the first time in my lifetime, that I am aware of, that this would mean a rough ridin' thing other than her simply not being elected to public office.

Let me also note that I don't want her elected to, or serving in/under, any further public office.

Well according to government working bro, they have to sign off annually on a deal that says they'll conduct no official government business of any kind on any IT system that isn't managed by the government.   Breaking that policy is punishable up to and including criminal prosecution. 

So, here we had the SOS apparently working in a private IT environment that appears to not even have a a firewall on it.    That's serious.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 12, 2015, 05:30:43 PM
We are in full agreement dax  :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SdK on August 12, 2015, 05:35:13 PM
Haven't read this thread since April. Am I still good to vote Hillary?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 12, 2015, 05:35:47 PM
Haven't read this thread since April. Am I still good to vote Hillary?

 :Yuck:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 12, 2015, 05:46:45 PM
I wish every time someone typed in the name Hillary that it would autocorrect to Benghazi.  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Tobias on August 12, 2015, 10:41:06 PM
hehe
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 12, 2015, 10:53:12 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 13, 2015, 10:57:00 AM
Come on MG.  She handed over a blank server to the FBI.  No information.  We are not stupid.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 13, 2015, 05:45:18 PM
http://observer.com/2015/08/the-countless-crimes-of-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor-needed-now/

Ghost of Nixon is literally enthralled with the Clintons at this juncture . . . couldn't possibly be more impressed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 13, 2015, 06:00:22 PM
 :frown:

She didn't have an official State Dept email address until 2013. For at least three years she only used her personal email server for all email, and the server administrators are either crooks or were hacked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3197093/Tech-company-maintained-Hillary-s-secret-server-sued-illegally-accessing-databases-creating-chaos-stealing-White-House-phone-numbers.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3197093/Tech-company-maintained-Hillary-s-secret-server-sued-illegally-accessing-databases-creating-chaos-stealing-White-House-phone-numbers.html)

Quote
The Secretary of State's emails would have been potentially a target for foreign espionage.

Mrs Clinton installed the system at her home in Chappaqua, upstate New York, and did not even have an official email address until the year she left office.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 15, 2015, 02:02:33 PM
MG joked yesterday she has Snapchat, and loves how emails disappear.  Breaking the law and lying to America, God Bless it, is not funny.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on August 15, 2015, 03:33:12 PM
The general public love to tell each other that "they aren't computer people", and how they "just hate how communication is all about texting and email these days".  Those ppl are lol 'ing right along w her.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on August 15, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
I am 100% on board with the renocat use of Mean Grandma and especially shortening it to MG. it makes me grin every time I read it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Panjandrum on August 15, 2015, 04:19:30 PM
If all of this means that I end up having to vote for Bernie Sanders, I'm going to be pissed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on August 15, 2015, 04:26:00 PM
I would vote Bernie in the primary.   I think his govt/money issue needs a bright light for an extended period of time. 

I mean, so far none of them are worth a vote.  I would like it if we could have a few candidates pick up a few issues that aren't abortion, and actually maybe do something. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on August 15, 2015, 04:52:42 PM
it is amazing that the democrats are hell bent on going into this election without a single appealing candidate.  they're approaching this thing like it's a handicap race.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: steve dave on August 15, 2015, 05:09:43 PM

it is amazing that the democrats are hell bent on going into this election without a single appealing candidate.  they're approaching this thing like it's a handicap race.

Yes, the approach from both sides is rough ridin' ridiculous.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 15, 2015, 05:35:40 PM
I'm placing all my hope in kasich
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 15, 2015, 05:36:25 PM
Though b sand is my boy and I would love if he could win
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 15, 2015, 10:51:23 PM
MG was at the Iowa State Fair today, and no one could get near her. Smile and wave at the peons and dumb hog farmers. She yucked it up and said her email problems are caused by a right wing conspiracy, right out of the Clinton playbook.  What's next? I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT SERVER.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 17, 2015, 06:04:41 PM
The MG belly flop dive inot the cesspool of oblivion continues,  300 emails being scrutinized as top secret.  Some expect emails backed up to another server.   The lying old rip, lies again to us stupid peons.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 18, 2015, 10:09:01 AM
The dung beetles are swarming at Hillary's feet.  Today it is reported her lawyer who had copies of her emails on thumb drives did not have the security clearance to have this information.  Also MG claims none of the emails were tagged confidential or top secret when she got them, but state department officials said they had to have been so marked.  Who took off the labeling if she ain't lying?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Institutional Control on August 18, 2015, 10:10:23 AM
Maybe I missed it but what does the acronym MG stand for?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on August 18, 2015, 10:11:24 AM
She is done.  The question now is who will the Dems put up in her place and how will they explain that person's absence up until now?  I really hope it isn't Biden.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on August 18, 2015, 10:46:37 AM
Maybe I missed it but what does the acronym MG stand for?

mean grandma
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2015, 11:46:21 AM
Did get a chance to listen to always humourous conservative talk radio this morning for a bit.   I don't know who the guy was, there's like 11eventybillion of them now.    But multiple Hillary defenders (legit or planted callers??) phoned into say that the senders of the reportedly classified emails are the one's responsible for ensuring security, not the receiver.    That's fine, but apparently they're not real concerned that server(s) were in a bathroom closet and by all accounts not all that secure both physically and on the network.   Not to mention those pesky Gov't regs regarding conducting gov't business in an IT environment etc. etc.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on August 18, 2015, 11:52:42 AM
Did get a chance to listen to always humourous conservative talk radio this morning for a bit.   I don't know who the guy was, there's like 11eventybillion of them now.    But multiple Hillary defenders (legit or planted callers??) phoned into say that the senders of the reportedly classified emails are the one's responsible for ensuring security, not the receiver.    That's fine, but apparently they're not real concerned that server(s) were in a bathroom closet and by all accounts not all that secure both physically and on the network.   Not to mention those pesky Gov't regs regarding conducting gov't business in an IT environment etc. etc.

I would also assume that there would be plenty of emails she generated that would need to be deemed classified where the responsibility would be hers.  Also, if you are the Sec of State, receive an email that isn't classified, notice it should be classified, I would think that your job should be to fix that issue, rather than perpetuate it.  Is control of info not part of the gig?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 18, 2015, 11:59:08 AM
Dax is just constantly assaulted with MG defenders, which is weird because they are extremely rare in my life
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on August 18, 2015, 12:05:04 PM
democrats are lucking into dodging a bullet if clinton is going to get hounded out of the race.  amazingly, they hadn't noticed that she was unelectable, with or without email scandals.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 18, 2015, 12:06:19 PM
democrats are lucking into dodging a bullet if clinton is going to get hounded out of the race.  amazingly, they hadn't noticed that she was unelectable, with or without email scandals.

They noticed in 2008
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Institutional Control on August 18, 2015, 12:08:15 PM
I'm hoping this email thing causes her to withdraw.  Sad news is there doesn't appear to be any other viable candidates. Although there is nothing in the world I want to see more than a Biden v Trump debate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sys on August 18, 2015, 12:09:48 PM
They noticed in 2008

maybe they forgot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 18, 2015, 12:13:07 PM
Hi Joe, can I call you LOOOOOSAH?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: CNS on August 18, 2015, 12:23:22 PM
I'm hoping this email thing causes her to withdraw.  Sad news is there doesn't appear to be any other viable candidates. Although there is nothing in the world I want to see more than a Biden v Trump debate.

It would be the ultimate in political entertainment.  It would suck for basically every other reason.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2015, 12:29:43 PM
lib must live in a world full of mirrors because she seems to think every post is directed at her.

Strange, yet sad.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 18, 2015, 12:31:26 PM
We were both just relaying some of our personal experiences dax. Compare/contrast, things of that nature
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: chum1 on August 18, 2015, 01:09:10 PM
Yeah, no way Hillary survives an August email scandal. She's done.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2015, 01:10:07 PM
So you do realize that there's still a lot of Hillary supporters out there, and you've got some Dem, no, many Dem talking heads saying this is "all gonna blow over and isn't a big deal".  Right?

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 18, 2015, 01:13:03 PM
I'm sure they're out there, I'm just saying I never interact with, see in media, or read about them (other than personal anecdotes from the daxman)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 18, 2015, 02:09:00 PM
A race between Low Blow Joe and Comrade Bernie would be fun to see and hear.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2015, 06:25:53 PM
I'm sure they're out there, I'm just saying I never interact with, see in media, or read about them (other than personal anecdotes from the daxman)

lib, why would any candidate stay in a campaign for President of the United States if they didn't have any supporters?   I'm sure the Clinton Machine and its pollsters, aides and staffers could get to the bottom of the question, "Is there anyone who supports Hillary Clinton"? If the answer came back, "no one", I would say that would be pretty easily identified.  Identified with verve, zeal and speed . . . no one is, well, kind of definitive, right?   

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 18, 2015, 06:46:10 PM
we agree dax, she should get out!   :cheers:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 19, 2015, 09:48:09 AM
What does a server, a loft apartment, a bathroom, and Denver have in common.  Where top secret state department information was stored.  If MG isn't guilty of something, then she is an incompetent boobs manager.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 20, 2015, 06:30:41 AM
As the story grows one can conjure up all kinds of things.   Were they laundering money, running some sort of clandestine operation, or really dumb?   

I can't imagine any managed IT company of any note advising a client to operate in the fashion that they did. 

It's time for a grand jury investigation and/or special prosecutor.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 21, 2015, 08:47:53 AM
I think Dax is going to get his wish.  The FBI is saying if MG didn't get messages marked as classified, then who took the marking off?    Did Hillinhelly tell them to remove them?  Will Obama throw her a bag of bricks as she drowning?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on August 23, 2015, 10:23:49 PM
Does this woman know when to quit digging her hole deeper.  She had her lawyer Kendall issue a typical save the Clinton lawyer diatribe of chunk crap bs,  When you have to have an attorniquitte save your bacon  you are in deep horse manure.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: bones129 on August 24, 2015, 12:58:59 AM
Does this woman know when to quit digging her hole deeper.  She had her lawyer Kendall issue a typical save the Clinton lawyer diatribe of chunk crap bs,  When you have to have an attorniquitte save your bacon  you are in deep horse manure.

Do you have an attorney reno?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 04, 2015, 01:56:58 PM
Hi ho, hi ho, off to jail I go.   Hillary claims that the state department knew she was using another private server like all secretaries of state since Washington's administration.  Breitbart report state department IT did not know this.  Hillary is the dungdevil incarnated.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 05, 2015, 07:53:43 AM
Hilliary personally paid a state department IT guy to maintain her personal server.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 05, 2015, 09:04:58 AM
The drumbeat of vast right wing conspiracy grows, with people like Krugman weighing in (I mean Paul has been objective about politics in years) calling it a political scandal.

I've read where the domain was hosted in New Zealand by Network Solutions, who is never going to fool anybody into thinking they're anything but a general, run-of-the-mill hosting company with barely acceptable security. 

It appears the apologists just can't bring themselves to admit that running your own IT operation to conduct government business is a huge bad thing.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 08, 2015, 02:52:28 PM
Today it is being reported that two of the emails received by MG, secretary of private servers, were marked top secret when created, but somehow when she got them they were not.  Someone under her screwed up or were acting on her orders.   Imagine what illegal dungmeat she will do as President.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 10, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
A federal judge who ordered the state department to release of Hillary emails is asking for more time to do so after already taking their own sweet time.  So obama and Kerry hired someone to get on top of this.  The new release manager has contributed to the MG Clinton campaign.  Like a cat cover clincrapton in a litter box.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2015, 05:43:03 AM
Project veritas strikes again, catching Hillary staffers blatantly violating voter registration laws in Nevada. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 14, 2015, 01:07:37 PM
Ghost of Nixon has demon possessed MG.   They found a 5 month gap in the emails she turned in; kind of like the gaps in the Nixon tapes.  Hillary swear under oath she turned in everything.  Liar.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 17, 2015, 04:34:32 PM
Was the DNC really roping off protesters demanding more debates yesterday? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on September 17, 2015, 09:28:30 PM
Project veritas strikes again, catching Hillary staffers blatantly violating voter registration laws in Nevada.

really?  what happened?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 17, 2015, 09:43:08 PM
Hillary recently made a big deal about fighting sexual asaults on women.  ..??? Bill has been charged with rape and ravaging.  MG"s galpal aide Huma is married to Anthony weiner, the guy that sent weasel pictures to women.  I believe you are the company you keep.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 17, 2015, 10:59:38 PM
there's nothing wrong with sending weasel pictures to women that want them
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: bones129 on September 18, 2015, 01:06:39 AM
there's nothing wrong with sending weasel pictures to women that want them

Did they want them?   :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 18, 2015, 06:00:39 AM

Project veritas strikes again, catching Hillary staffers blatantly violating voter registration laws in Nevada.

really?  what happened?

It's against Nevada law to do any type of campaigning while engaged in voter registration.  Veritas caught them breaking that law and talking about how they know they break that law but do it anyway.   

They've also been busted for avoiding registering people who said they don't support Hillary, which is also illegal.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 18, 2015, 07:27:01 AM
there's nothing wrong with sending weasel pictures to women that want them

Did they want them?   :dunno:

In the example given, yes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on September 18, 2015, 07:57:14 AM

Project veritas strikes again, catching Hillary staffers blatantly violating voter registration laws in Nevada.

really?  what happened?

It's against Nevada law to do any type of campaigning while engaged in voter registration.  Veritas caught them breaking that law and talking about how they know they break that law but do it anyway.   

They've also been busted for avoiding registering people who said they don't support Hillary, which is also illegal.

Don't know much about the rest of it, but that is not illegal.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 18, 2015, 08:39:40 AM
Hillary recently made a big deal about fighting sexual asaults on women.  ..??? Bill has been charged with rape and ravaging.  MG"s galpal aide Huma is married to Anthony weiner, the guy that sent weasel pictures to women.  I believe you are the company you keep.

But Hillary recently told the victims of sexual assult "you have a right to be heard, you have a right to be believed"! I guess that didn't apply to all the "bimbos" her hubby "allegedly" sexually assaulted when she played a lead role in tearing them to shreds? :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 18, 2015, 08:48:54 AM
BillClintonIsInnocent
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 23, 2015, 06:04:06 PM
Hillary screamed at Obama to remove his copulation dogs from hunching her leg.  This president ain't stupid.  He is not going to be flushed down clinton crapper.  FBI has said they can retrieve the emails MG xeleted.   Must be damning things on them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on September 24, 2015, 11:53:34 PM
MG Nixon has been lying to us about Huma the Handmaid Hack.  Hil-Liary told NBC Andrea Mitchell that she had done nothing directly with giving Humus a special position that allowed her to work at State and for a political consulting company at the same time.  NY Times reported MG signed the order for Hooma to have this special position.  It is  being rumored that. Hielillary is suffering from brain farts, and fogets things like she is a crook.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 24, 2015, 11:55:25 PM
i wonder what hielillary's brain farts smell like
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 25, 2015, 08:32:59 AM
Debbie DNC is still lock tight air cover for Hillary.

Like I said, any party that works so hard to protect a criminal doesn't deserve the White House.   No wonder so many ProgLibs are pining for the old white guy to jump into the race.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 25, 2015, 08:38:35 AM
We already have a great old white guy in the race #feelthebern
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 25, 2015, 01:10:17 PM
I meant another one.  Damn you're so prickly when your party acts like asshats. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 25, 2015, 01:15:22 PM
Another case of dax confusing  :D and  :curse:

Does slobber do this too?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 25, 2015, 01:17:27 PM
You're unbelievably weird.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on September 25, 2015, 01:21:16 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on September 25, 2015, 07:44:36 PM
Debbie DNC is still lock tight air cover for Hillary.

Like I said, any party that works so hard to protect a criminal doesn't deserve the White House.   No wonder so many ProgLibs are pining for the old white guy to jump into the race.



Take it back.  Take back that mean thing you said about joe.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on October 01, 2015, 12:14:00 PM
MSN reports Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser that the White House gave MG Hillary guidance forbidding her from using private email.  JUST LET THAT SOAK IN.  Queen MG has stated for months past Secretary of States used private emails.  We all know she used private email not the government's.  Old Hide decided to do this herself in total disregard of the Presidential orders.  Audacity deluxe.  Apply this mindset to the Presidency and she will think it is okay to do anything she damn pleases.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 01, 2015, 01:08:21 PM
Disobeying Obama will score her some major points on the right
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on October 05, 2015, 08:36:57 AM
MG wants gun manufacturers, distributers, and sellers to be liable for damages caused by a gun connected to them.    She is is a commie queen.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: OK_Cat on October 05, 2015, 08:49:23 AM
The only thing Hillary is illegally doing is living inside the heads of the resident pubs without paying rent :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 05, 2015, 08:51:39 AM
MG wants gun manufacturers, distributers, and sellers to be liable for damages caused by a gun connected to them.    She is is a commie queen.

How's that communist?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 05, 2015, 09:59:48 AM
The information below was reported over a month ago, but I don't think it has received the attention it deserves. Chuck Todd did not deign to ask Hillary about it during his recent interview. But it sure seems to be a smoking gun that Hillary sent and received classified information on her home server, and therefore committed a felony.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423371/hillary-clinton-emails-tony-blair-classified-information (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423371/hillary-clinton-emails-tony-blair-classified-information)

Quote
Tony Blair knew about Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail account before the American people did — and his off-the-grid e-mail exchanges with Clinton are another sledgehammer to the already crumbling edifice of excuses offered in defense of her homebrew server.

Among the thousands of Clinton e-mails released by the State Department last night were direct exchanges with foreign dignitaries such as former prime minister (and then special envoy for the Middle East Quartet) Blair and internal exchanges between State Department officials about those conversations. The conversations cover a wide range of world hot spots, including the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iran, Sudan, and Haiti. Many of them — nearly 200 in total to date [it's actually norht of 400 now!] — have now been classified by the State Department as “foreign government information” and redacted or withheld from release. The very nature of the communications in those e-mails established that they contained classified information from their inception. Mrs. Clinton’s defense that she did not know of the existence of such information on her server at the time is laughable.

...

With some urgency, Hillary Clinton asked Tony Blair to cancel a speech scheduled in Aspen, Colo., to “go to Israel as part of our full court press on keeping the Middle East negotiations going.” Blair obliged, and Clinton e-mailed the organizers of the Aspen conference to explain the cancelation. She then e-mailed Blair that his schedule was now clear: “Tony — Message Delivered. . . . I’m copying Jake Sullivan because I’ve asked him to arrange a call w you once you land so you can be fully briefed before seeing BN [Netanyahu]. We are on a fast moving train changing every hour but determined to reach our destination.”

Later that day, Blair responded: “Hi Hillary. Just spent 3 hours with BB [Netanyahu]. Ready to speak when convenient but should do it on a secure line.” There is no indication whether that secure conversation took place, but the message certainly indicates that Blair at least understood the sensitivity of the subject matter.

Blair e-mailed Clinton again the next day, copying Sullivan, Clinton’s aide, apparently on a private e-mail account of his own. The entirety of that e-mail has been redacted from public disclosure as part of the FOIA release. Why? Because it has now been acknowledged as classified information and formally marked “Confidential” by State Department reviewers. The markings that accompany the redactions (which took place just this week as part of the release) explain that the redacted portion is classified under parts 1.4(B) and 1.4(D) of President Obama’s Executive Order 13526. Thus, it falls within the categories of information classified as “foreign government information” — 1.4(B) — and information relating to “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources” — 1.4(D).

If Hillary sent and received classified information on her home server - and it appears to be indisputable that she did - that's a felony under Title 18, Section 1924 subject to a fine and possible imprisonment.

Hillary has offered the excuse that none of the information was "marked" as classified at the time she sent it, but this excuse fails for two reasons: (1) whether information is classified depends upon the information, not the marking, and (2) the information couldn't have been marked as classified because Hillary hid it on her private server!!

So is there really any serious debate anymore about whether Hillary committed a felony? Please explain.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on October 05, 2015, 10:33:15 AM
MG wants gun manufacturers, distributers, and sellers to be liable for damages caused by a gun connected to them.    She is is a commie queen.

How's that communist?

gun manufacturers are like the only things not liable for damage or injury caused by their product. I mean a chair tips and over someone gets hurt the chair factory can be in some deep crap.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 05, 2015, 10:35:57 AM
MG wants gun manufacturers, distributers, and sellers to be liable for damages caused by a gun connected to them.    She is is a commie queen.

How's that communist?

gun manufacturers are like the only things not liable for damage or injury caused by their product. I mean a chair tips and over someone gets hurt the chair factory can be in some deep crap.

Chairs aren't designed to tip over, though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on October 05, 2015, 10:42:32 AM
MG wants gun manufacturers, distributers, and sellers to be liable for damages caused by a gun connected to them.    She is is a commie queen.

How's that communist?

gun manufacturers are like the only things not liable for damage or injury caused by their product. I mean a chair tips and over someone gets hurt the chair factory can be in some deep crap.

Chairs aren't designed to tip over, though.

yeah, but there are laws in place regulating their safety. Laws regulating safety mechanisms on guns are just absurd compared to like, every other product.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: puniraptor on October 05, 2015, 10:43:48 AM
a gun's intended purpose is to kill. i find it hard to imagine holding the company responsible just because it killed the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 05, 2015, 11:15:45 AM
a gun's intended purpose is to kill. i find it hard to imagine holding the company responsible just because it killed the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Correct. Gun manufacturers can and are held liable for product defects. Somebody going a shooting spree with a gun is a defect in the shooter - not the gun. You wouldn't expect a victim of a drunk driver to sue the car manufacturer.

It's worth debating whether a person who purchases a gun should be held liable for the way that gun is used by others, unless it is reported as stolen to the police.

But shouldn't this be in the gun control thread?

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how Hillary didn't commit a felony in e-mailing communications that have now been redacted as classified.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 05, 2015, 11:24:52 AM
a gun's intended purpose is to kill. i find it hard to imagine holding the company responsible just because it killed the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Correct. Gun manufacturers can and are held liable for product defects. Somebody going a shooting spree with a gun is a defect in the shooter - not the gun. You wouldn't expect a victim of a drunk driver to sue the car manufacturer.

It's worth debating whether a person who purchases a gun should be held liable for the way that gun is used by others, unless it is reported as stolen to the police.

But shouldn't this be in the gun control thread?

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how Hillary didn't commit a felony in e-mailing communications that have now been redacted as classified.

It sounds to me like she probably did.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 05, 2015, 11:27:24 AM
Hillary is really drilling on the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) populist agenda. She will have no problem culling 1/3 of the vote.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 05, 2015, 12:51:39 PM
I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how Hillary didn't commit a felony in e-mailing communications that have now been redacted as classified.

It sounds to me like she probably did.

Then how is it that she is still at or near the top in most polls?

Do Democrats not care that their preferred candidate engaged in felony possession of classified information on a less-secure home server in order to hide her correspondence from FOIA requests - it's TIME for a woman?

Or is the field so desperately thin that they're just supporting her over an avowed socialist?

Or are many Democrats simply not aware that Clinton likely committed a felony because it hasn't gotten enough media coverage (the MSM actually is covering it quite a bit, though they haven't really focused on this smoking gun)?

These are all serious questions, btw. I'm genuinely curious about the liberal mindset on this. Conservative voters would have ousted any of their candidates a long time ago over something like this, but they've got many more candidates to choose from.

It's really pretty remarkable. The Dems' current choices are (1) a septuagenarian socialist, (2) a sexagenarian socialist-lite who engaged in felony possession of classified material on a home server to hide her correspondence, (3) Martin O'Malley.

O'Malley is by far the most palatable choice, and he's barely registering in the polls!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 05, 2015, 12:55:34 PM
Most people don't care, and you know that

Most neocons only care because it's Hillary, any conservative candidate would get away with it too and the libtard would be just as condescending about it as you
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 05, 2015, 01:04:28 PM
Most people don't care, and you know that

Most neocons only care because it's Hillary, any conservative candidate would get away with it too and the libtard would be just as condescending about it as you

Your second point is laughable. A conservative would not get away with this, either from the media or the GOP. He or should would have been quickly kicked to the curb.

Regarding your first point, maybe they don't care that she's a felon, but shouldn't they at least care whether she's electable? I mean, sure, she can probably survive the primaries, but the general election?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 05, 2015, 01:12:02 PM
The gop doesn't seem to be that concerned with their candidates being electable in the general
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on October 15, 2015, 04:30:15 PM
I read where Bill the Thrill is most worried about Rubio and his message new ideas for a new generation and the strong support from Latinos.  MG would appear as a mean old hag with old ideas that haven't worked.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 16, 2015, 09:10:22 AM
Here's the latest on the Felon Frontrunner Hillary Clinton...

First, there is some frustration among the FBI that Obama is attempting to influence their investigation into FFHC. Well yeah, that's not exactly a surprise. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0)

Second, the FBI may be focusing in on the "gross negligence" provision of 18 USC 793. which is not good news for FFHC if true. This provision is the most likely to support indictment, though there are others (such as obstruction of justice in deleting and failing to disclose the e-mails). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/source-fbi-probe-clinton-email-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/source-fbi-probe-clinton-email-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2015, 10:09:22 AM
Most people are dumb and will only vote for whomever will give them largest slice of Gov't cheese.

Look at Lib and resident ProgLibs Dems, being forced into a corner to defend a pathological liar and criminal and one of the biggest supporters of the Iraq War and U.S. military/Clandestine actions around the world performing unilateral regime change, de-stablization campaigns, drone strikes etc. etc. Hillary was the driving force behind the absurd campaign to overthrow the Libyan government.   I'm not quite sure where Hillary stood with the Muslim Brotherhood, was she shaking hands and loving all of them like John Kerry does?   

On Patriot Act etc. etc.  Is Hillary pulling a "I was for before I was against" bait and switch?   The lady lies so much I can't tell.





Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2015, 10:12:43 AM
[quote author=K-
First, there is some frustration among the FBI that Obama is attempting to influence their investigation into FFHC. Well yeah, that's not exactly a surprise. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0)

Second, the FBI may be focusing in on the "gross negligence" provision of 18 USC 793. which is not good news for FFHC if true. This provision is the most likely to support indictment, though there are others (such as obstruction of justice in deleting and failing to disclose the e-mails). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/source-fbi-probe-clinton-email-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/source-fbi-probe-clinton-email-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision/)
[/quote]

America is "sick and tired" of this KSUW!! 

When Dems face indictment:  Constantly tell everyone that Americans are tired of hearing it and simply don't care.   ProgLibLemmingDem Rule Book Section 12:1:4:2

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 16, 2015, 10:13:13 AM
Link?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2015, 10:13:59 AM
Link?

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2015, 10:15:25 AM
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121879/hillary-clinton-should-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 16, 2015, 10:16:02 AM
Specifically about me defending MG
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2015, 10:16:39 AM
Specifically about me defending MG

Who is MG?

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 16, 2015, 10:23:00 AM
Mrs Gooch
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: LickNeckey on October 16, 2015, 12:03:14 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/07/jeb-bush-scott-walker-hillary-clinton-private-emails

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article21180384.html

 :nono:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 16, 2015, 12:50:28 PM
[quote author=K-
First, there is some frustration among the FBI that Obama is attempting to influence their investigation into FFHC. Well yeah, that's not exactly a surprise. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0)

Second, the FBI may be focusing in on the "gross negligence" provision of 18 USC 793. which is not good news for FFHC if true. This provision is the most likely to support indictment, though there are others (such as obstruction of justice in deleting and failing to disclose the e-mails). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/source-fbi-probe-clinton-email-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/source-fbi-probe-clinton-email-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision/)

America is "sick and tired" of this KSUW!! 

When Dems face indictment:  Constantly tell everyone that Americans are tired of hearing it and simply don't care.   ProgLibLemmingDem Rule Book Section 12:1:4:2
[/quote]

that is a Clinton staple.  Bill convinced everyone that the GOP was freaking out about a little hanky panky.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 16, 2015, 01:08:03 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/07/jeb-bush-scott-walker-hillary-clinton-private-emails

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article21180384.html

 :nono:

Did any of those instances involve the sending and receipt of classified national security information?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on October 16, 2015, 01:34:25 PM
Mrs Gooch

 :sdeek:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2015, 08:37:16 PM
Hillary Supporters:  Obfuscation and redirection lives here. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on October 16, 2015, 10:50:58 PM
Who gave MG the authority to set up this server system designed by Clockmed's cousin Airbrainhene.  She said today she decided to do it herself - no approval from the Big O.  An illegal system not approved by anyone, breaking of the Espeinoge act and FOIA, and a big bird to America, I think she is drowning in a sea of crap.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on October 17, 2015, 11:14:34 PM
MG the guns will stay on my shelf and you ain't going to get them.  Your buy back is money that could be used to pay for a starving old nice grandpa.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on October 18, 2015, 10:10:48 AM
Hillary is upset the Alabama country driver license offices are being closed due budget. She is saying this discriminates against blacks.  And.they can't get
Voter id.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 19, 2015, 12:16:54 PM
CIA director had his rough ridin' AOL account hacked, which included sensitive govt. info. This after Hillary's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)/illegal fuckup.

1. How has the Administration not addressed this?
2. Will be interesting to see if he is treated differently than MG
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 31, 2015, 06:46:07 AM
Latest email dump reveals that Hillary approved additional security for Libyan PM - but not our own ambassador.

Also, Hillary advocated military action in Libya to stabilize oil prices! :lol: Where are the "no blood for oil" libtards now?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-boosted-benghazi-security-for-libyan-pm-emails/article/2575364 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-boosted-benghazi-security-for-libyan-pm-emails/article/2575364)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 31, 2015, 06:49:18 AM
New emails yield more smoking gun proof that Hillary sent classified national security info via her private server...

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/proof-hillary-sent-classified-info_1055964.html (http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/proof-hillary-sent-classified-info_1055964.html)

Even in America, we still have enough rule of law that she has to be indicted, right? Right? The evidence is clear as day.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: wetwillie on October 31, 2015, 07:03:13 AM
She isn't going to be charged.  And she will likely win the general, you should probably prep for that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2015, 07:10:39 AM
Hillary "Big Oil" Clinton . . . but hey she's a "believer" on Climate Change.    But maybe Hillary knows Big Oil/Big Energy is already geared up and ready to profit when the Draconian Economic Climate laws hit the books.   Mountains of cash ready to go buy up alternative energy companies and or enforce the copious patents they already own.

Hillary Clinton:  A proud Big Oil/Big Energy storm trooper!






Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 31, 2015, 08:15:02 AM
She isn't going to be charged.  And she will likely win the general, you should probably prep for that.

Even if she isn't charged, her negatives are over 50%. She doesn't really have any room for improvement - pretty much everyone already knows who she is and has formed an opinion of her.

Assuming GOP nominates someone who's not nearly as toxic (pretty much anyone except Trump or Cruz), Hillary's not going to win Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio. I don't see her path to victory with such high negatives.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Kat Kid on October 31, 2015, 09:37:01 AM

She isn't going to be charged.  And she will likely win the general, you should probably prep for that.

Even if she isn't charged, her negatives are over 50%. She doesn't really have any room for improvement - pretty much everyone already knows who she is and has formed an opinion of her.

Assuming GOP nominates someone who's not nearly as toxic (pretty much anyone except Trump or Cruz), Hillary's not going to win Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio. I don't see her path to victory with such high negatives.

You are going to be very disappointed and surprised when once again the national electorate displays its disgust for the current GOP platform.  What will the excuse be then?  Wrong candidate?  Wrong message?  MSM?  Voter fraud?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 31, 2015, 10:06:54 AM

She isn't going to be charged.  And she will likely win the general, you should probably prep for that.

Even if she isn't charged, her negatives are over 50%. She doesn't really have any room for improvement - pretty much everyone already knows who she is and has formed an opinion of her.

Assuming GOP nominates someone who's not nearly as toxic (pretty much anyone except Trump or Cruz), Hillary's not going to win Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio. I don't see her path to victory with such high negatives.

You are going to be very disappointed and surprised when once again the national electorate displays its disgust for the current GOP platform.  What will the excuse be then?  Wrong candidate?  Wrong message?  MSM?  Voter fraud?

The biased media is always an edge for the Dems. Hard to quantify but I'd say it's at least a few points. But mainly, if the GOP loses this election - and I'm assuming it didn't nominate someone with high negatives like Trump or Cruz - then it will be because the electorate has gotten dumber and more liberal. I never denied that the electorate is getting more liberal. People are getting dumber and more entitled with each new generation, and the Dems have a marvelous operation of herding the feeble minded and dependent to the polls. It's tough to beat. But if Hillary is the nominee, it's the GOP's best chance.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: michigancat on October 31, 2015, 10:09:09 AM
lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: star seed 7 on October 31, 2015, 11:08:58 AM
Dumber electorate  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2015, 11:21:42 AM
Again, the fact that Hillary is the Dem front runner tells you all you need to know about the Democratic Party in 2015.   Flying air cover for a pathological liar, criminal and big oil war monger.    Only for one reason, and one reason only . . . she's a Democrat and appears to have the best chance of keeping Dems in control of the White House.

Sad, but true.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on October 31, 2015, 11:26:22 AM
Again, the fact that Hillary is the Dem front runner tells you all you need to know about the Democratic Party in 2015.   Flying air cover for a pathological liar, criminal and big oil war monger.    Only for one reason, and one reason only . . . she's a Democrat and appears to have the best chance of keeping Dems in control of the White House.

Sad, but true.
Yesterday I read Obama is going to use his presidential powers to fight the release of some SOS emails.   Like two old hooked up dogs screwing America.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 31, 2015, 12:42:51 PM
Again, the fact that Hillary is the Dem front runner tells you all you need to know about the Democratic Party in 2015.   Flying air cover for a pathological liar, criminal and big oil war monger.    Only for one reason, and one reason only . . . she's a Democrat and appears to have the best chance of keeping Dems in control of the White House.

Sad, but true.
Yesterday I read Obama is going to use his presidential powers to fight the release of some SOS emails.   Like two old hooked up dogs screwing America.

Obama said he had NO IDEA Hillary was running a private server. Would be hilarious if he emailed her. No doubt they would want to suppress that if possible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 01, 2015, 12:30:50 PM
Again, the fact that Hillary is the Dem front runner tells you all you need to know about the Democratic Party in 2015.   Flying air cover for a pathological liar, criminal and big oil war monger.    Only for one reason, and one reason only . . . she's a Democrat and appears to have the best chance of keeping Dems in control of the White House.

Sad, but true.
Yesterday I read Obama is going to use his presidential powers to fight the release of some SOS emails.   Like two old hooked up dogs screwing America.

Obama said he had NO IDEA Hillary was running a private server. Would be hilarious if he emailed her. No doubt they would want to suppress that if possible.


lol, wgaf
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 01, 2015, 12:34:29 PM
Again, the fact that Hillary is the Dem front runner tells you all you need to know about the Democratic Party in 2015.   Flying air cover for a pathological liar, criminal and big oil war monger.    Only for one reason, and one reason only . . . she's a Democrat and appears to have the best chance of keeping Dems in control of the White House.

Sad, but true.
Yesterday I read Obama is going to use his presidential powers to fight the release of some SOS emails.   Like two old hooked up dogs screwing America.

Obama said he had NO IDEA Hillary was running a private server. Would be hilarious if he emailed her. No doubt they would want to suppress that if possible.


lol, wgaf

Well if there's one thing we want as a nation is the President and the SOS emailing each other with one using a at best only a moderately secure server operated by the functional equivalent of Ed and Ned's PC repair shop, using a domain name hosted in New Zealand.    :thumbsup:

ProgLibDems . . . "I just don't see what the big deal is"

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 01, 2015, 01:24:56 PM
I mean, if you don't think what hillary did as wrong or a "big deal", you are so rough ridin' blind, stupid and/or ignorant that your sole existence on this planet is to serve your democrat master. Enjoy being a serf you rough ridin' slave
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 01, 2015, 02:46:54 PM
I mean, if you don't think what hillary did as wrong or a "big deal", you are so rough ridin' blind, stupid and/or ignorant that your sole existence on this planet is to serve your democrat master. Enjoy being a serf you rough ridin' slave

Sorry you're still super butthurt about me serving you on the "Vaneer" thread title thing. :frown: Hang in there, FSD. It gets better.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 01, 2015, 04:23:52 PM
 :lol: :Wha:
#pwn3d
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 01, 2015, 04:38:20 PM
I'm not even pitting here, your straight line (d) satanist "prog/lib" would vote for a child rapist or serial killer if it meant keeping a (d) in power. They already elected a serial rapist, tax evading, perjurer. They're going to nominate an incompetent pathological liar who knowingly accepts money from terrorists (per liberal gospel, the NYT).

They practically coronated the current ideological idiot, can't run from him fast enough and, coincidentally, he's the exact person that Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Bloomberg article is complaining about - uncompromising ideologue pandering insane tax and environmental policy.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 01, 2015, 08:46:09 PM
Guess who voted for a republican in his state's gubernatorial primary last weekend? This resident proglib  :Woot:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016?
Post by: renocat on November 02, 2015, 12:11:03 AM
Things from NY are dog fart worthless,  teach em how to cry.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 06, 2015, 12:55:41 PM
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/ (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/)

Quote
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.
 
A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.
 
Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.
 
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Here's the actual NDA (http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf) if you want a laugh.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on November 06, 2015, 12:58:11 PM
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/ (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/)

Quote
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.
 
A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.
 
Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.
 
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Here's the actual NDA (http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf) if you want a laugh.

Quote
The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.

“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.

According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.

Smoking gun?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 06, 2015, 12:59:39 PM
Q: I assume the process is for congress to hold some hearings on this, or does the fed govt need to bring charges and this go through the fed criminal system(lol at that happening).  What is the next step for this?  What ever that is will tell you what is actually going to happen.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 06, 2015, 01:51:12 PM
Q: I assume the process is for congress to hold some hearings on this, or does the fed govt need to bring charges and this go through the fed criminal system(lol at that happening).  What is the next step for this?  What ever that is will tell you what is actually going to happen.

The FBI is currently investigating. The FBI will submit its recommendation to the DOJ, which will decide whether to seek an indictment. The DOJ could also seek an indictment regardless of the FBI investigation. So yes, politics will likely play a role, and the DOJ certainly has a sad record of ignoring the rule of law for political purposes. At some point, however, the evidence may be so obvious and overwhelming that even the DOJ cannot ignore it any longer.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2015, 02:47:19 PM
It's probably worth noting that the FBI Director has been rather vocally combative with the B.O. lately, particularly his #copslivesdontmatter rhetoric.

Food for thought. Not sure if how that might affect a recommendation or reduce the likelihood the any recommendation would be pursued by the DOJ.  KSU is right, this is the most pathetically politicized DOJ we'll probably (hopefully) ever see in our lifetimes, and it will likely take strong public suuport/insistence for them to prosecute their crony.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 06, 2015, 03:04:22 PM
More than 6 hours after the news breaks, the MSM is still maintaining radio silence on this latest bombshell. If you were to type "Clinton" into Google News, here are the headlines you would currently be treated to....

CNN: Strong economy could help Hillary Clinton, Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-jobs-report/index.html)
USA Today: Hillary Clinton says if Bill could run again, he would (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/11/06/hillary-clinton-says-if-bill-could-run-again-he-would/)
WaPo: Hillary Clinton's got her groove back, and it showed on Jimmy Kimmel (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/06/hillary-clintons-got-her-groove-back-and-it-showed-on-jimmy-kimmel-video/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on November 06, 2015, 03:30:06 PM
More than 6 hours after the news breaks, the MSM is still maintaining radio silence on this latest bombshell. If you were to type "Clinton" into Google News, here are the headlines you would currently be treated to....

CNN: Strong economy could help Hillary Clinton, Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/hillary-clinton-democrats-jobs-report/index.html)
USA Today: Hillary Clinton says if Bill could run again, he would (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/11/06/hillary-clinton-says-if-bill-could-run-again-he-would/)
WaPo: Hillary Clinton's got her groove back, and it showed on Jimmy Kimmel (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/06/hillary-clintons-got-her-groove-back-and-it-showed-on-jimmy-kimmel-video/)

Just shameful. And proves what Marco Rubio said. MSM is Hillary's SuperPAC.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2015, 11:11:21 PM
Latest polling from Minnesota. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c35be9e1-00ac-46e1-ae46-2dd58f805665&c=72 (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c35be9e1-00ac-46e1-ae46-2dd58f805665&c=72)

Quote
Today, among MN registered voters, it's:

* Ben Carson 50%, Clinton 41%. GOP +9.
* Marco Rubio 47%, Clinton 41% .GOP +6.
* Carly Fiorina 45%, Clinton 41%.GOP +4
* Donald Trump 45%, Clinton 42%. GOP +3.
* Jeb Bush 44%, Clinton 43% --- within the survey's theoretical margin of sampling error, 'too-close-to-call.'
* Clinton 46%, Ted Cruz 41%, Clinton's best shot today. Dem +5.
Here is the disconnect:

Democratic (DFL Party) Governor Mark Dayton, Democratic (DFL Party) US Senator Al Franken and Democratic (DFL Party) US Senator Amy Klobuchar all today have unusually high Net Job Favorability ratings --- Plus 14 for Dayton; Plus 18 for Franken; Plus 32 for Klobuchar. But: Democratic President Barack Obama is under water, at Minus 19, a headwind for Hillary Clinton that may make Minnesota one of the country's most interesting states to watch in 2016. SurveyUSA has measured President Obama's job approval 15 times for KSTP-TV since Obama first took office. Minus 19 is his worst Net Favorability Rating to date.

She is a horrendous candidate with negatives over 50%.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 11:58:19 PM
It's been three days how's that Washington Free Beacon report going? :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 10, 2015, 12:17:38 AM
Latest polling from Minnesota. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c35be9e1-00ac-46e1-ae46-2dd58f805665&c=72 (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c35be9e1-00ac-46e1-ae46-2dd58f805665&c=72)

Quote
Today, among MN registered voters, it's:

* Ben Carson 50%, Clinton 41%. GOP +9.
* Marco Rubio 47%, Clinton 41% .GOP +6.
* Carly Fiorina 45%, Clinton 41%.GOP +4
* Donald Trump 45%, Clinton 42%. GOP +3.
* Jeb Bush 44%, Clinton 43% --- within the survey's theoretical margin of sampling error, 'too-close-to-call.'
* Clinton 46%, Ted Cruz 41%, Clinton's best shot today. Dem +5.
Here is the disconnect:

Democratic (DFL Party) Governor Mark Dayton, Democratic (DFL Party) US Senator Al Franken and Democratic (DFL Party) US Senator Amy Klobuchar all today have unusually high Net Job Favorability ratings --- Plus 14 for Dayton; Plus 18 for Franken; Plus 32 for Klobuchar. But: Democratic President Barack Obama is under water, at Minus 19, a headwind for Hillary Clinton that may make Minnesota one of the country's most interesting states to watch in 2016. SurveyUSA has measured President Obama's job approval 15 times for KSTP-TV since Obama first took office. Minus 19 is his worst Net Favorability Rating to date.

She is a horrendous candidate with negatives over 50%.

Serious question, you don't really think any of these republicans will beat Hillary in Minnesota do you? Here's a little tidbit for you, since civil rights legislation changed the two parties, no state has voted democrat in presidential elections more than Minnesota; not California, not Massachusetts, but Minnesota. Since 1932 Minnesota has only been won by the republican nominee 3 times, the last one being Richard Nixon in 1972 in the most lopsided election in American history.

Minnesota politics are fascinating for people interested in such things.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 01:21:13 AM
Ya know, what a fantastic country.  You can be a sociopathic, co-opting perpetual liar, who actually glams on a fake Southern African American dialect when speaking to African Americans.  Responsible for the unilateral overthrow of governments, the death of US Ambassadors and the primary catalyst to the largest humanitarian and refugee crisis since WWII...and still run for president and be the Democratic front runner.

What a country!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2015, 07:00:24 AM
 :ROFL:
Latest polling from Minnesota. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c35be9e1-00ac-46e1-ae46-2dd58f805665&c=72 (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c35be9e1-00ac-46e1-ae46-2dd58f805665&c=72)

Quote
Today, among MN registered voters, it's:

* Ben Carson 50%, Clinton 41%. GOP +9.
* Marco Rubio 47%, Clinton 41% .GOP +6.
* Carly Fiorina 45%, Clinton 41%.GOP +4
* Donald Trump 45%, Clinton 42%. GOP +3.
* Jeb Bush 44%, Clinton 43% --- within the survey's theoretical margin of sampling error, 'too-close-to-call.'
* Clinton 46%, Ted Cruz 41%, Clinton's best shot today. Dem +5.
Here is the disconnect:

Democratic (DFL Party) Governor Mark Dayton, Democratic (DFL Party) US Senator Al Franken and Democratic (DFL Party) US Senator Amy Klobuchar all today have unusually high Net Job Favorability ratings --- Plus 14 for Dayton; Plus 18 for Franken; Plus 32 for Klobuchar. But: Democratic President Barack Obama is under water, at Minus 19, a headwind for Hillary Clinton that may make Minnesota one of the country's most interesting states to watch in 2016. SurveyUSA has measured President Obama's job approval 15 times for KSTP-TV since Obama first took office. Minus 19 is his worst Net Favorability Rating to date.

She is a horrendous candidate with negatives over 50%.

Serious question, you don't really think any of these republicans will beat Hillary in Minnesota do you? Here's a little tidbit for you, since civil rights legislation changed the two parties, no state has voted democrat in presidential elections more than Minnesota; not California, not Massachusetts, but Minnesota. Since 1932 Minnesota has only been won by the republican nominee 3 times, the last one being Richard Nixon in 1972 in the most lopsided election in American history.

Minnesota politics are fascinating for people interested in such things.

You should stick to race rants and leave political prognostication to others. You think I don't know Minnesroa is deep blue? That's what makes this polling so amazing. Other Den politicians are polling just fine in MN, but Hillary is losing to a number of candidates. Does she ultimately still have the edge in MN on Election Day? Of course. But this poll indicates what a truly terrible candidate she is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 07:05:10 AM
So obsessed  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2015, 09:20:24 AM
That poll should scare the crap out of camp libtard.  :horrorsurprise:

LOL at civil rights legislation changing the parties. Where were you indoctrinated???
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 10, 2015, 12:07:41 PM
MG want to do away with charter schools, stupid.  FSD can a person elected President pardon themselves and Bill the Thrill?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 12:11:32 PM
Why should private schools get government money?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 12:22:39 PM
Come on now, quit deflecting from the fact that this psycho/sociopath pathological liar is the Dem front runner.

The best a post Obama Democratic party can do is . . . Hillary Clinton  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 12:24:11 PM
What's that say about republicans after they lose to her  :sdeek:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 12:28:33 PM
What's that say about republicans after they lose to her  :sdeek:

Pretty sad lib, pretty sad.   But Hillary clearly says that, unlike what is espoused by the typical lib.   The quest for maintenance of power shall be achieved at all costs.  Even if it means electing a sociopath.


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 12:30:42 PM
Who's your candidate dax?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 12:41:54 PM
Who's your candidate dax?

I kind of like Jeb, I think Rubio is interesting.

Certainly not Trump, Carson or any of the others on that side.

Would be nice if the Dems put up a real Center Left candidate and not a sociopath or socialist whack-a-doodle.





Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2015, 12:42:24 PM
Who's your candidate dax?

I kind of like Jeb, I think Rubio is interesting.

Certainly not Trump, Carson or any of the others on that side.

Would be nice if the Dems put up a real Center Left candidate and not a sociopath or socialist whack-a-doodle.

That would be nice
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 12:43:46 PM
Hill Dawgs is pretty damn center left
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 12:45:44 PM
Hill Dawgs is pretty damn center left

That's what her husband ended up being in order to survive.   She'll push the envelope left as far as she can, while likely putting the neo-cons to shame on the global front, just like Obama has in so many ways.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2015, 01:11:05 PM
Hill Dawgs is pretty damn center left

yes, she is definitely the more moderate of the two dem options. bush and rubio are the most moderate of the gop options.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 12, 2015, 02:53:30 PM
Why does Hillary want as few debates as possible, on nights with as few viewers as possible? And why is the DNC just giving her what she wants? http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 12, 2015, 03:25:52 PM
Why does Hillary want as few debates as possible, on nights with as few viewers as possible? And why is the DNC just giving her what she wants? http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule)

Unfortunately the DNC has trampled all over the other candidates and their supporters demanding more debates.   It would also surprise me if any future Dem debates are 50% as substantive as the Republican debate was the other night.   They'll be lots of talk of "free" and how this country is in terrible shape in the closing remarks.   But that's about it.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2015, 12:44:43 PM
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/ (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 16, 2015, 12:49:37 PM
Why does Hillary want as few debates as possible, on nights with as few viewers as possible? And why is the DNC just giving her what she wants? http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule)

1.  Because she wants to win and this limits the exposure of Bernie

2.  Because the DNC is comprised of tons of people that are Clinton associates or at least much more loyal to the Clintons than a democratic socialist from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 16, 2015, 12:53:24 PM
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/ (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/)

Is that Anthony Weiner's wife?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2015, 12:53:39 PM
Why does Hillary want as few debates as possible, on nights with as few viewers as possible? And why is the DNC just giving her what she wants? http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule)

1.  Because she wants to win and this limits the exposure of Bernie

2.  Because the DNC is comprised of tons of people that are Clinton associates or at least much more loyal to the Clintons than a democratic socialist from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats.

Agreed. And 3, because the Democrats know that their surrogates in the MSM will more than supplement the lack of debates with fawning coverage.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 16, 2015, 12:54:15 PM
Media  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2015, 12:54:20 PM
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/ (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/)

Is that Anthony Weiner's wife?

Yes, but only in the legal sense. It's sort of a Hillary-Bill sort of marriage.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 16, 2015, 12:58:36 PM
Why does Hillary want as few debates as possible, on nights with as few viewers as possible? And why is the DNC just giving her what she wants? http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9699836/democratic-debate-schedule)

1.  Because she wants to win and this limits the exposure of Bernie

2.  Because the DNC is comprised of tons of people that are Clinton associates or at least much more loyal to the Clintons than a democratic socialist from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats.

Agreed. And 3, because the Democrats know that their surrogates in the MSM will more than supplement the lack of debates with fawning coverage.

I disagree about the extent to which your point is valid, but the structure is meant to limit any unscripted exposure to the candidates.  Due to the fact that there is really only two viable candidates and one that is so widely known that they don't really need exposure it just limits the potential for the stupid line Hillary had on 9/11 to be a story at all.  They are nowhere near as entertaining as the Republican debates for a number of reasons but that is only partly by design.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 16, 2015, 01:53:22 PM
Legal marriage  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2015, 06:42:09 PM
Ho hum. More Hillary emails released, more redacted as classified.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/30/clinton-email-classification-rate-rises/ (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/30/clinton-email-classification-rate-rises/)

Meanwhile, the FBI's "investigation" into whether Hillary possessed classified information on a non-government sanctioned computer (facts which are by now indisputable) continues....
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2015, 12:10:06 PM
Do FBI agents have accents and if so, will Hillary try and adapt/co-opt it (them) when politically expedient to do so?

Your Democratic front runner ladies and gentleman!

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 03, 2015, 03:12:48 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/nh-woman-to-hillary-you-say-rape-accusers-should-be-believed-what-about-your-husbands/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/nh-woman-to-hillary-you-say-rape-accusers-should-be-believed-what-about-your-husbands/)

Quote
During a campaign event in New Hampshire today, Hillary Clinton was asked about the women who accused her husband of rape and sexual assault.
 
The woman pointed out how Clinton recently said all rape victims should be believed, and then asked, “Would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?”

 :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote
Clinton responded by saying, “I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

 :lol: :lol: :lol: Hillary Clinton (a lawyer, btw): "You're guilty until proven innocent!"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on December 03, 2015, 03:58:26 PM
But what she said, awwww eff it nevermind I'm not going to waste my time.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on December 03, 2015, 04:01:48 PM
But what she said, awwww eff it nevermind I'm not going to waste my time.

Lol, I did the same thing
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on December 03, 2015, 05:21:01 PM
Same attitude applied to emails.   If you can't prove if it, I did nothing wrong even though I am more crooked than a boar's pecker.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2015, 09:11:09 AM
Attention defenders/deflectors (Mir and 7) of the indefensible (hillary): take a breath. As she catapults towards the general election she will be publicly speaking A LOT more.  In direct correlation, her lies and hypocrisy will increase A LOT. Conserve your strength, you've got an Olympic sized plate of mental gymnastics to perform in the very near future.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 04, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
She is seriously going to mop the floor with trump or Carson.  How scary that has to be for the GOP.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on December 04, 2015, 09:38:25 AM
She is seriously going to mop the floor with trump or Carson.  How scary that has to be for the GOP.

yeah, it's a WTF situation. I do not like hillary at all. But the GOP cannot figure out how to get an electable president to the general and is going to force me to vote for her. Rubio or Bush and we can win this thing. But nope, we like the guy who speaks his mind. YOU'RE FIRED OBAMA!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 04, 2015, 10:56:19 AM
I blame bush and rubio for not changing their platforms to please the majority of their own party. It's their problem, not the voters.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on December 04, 2015, 10:58:23 AM
I blame bush and rubio for not changing their platforms to please the majority of their own party. It's their problem, not the voters.

Well then the voters are gonna lose again. GOP voters need to get better at Game Theory.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on December 04, 2015, 10:59:25 AM
She is seriously going to mop the floor with trump or Carson.  How scary that has to be for the GOP.

But wait!  Cruz is above Carson now.  Not that it matters, Trump is 20pts above cruz.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 04, 2015, 11:01:05 AM
I blame bush and rubio for not changing their platforms to please the majority of their own party. It's their problem, not the voters.

I think Rubio will still win the nomination in the end, plus he will have a whole lot more appeal with the moderates than he would have had if he took a pro-deportation stance.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on December 04, 2015, 11:05:54 AM
I blame bush and rubio for not changing their platforms to please the majority of their own party. It's their problem, not the voters.

I think Rubio will still win the nomination in the end, plus he will have a whole lot more appeal with the moderates than he would have had if he took a pro-deportation stance.

I wouldn't be sure. Rubio isn't leading in anyone of the first 4 state polls. Where does the momentum come from? New Hampshire is his best hope. And he isn't close there.  Super Tuesday? That's basically all the southern states that love Cruz. I don't understand the Rubio will win at some point argument. People have been saying that for months and he still isn't winning.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 04, 2015, 11:10:34 AM
The early states don't matter too much because Florida, New York, Ohio, Texas, California have all the delegates and I think are all winner-take-all.

So Rubio probably wins this thing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on December 04, 2015, 11:13:41 AM
The early states don't matter too much because Florida, New York, Ohio, Texas, California have all the delegates and I think are all winner-take-all.

So Rubio probably wins this thing.

He isn't winning Texas, Cruz is. And I disagree no nominee has ever lost the first 4 primaries and come back to win the nomination. Why is Rubio gonna be differen?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2015, 11:27:36 AM
You all are severely mentally handicapped if you think the Republican party is going to give the nomination to trump. Like that has zero chance of happening in real life.

You are also severely underestimating trumps cache is you think an incompetent sociopath like hillary clinton will mop the floor with him. He has polled ahead of her at times, for God's sake.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2015, 11:28:17 AM
 Seems like a proper time to repost this.

Attention defenders/deflectors (Mir and 7) of the indefensible (hillary): take a breath. As she catapults towards the general election she will be publicly speaking A LOT more.  In direct correlation, her lies and hypocrisy will increase A LOT. Conserve your strength, you've got an Olympic sized plate of mental gymnastics to perform in the very near future.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on December 04, 2015, 11:34:59 AM
Quote
Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points.

Three candidates cluster behind Trump in the mid-teens, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%.

Trump is earning 3x Rubio's points.  Right now Curz and Carson could drop out, both successfully hand all of their followers over to Rubio, and Rubio would still be barely winning. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on December 04, 2015, 12:20:16 PM
Hilz and Bernie are now beating all the pubs and my boy seems to be getting traction despite the efforts of the dnc, sorry bout it

http://observer.com/2015/12/shock-poll-bernie-sanders-is-the-most-electable-candidate-in-either-party/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on December 04, 2015, 12:38:22 PM
 :emawkid: (but with bsands colors)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2015, 12:43:02 PM
In fantasy land, where bern and trump could actually get their repective party's nomination, trump would humiliate a bumbling tin-foil hat weirdo like bern.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on December 04, 2015, 12:53:07 PM
Oh, okay. Thank you for providing us with your ever enlightening and always surprising viewpoint. You are not at all a one trick pony and always keep us on the edge of our seats.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2015, 12:57:45 PM
I know you are, but what am I  :whistle1:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 09, 2015, 06:00:09 AM
Yep, just hope Bern keeps talking up those countries that are actually moving center right, are totally reevaluating their versions of the socialist welfare state, are now reevaluating immigration ( some are paying immigrants to leave) and have giant banks with holdings 2x to 3x host country GDP.

Brilliant.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 09, 2015, 09:03:35 AM
I don't think we have a Bernie Sanders thread, so I'll just leave this here. I was talking to a couple from Denmark the other day. They find American politics very interesting. Bernie Sanders in particular. The guy said "you know, Bernie Sanders talks about Denmark a lot. He seems to think we're some sort of utopian society. I don't think he knows much about how things actually work in Denmark." :lol:

He also said that in Denmark, over half their income goes to income taxes and the VAT, which dramatically drives up prices, almost no one owns a car, and the free healthcare is good for routine stuff, but the people who can afford it buy private healthcare so they don't have to wait as long for specialized procedures, don't have to share hospital rooms, etc.

She also mentioned that they're having a major immigration problem right now. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on December 09, 2015, 11:02:41 AM
She also mentioned that they're having a major immigration problem right now. :lol:

almost ALL of europe is having a major immigration "problem" right now.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on December 09, 2015, 11:58:26 AM
I don't think we have a Bernie Sanders thread, so I'll just leave this here. I was talking to a couple from Denmark the other day. They find American politics very interesting. Bernie Sanders in particular. The guy said "you know, Bernie Sanders talks about Denmark a lot. He seems to think we're some sort of utopian society. I don't think he knows much about how things actually work in Denmark." :lol:

He also said that in Denmark, over half their income goes to income taxes and the VAT, which dramatically drives up prices, almost no one owns a car, and the free healthcare is good for routine stuff, but the people who can afford it buy private healthcare so they don't have to wait as long for specialized procedures, don't have to share hospital rooms, etc.

She also mentioned that they're having a major immigration problem right now. :lol:

Great Anecdotes by our man KSUW!  :cheers:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 09, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote
Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points.

Three candidates cluster behind Trump in the mid-teens, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%.

Trump is earning 3x Rubio's points.  Right now Curz and Carson could drop out, both successfully hand all of their followers over to Rubio, and Rubio would still be barely winning.

I don't think anyone that is supporting a candidate other than Trump is going to have their candidate drop out and then jump on the Trump bandwagon. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 09, 2015, 01:47:58 PM
Quote
Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points.

Three candidates cluster behind Trump in the mid-teens, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%.

Trump is earning 3x Rubio's points.  Right now Curz and Carson could drop out, both successfully hand all of their followers over to Rubio, and Rubio would still be barely winning.

I don't think anyone that is supporting a candidate other than Trump is going to have their candidate drop out and then jump on the Trump bandwagon.

I think the Carson supporters might.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on December 09, 2015, 01:50:38 PM
Quote
Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points.

Three candidates cluster behind Trump in the mid-teens, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%.

Trump is earning 3x Rubio's points.  Right now Curz and Carson could drop out, both successfully hand all of their followers over to Rubio, and Rubio would still be barely winning.

I don't think anyone that is supporting a candidate other than Trump is going to have their candidate drop out and then jump on the Trump bandwagon.

I think the Carson supporters might.

they absolutely will
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 09, 2015, 02:00:49 PM
Well okay ya maybe the Carson supporters.  Maybe half of them.  I think everyone else consolidates together though on whoever is not named Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on December 09, 2015, 02:10:50 PM
I think a good chunk of Cruz supporters may as well. And all 7 of the Huckabee supporters.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on December 09, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Fox is reporting that Chelsea's husband asked MG to arrange a meeting between the State Deptartment and allow a deep sea mining company he represents to discuss getting rights to get minerals off the sea floor.   Empress Sleaze at work again.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on December 09, 2015, 02:41:06 PM
I think a good chunk of Cruz supporters may as well. And all 7 of the Huckabee supporters.

I agree.  I mean, Donald is catching flack right now about saying we should bar muslims.  Well, Ted said the same thing like three weeks ago when he said we should only let christians in, its just most of the ppl in the country are too stupid to put 2+2 together to equal Curz's bigot'ey 4.  Don says the same thing and he is getting lambasted.  Cruz said it, and it's whatever.

They only way Cruz's ppl don't go to Donald would be because they are super religious zealots and don't think that Trump is religious enough. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 09, 2015, 03:17:19 PM
Also Rubio sounds more spicy than Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on December 09, 2015, 04:33:55 PM
I don't think we have a Bernie Sanders thread, so I'll just leave this here. I was talking to a couple from Denmark the other day. They find American politics very interesting. Bernie Sanders in particular. The guy said "you know, Bernie Sanders talks about Denmark a lot. He seems to think we're some sort of utopian society. I don't think he knows much about how things actually work in Denmark." :lol:

He also said that in Denmark, over half their income goes to income taxes and the VAT, which dramatically drives up prices, almost no one owns a car, and the free healthcare is good for routine stuff, but the people who can afford it buy private healthcare so they don't have to wait as long for specialized procedures, don't have to share hospital rooms, etc.

She also mentioned that they're having a major immigration problem right now. :lol:

Interesting
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on December 09, 2015, 05:09:28 PM
Really put ol' bern in his place
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 10, 2015, 01:23:13 PM
So Hillary is now lying that she never blamed the Benghazi attack on the YouTube video. The victims' families disagree. I guess I can't say I'm surprised that she thinks she'll get away with this lie, too.

http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/ (http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 10, 2015, 01:50:05 PM
Aren't there some emails emerging from that time from Pentagon operatives saying they were "spun up" and ready to go saved the day if ordered to do so.

I guess the quest to cover-up their arms smuggling and bad guy recruitment operations outweighed the lives of a the Ambassador and friends.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2015, 01:49:34 PM
Review confirms Hillary had top secret emails on her unsecured server.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on December 18, 2015, 10:02:10 PM
rough ridin' Debbie, I hope she gets hit by a car, what an incompetent bitch.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on December 18, 2015, 10:12:39 PM
rough ridin' Debbie, I hope she gets hit by a car, what an incompetent bitch.

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 19, 2015, 06:38:33 AM
How does it feel to know the democrat party is a complete sham, owned by a select few?
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 19, 2015, 08:25:30 AM
3rd party run for Bernie "everything is free" Sanders?


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 19, 2015, 08:41:46 AM
Trump and Sanders as co-president co-vp would be overwhelming evidence of a real and present idiocracy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on December 22, 2015, 05:07:24 PM
Trump used bad gutter words against MG.  Ooo  verbal rape against all women.  MG is married to Bill the Thrill.  Double standard lying flump.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on December 23, 2015, 02:42:00 PM
MG is squeezing and milking Trump's schlong comment all she can.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on December 29, 2015, 02:11:30 PM
Quote
American Freedom Fighters has discovered that Hillary has made billions off the American taxpayers in illegal schemes and backroom deals. Despite spending millions on media damage control and a legal team, Clinton can’t stop Americans from seeing this video and discovering the truth about her antics. In this video, it is revealed that Hillary Clinton used the White House as a way to funnel money to powerful friends while her husband was president. Anyone who crossed Hillary died under mysterious circumstances. Hillary has managed to keep her past quiet with fear and threats, but a brave few are willing to speak out.

From the Whitewater Scandal to Benghazi to Emailgate, Hillary’s time in national politics has been spent in constant scandal. The media refuses to discuss the dirty deeds of their favorite candidate, while she has escaped legal consequences due to a large legal team and constant intimidation of anyone who speaks out. This viral video finally gives Americans the information that they need to make an informed decision about Hillary Clinton and may even land her in court with felony charges. This time, there is nothing she can do.

https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on December 29, 2015, 02:27:38 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Katpappy on December 29, 2015, 02:37:09 PM
PPL LOVE TO WADDLE IN crap.  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on December 29, 2015, 02:51:16 PM
She also did some sweet deals for her son in law while she was SoS.  If she wasn't married to the Golden Penis, Jedi screw master, she would be toast.  The only way she is prosecuted is if Michelle threatens the horrible snake death wrench will be done to hubbie's weasel if he doesn't prosecute her.  Hate yields vile revenge.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 04, 2016, 10:15:52 AM
Hillary is now nuts!!! She is going to investigate ufo's and area 51 according to Huffington Post??? No other serious presidential candidate has made such a vow.  Who does MG think are aliens?  Will she blame them for her problems?   Maybe they are conservatives?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 04, 2016, 01:17:02 PM
Hillary is now nuts!!! She is going to investigate ufo's and area 51 according to Huffington Post??? No other serious presidential candidate has made such a vow.  Who does MG think are aliens?  Will she blame them for her problems?   Maybe they are conservatives?

I just Google this. Really deserves it's own thread.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 04, 2016, 01:34:03 PM
Welp, Hillary just locked the election up. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on January 04, 2016, 10:49:22 PM
She will win the presidency in a landslide and I can't wait to LOL @ all the butthurt losers on this board  :Woot:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 04, 2016, 11:03:01 PM
Hillary supporter outed  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bones129 on January 04, 2016, 11:30:19 PM
Hillary supporter outed  :lol:

Or perhaps realist outed?   :dunno:
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 04, 2016, 11:48:04 PM
She's going to send a task force to Area 51, and find out that UFO's make great cover for black projects.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bones129 on January 05, 2016, 12:08:00 AM
She's going to send a task force to Area 51, and find out that UFO's make great cover for black projects.

OK.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2016, 03:29:26 PM
I love this question. I love that it has been asked of multiple Democrats and they still don't know how to answer it. :lol:

http://www.progressivestoday.com/hillary-clinton-wont-explain-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-video/ (http://www.progressivestoday.com/hillary-clinton-wont-explain-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-video/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on January 06, 2016, 05:06:40 PM
I love this question. I love that it has been asked of multiple Democrats and they still don't know how to answer it. :lol:

http://www.progressivestoday.com/hillary-clinton-wont-explain-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-video/ (http://www.progressivestoday.com/hillary-clinton-wont-explain-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-video/)

How in the world are they not prepared with a better answer than that one?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 06, 2016, 05:34:35 PM
Rimbo is going nuts on his show about how people are saying  they would vote for MG over a Republican even if it is shown that Bill Cosby Clinton is woman mauling sex fiend.  Also Limbaugh said there is  strong chance FBI will recommend prosecution about email server, but doubts DOJ would do it to protect MG.  Socialists and progressives seem to think the power and 8manpick good of the social teat function is more important than the rule of law.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 06, 2016, 05:45:56 PM
8mp  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 06, 2016, 05:54:53 PM
This damn cheap chinese phone is going to get me buried in horse crap someday  no offense meant to 8manpick.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on January 07, 2016, 08:57:59 AM
Word is the movie "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi" is going to blow the lid off of Hillary's campaign.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/04/heroes-benghazi-open-kelly-file-ahead-release-13-hours-secret-soldiers-benghazi
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 07, 2016, 09:13:37 AM
Liberal media  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 07, 2016, 09:48:15 AM
Word is there is no specific mention of Hillary or Obama in the movie. Government incompetence is one of the central themes, but I doubt that will harm Hillary much at all.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 07, 2016, 11:01:51 AM
http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/

I am sure democrats will overlook this.  Bill Cosby Clinton on orgy island with a pedophile humchinging little girls is okay in their books because we have to have a first woman president and he had good economic records.  This is the point Rimbo was making on his talk show.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 07, 2016, 11:33:23 AM
Yes, Bubba palling around with the pedophile and visiting a private island with underage prostitutes does seem like a pretty big problem for Hillary. Not as big a problem as being indicted, but still a big problem for the "I'm a Woman!" and "War on Women!" themes, which are both prominent planks of her campaign.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 07, 2016, 11:59:39 AM
Hillary should quit, I'm sure she's going lose millions of voters because of a year old story in the New York Post. I read somewhere about Bernie and Chris Christie putting their wangs in glory holes for Nikki Haley, they should quit too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 07, 2016, 01:58:06 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389183/State-Department-covered-Hillary-s-private-email-server-years-dozens-senior-officials-knew-says-scathing-inspector-general-report.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389183/State-Department-covered-Hillary-s-private-email-server-years-dozens-senior-officials-knew-says-scathing-inspector-general-report.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 07, 2016, 02:09:25 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389183/State-Department-covered-Hillary-s-private-email-server-years-dozens-senior-officials-knew-says-scathing-inspector-general-report.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389183/State-Department-covered-Hillary-s-private-email-server-years-dozens-senior-officials-knew-says-scathing-inspector-general-report.html)

How long does this have to drag on before you and your people figure out that the only people that care about this would never ever ever ever vote for Hillary, even if email didn't exist?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 07, 2016, 02:14:02 PM
Hillary and Bernie are both old enough that it's kind of scary to imagine them running the country by the end of their first term.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 07, 2016, 02:16:36 PM
70 is the new 68
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 07, 2016, 02:19:44 PM
Is O'Malley just completely unlikable or something? It's kind of surprising to me that he wasn't able to pick up any steam at all against Bernie and Hillary. I've only seen him in one debate (was busy during the other debates that were intentionally scheduled for low viewership).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 07, 2016, 02:30:12 PM
I thought he was great in the last debate, he took on Hillary and Bernie and didn't back down. He is too establishment to be a sensation like Bernie, but he isn't Hillary so literally no one in the establishment is backing him. He has no money or ground game. He looks and sounds like generic politician x, and in this current climate of the democratic party, that has no place. The party needs to energize people other than the 40-65 middle class white male demo.

I also think there may be some stuff that the party knows about that is in his closet that they may be aware of, what that is, I have no idea, it's just blind speculation. If he isn't the vice presidential nominee then I will be convinced of this.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 07, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
Where did Planned Hamburger get 20 million to support MG?   Why is blood money being accepted by Democrats?  Planned Hamburger has destroyed millions of unborn little girls in the name of woman libbers wanting non consequently sex.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on January 08, 2016, 07:11:17 AM
Where did Planned Hamburger get 20 million to support MG?   Why is blood money being accepted by Democrats?  Planned Hamburger has destroyed millions of unborn little girls in the name of woman libbers wanting non consequently sex.

But women's rights and all that. It's their choice if they murder other future SJWs, not some man in congress!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Ptolemy on January 08, 2016, 08:51:46 AM

But women's rights and all that. It's their choice if they murder other future SJWs, not some man in congress!

Then why can't men make that choice too, and order or stop an abortion of their children? What about equal protection; 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 08, 2016, 08:55:57 AM
Great point 'lemy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on January 08, 2016, 09:51:13 AM
I'm glad you asked, check out this bad boy:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2683442/goodbye-vasectomy-hello-sperm-switch-men-can-turn-fertility-on-and-off-with-new-sperm-switch-invention/

Men will finally be able to step up their game in the contraception game!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 08, 2016, 10:32:54 AM
It is being reported in this last batch of released emails that MG received an email from at State Deptartment staffer who sent it via a private email account.  She questioned this and said it was not appropriate.  ??????
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 08, 2016, 01:04:33 PM
It's worse than that. It looks like Hillary was having trouble getting a confidential doc via secure fax. She asked her director to send it via the private email server. He resisted based on it being classified. She responded that he should just strip off the classified header and email it.

That a felony, son. This could be it for her. Better re-draft Biden.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 08, 2016, 01:06:04 PM
[The sound of Hillary's campaign imploding]

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/whoa-hillary-e-mail-instructs-aide-to-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/whoa-hillary-e-mail-instructs-aide-to-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on January 08, 2016, 01:07:10 PM
i can't believe the repulican party has no one that can beat hilary clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 08, 2016, 01:08:34 PM
hotair.com lol

Regresocons have the best blog names
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 08, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
i can't believe the repulican party has no one that can beat hilary clinton.

I think many of the Republican candidates could beat Hillary if it came down to it. Rubio definitely. Probably Cruz and Trump, too, at this point.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 08, 2016, 01:35:35 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/)

Quote
To comply with a court-ordered goal, the State Department made public about 3,000 pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's private server early Friday morning, including 66 messages that were later marked "classified" on some level.

On the campaign trail, the presidential candidate has insisted that no classified information was sent or received through her private email server.

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/us/hillary-clinton-email-state-department.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/us/hillary-clinton-email-state-department.html?_r=0)

Quote
WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waited for a set of talking points to be faxed to her, a top aide told her the delay was due to problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to a top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to send sensitive information in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about. [Hey NYT - the purpose of redactions is to hide confidential information.]

But that and other messages provide a window into Mrs. Clinton’s approach to handling email and other communication — at times cavalier, at times calculated to ensure that they would not fall into the wrong hands. She even expressed some umbrage at an officer who, like herself, had used a personal email address for official business.

In February 2011, senior aides sent Mrs. Clinton a dispatch from the officer, John Godfrey, analyzing the situation in Libya. She asked whom he worked for. When told he was a State Department employee, she responded, “I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State.”  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hillary is going to be indicted. Not even the facts that she is (a) Hillary Clinton, and (b) the Dem frontrunner, can save her now.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on January 08, 2016, 01:55:03 PM
I bet she's not indicted
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 08, 2016, 02:23:56 PM
The party of pathological liars as front runners and a I'll say anything to get elected candidate even if I totally model my ideals off of countries that are in reality moving Center-Right and in the process of reassessing their failed quests for socialists utopias (while being overrun with dangerous Middle Eastern Refugees) . . . will do anything to maintain power.

How . . . sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 08, 2016, 02:25:25 PM
I bet she's not indicted

I mean, I want to know all about Area 51, too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 02:29:55 PM
KSUW is frighteningly thirsty.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 08, 2016, 02:54:28 PM


That a felony, son. This could be it for her. Better re-draft Biden.

The word!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
I just checked cbsnews.com, abcnews.com, nbcnews.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, and nytimes.com this white hot, scathing Hillary story only appears on three of the sites.
1. 8th headline on cbsnews.com
2. 6th headline on cnn.com but the story is mostly about Chuck Grassley's reaction to the email release
3. 16th headline on washingtonpost.com

No headline on the front of foxnews.com that website is something else though, it is amazing.

I guess America is too preoccupied with El Chapo, the lottery, the Philadelphia cop, the NFL playoffs, the batshit crazy racist Maine Gov, and the affulenza teen mom to care about Hillary's emails from five years ago.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 08, 2016, 03:00:19 PM
Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 03:03:15 PM
Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

There aren't any "hillary people" posting in the pit, not a single one.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 08, 2016, 03:05:20 PM
if that doesn't matter, nobody should ever get in trouble for anything ever again.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 08, 2016, 03:08:37 PM
Do the non-hillary people that continuously deflect/defend/justify her actions really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 08, 2016, 03:18:10 PM
Don't forget volunteer for her 08 campaign.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 03:21:14 PM
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 08, 2016, 03:24:25 PM
Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

I assume I am lumped into this group by some here.  No, I am not ok with this. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 03:30:13 PM
Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

I assume I am lumped into this group by some here.  No, I am not ok with this.

 :surprised: you're a Hillary supporter?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on January 08, 2016, 03:34:32 PM
The party of pathological liars as front runners and a I'll say anything to get elected candidate even if I totally model my ideals off of countries that are in reality moving Center-Right and in the process of reassessing their failed quests for socialists utopias (while being overrun with dangerous Middle Eastern Refugees) . . . will do anything to maintain power.

How . . . sad

I enjoyed this post very much. It is peak Dax.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 08, 2016, 03:42:13 PM
I just checked cbsnews.com, abcnews.com, nbcnews.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, and nytimes.com this white hot, scathing Hillary story only appears on three of the sites.
1. 8th headline on cbsnews.com
2. 6th headline on cnn.com but the story is mostly about Chuck Grassley's reaction to the email release
3. 16th headline on washingtonpost.com

No headline on the front of foxnews.com that website is something else though, it is amazing.

I guess America is too preoccupied with El Chapo, the lottery, the Philadelphia cop, the NFL playoffs, the batshit crazy racist Maine Gov, and the affulenza teen mom to care about Hillary's emails from five years ago.

Are you making the point that this is not an important story, or are you making the point that the liberal media would prefer this not to be an important story? One of those I agree with.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 08, 2016, 03:44:17 PM
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 03:45:47 PM
I just checked cbsnews.com, abcnews.com, nbcnews.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, and nytimes.com this white hot, scathing Hillary story only appears on three of the sites.
1. 8th headline on cbsnews.com
2. 6th headline on cnn.com but the story is mostly about Chuck Grassley's reaction to the email release
3. 16th headline on washingtonpost.com

No headline on the front of foxnews.com that website is something else though, it is amazing.

I guess America is too preoccupied with El Chapo, the lottery, the Philadelphia cop, the NFL playoffs, the batshit crazy racist Maine Gov, and the affulenza teen mom to care about Hillary's emails from five years ago.

Are you making the point that this is not an important story, or are you making the point that the liberal media would prefer this not to be an important story. One of those I agree with.

foxnews.com is liberal media?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 08, 2016, 03:50:16 PM
Media  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 08, 2016, 03:50:57 PM
 :dunno: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/08/latest-batch-clinton-emails-contains-66-more-classified-messages.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/08/latest-batch-clinton-emails-contains-66-more-classified-messages.html)

Quote
The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton's personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday.

In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels.

All but one of the 66 messages have been labeled "confidential", the lowest level of classification. The remaining email has been labeled as "secret." The total number of classified emails found on Clinton's personal server has risen to 1,340 with the latest release. Seven of those emails have been labeled "secret."

In all, the State Department released 1,262 messages in the early hours of Friday, making up almost 2,900 pages of emails. Unlike in previous releases, none of the messages were searchable in the department's online reading room by subject, sender or recipient.

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent.

However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.]The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton's personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday.

In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels.

All but one of the 66 messages have been labeled "confidential", the lowest level of classification. The remaining email has been labeled as "secret." The total number of classified emails found on Clinton's personal server has risen to 1,340 with the latest release. Seven of those emails have been labeled "secret."

In all, the State Department released 1,262 messages in the early hours of Friday, making up almost 2,900 pages of emails. Unlike in previous releases, none of the messages were searchable in the department's online reading room by subject, sender or recipient.

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent.

However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 08, 2016, 03:51:37 PM
Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

I assume I am lumped into this group by some here.  No, I am not ok with this.

 :surprised: you're a Hillary supporter?

I am not.  However, if you aren't signing up to kill illegals from a helicopter or trying to defund our education system this part of the board lumps you into the "libtard" category.  Because of that, I assume that I am also lumped into the Hill camp. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 03:52:25 PM
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 03:53:48 PM
:dunno: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/08/latest-batch-clinton-emails-contains-66-more-classified-messages.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/08/latest-batch-clinton-emails-contains-66-more-classified-messages.html)

Read better, dummy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 08, 2016, 04:22:28 PM
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

So he's a sociopath, but you aren't going to comment on hillary. Yeah, okay
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2016, 11:53:57 PM
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

So he's a sociopath, but you aren't going to comment on hillary. Yeah, okay

Sorry but for me sending emails on an unsecured server doesn't rise to the level of using your own children as political pawns. Also I have never called Rafael a sociopath either, he's definitely a piece of crap though. Whatever Hilz did or didn't do with those servers doesn't rise to the level of sociopath, if you want to think she's a piece of crap, it's well within your right to do so.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 09, 2016, 01:12:51 AM
I think Hillary is a piece of crap, but don't really care about the emails! :surprised:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on January 09, 2016, 01:14:24 AM
this is like when mocat tried really hard to get that freight house nickname or whatever to stick
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 09, 2016, 01:21:45 AM
GE libtards: I don't like hilldawg, she's a piece of crap

GE regresocons: see! The libtards will do anything to defend their anointed princess
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 09, 2016, 07:51:33 AM
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

So he's a sociopath, but you aren't going to comment on hillary. Yeah, okay

Sorry but for me sending emails on an unsecured server doesn't rise to the level of using your own children as political pawns. Also I have never called Rafael a sociopath either, he's definitely a piece of crap though. Whatever Hilz did or didn't do with those servers doesn't rise to the level of sociopath, if you want to think she's a piece of crap, it's well within your right to do so.

Seriously? You think using kids in a spoof political ads is worse and more reprehensible than the secretary of state recklessly conducting national security business through a private email account, in violation of internal policy and the law, obfuscating the investigation by withholding and destroying evidence, and repeatedly lying about the whole thing?

That's a new rational, moral and competence low for the libtard

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 09, 2016, 10:08:18 AM
Yes, surprising position for a "moderate." I would think that for any rational person who is not a committed liberal ideologue, committing felonies to avoid open record requests and simultaneously exposing state secrets to hackers and foreign governments would be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. That is just an incredibly stupid, arrogant, corrupt, illegal thing to do.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 09, 2016, 11:08:03 AM
Even if it weren't illegal or didn't involve classified information, it is still horrible and should be disqualifying.

It shows a willingness to tell bald faced lies to to public and a disdain for justice, open government, basic internal controls and policy.  These things are fundamenally contrary to everything an elected leader would be expected to do in the same situation.

If this is how she'll conduct herself as president, there's no way she should be a choice.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 09, 2016, 11:40:48 AM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/image002.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 09, 2016, 11:42:22 AM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Hillary-Nonsecure-copy.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 09, 2016, 11:58:45 AM
one thing that amuses me about the classified emails is how much the right wing thinks the government should be trusted with secrets. If dear leader says it's secret, it's secret, and we have to trust them no matter what!

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 09, 2016, 12:27:30 PM
Yes, surprising position for a "moderate." I would think that for any rational person who is not a committed liberal ideologue, committing felonies to avoid open record requests and simultaneously exposing state secrets to hackers and foreign governments would be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. That is just an incredibly stupid, arrogant, corrupt, illegal thing to do.

Who the eff is the moderate you're referring to?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 09, 2016, 12:33:15 PM
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

So he's a sociopath, but you aren't going to comment on hillary. Yeah, okay

Sorry but for me sending emails on an unsecured server doesn't rise to the level of using your own children as political pawns. Also I have never called Rafael a sociopath either, he's definitely a piece of crap though. Whatever Hilz did or didn't do with those servers doesn't rise to the level of sociopath, if you want to think she's a piece of crap, it's well within your right to do so.

Seriously? You think using kids in a spoof political ads is worse and more reprehensible than the secretary of state recklessly conducting national security business through a private email account, in violation of internal policy and the law, obfuscating the investigation by withholding and destroying evidence, and repeatedly lying about the whole thing?

That's a new rational, moral and competence low for the libtard

I mean you grossly simplified one of those situations and exaggerated the other but whatever that doesn't matter. Forgive me if I don't lose sleep because I fall short of the moral expectation of an anonymous internet user who can't help but to use the word tard in 60% of his posts.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 09, 2016, 01:15:20 PM
Explain what's simplified and what's overstated, tard.

Just acknowledge you are a libtard lemming who takes the libtard side no matter how unconscionable and we can move on.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 09, 2016, 05:09:09 PM
Grossly simplified?  :facepalm: I just can't with this guy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 12:06:03 AM
Grossly simplified?  :facepalm: I just can't with this guy.

Then don't [redacted] : dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 03:48:56 PM
So I'm sitting here getting ready for this Bernie speech and I was just invited to the Black & Brown Forum as a VIP tomorrow night, what would you guys like me to ask MG?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 10, 2016, 03:56:34 PM
So I'm sitting here getting ready for this Bernie speech and I was just invited to the Black & Brown Forum as a VIP tomorrow night, what would you guys like me to ask MG?

ask her what she plans to do about cops murdering citizens
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 10, 2016, 03:56:54 PM
or the Patriot Act
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 10, 2016, 04:00:29 PM
It doesn't matter.  She is versed in bullshit.

NSA over reach, campaign finance, and of course, aliens
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2016, 05:16:21 PM
Like the questions won't be filtered with preprepared response. 

I'd like to know what it's like to be subject to an FBI investigation
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 10, 2016, 05:17:18 PM
Like the questions won't be filtered with preprepared response. 

I'd like to know what it's like to be subject to an FBI investigation

this would be a fantastic question, omg
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 10, 2016, 05:33:02 PM
Like the questions won't be filtered with preprepared response. 

I'd like to know what it's like to be subject to an FBI investigation

this would be a fantastic question, omg
Yes, please.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 05:37:28 PM
Not a terrible question FSD, not sure it fits the theme, we'll see how it goes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2016, 05:54:56 PM
If the nsa is topical, then the FBI thing is arguably relevant
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 10, 2016, 08:33:09 PM
Let's see....

1. Don't you think it's kind of sexist to say that one reason people should vote for you is because you're a woman?
2. Do see any inconsistency in claiming to be a champion for women while staying married to a man who cheated on you in the Oval Office, and is accused by many other women of rape and sexual assault?
3. So when you say women alleging sexual assault have a right to be believed until the evidence proves otherwise, doesn't that mean the man should be believed to be guilty until the evidence shows he is innocent?
4. Do you still contend that the reason you get so many donations from Wall Street is because of 9/11?
5. What is the backup plan if you're indicted?
6. What's the difference between a socialist and a democrat? (Seriously, let's see if she has an answer by now.)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 10, 2016, 08:56:03 PM
Oh wait, I almost forgot the question every liberal politician should be asked, but hardly ever are: Should a woman be allowed to terminate her pregnancy at any point before birth as long as a doctor agrees?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 10, 2016, 09:01:58 PM
#5 would be great.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on January 10, 2016, 09:52:49 PM
Let's see....

1. Don't you think it's kind of sexist to say that one reason people should vote for you is because you're a woman?
2. Do see any inconsistency in claiming to be a champion for women while staying married to a man who cheated on you in the Oval Office, and is accused by many other women of rape and sexual assault?
3. So when you say women alleging sexual assault have a right to be believed until the evidence proves otherwise, doesn't that mean the man should be believed to be guilty until the evidence shows he is innocent?
4. Do you still contend that the reason you get so many donations from Wall Street is because of 9/11?
5. What is the backup plan if you're indicted?
6. What's the difference between a socialist and a democrat? (Seriously, let's see if she has an answer by now.)

 :surprised:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 10, 2016, 10:05:17 PM
Can an indicted peon run for president?   Can a president pardon themselves?   Could a convicted president be impeached for past transgressions?  If MG is found guilty, but wins the general election, could the electoral college give her the shaft?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 10, 2016, 10:52:25 PM
those are great questions, renoman
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: lopakman on January 11, 2016, 07:55:45 AM
Let's see....

1. Don't you think it's kind of sexist to say that one reason people should vote for you is because you're a woman?
2. Do see any inconsistency in claiming to be a champion for women while staying married to a man who cheated on you in the Oval Office, and is accused by many other women of rape and sexual assault?
3. So when you say women alleging sexual assault have a right to be believed until the evidence proves otherwise, doesn't that mean the man should be believed to be guilty until the evidence shows he is innocent?
4. Do you still contend that the reason you get so many donations from Wall Street is because of 9/11?
5. What is the backup plan if you're indicted?
6. What's the difference between a socialist and a democrat? (Seriously, let's see if she has an answer by now.)

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 11, 2016, 12:36:06 PM
Sinking in the crap. Sinking in the crap. High ho the dairy oh, she's sinking in the crap.  MG's new campaign song.  Fox is reporting she is being investigated for corruption such as family enrichment through their foundation. Probably why she had a private email system not subject to freedom of information requests.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 11, 2016, 05:40:39 PM
she isn't going to answer any questions.  :buh-bye:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 12, 2016, 08:48:56 AM
Not sure if MoveOn.org is relevant anymore, but its members just endorsed TSS.

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/51a6be097cf34fa9a965bd84dbacc028/sanders-campaign-endorsed-moveonorg (http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/51a6be097cf34fa9a965bd84dbacc028/sanders-campaign-endorsed-moveonorg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 12, 2016, 09:29:20 AM
Shoot. I guess you can scratch the Question 2 off the list. Hillary will not be answering any questions about Bill's alleged rapes and sexual assaults, or her role in covering them up. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/11/clinton-declines-answer-questions-women-involved-sex-scandals/78656396/ (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/11/clinton-declines-answer-questions-women-involved-sex-scandals/78656396/)

She's still a champion for women's rights, though. I'm sure she's still married to Bill for Chelsea's sake, poor thing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 09:51:10 AM
Love how obsessed the right is with the clinton marriage  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 12, 2016, 12:37:19 PM
Love how obsessed the right is with the clinton marriage  :love:
I think it has to do with the Right having the perception that the Left are hypocrites, and the example of one's personal life is an indication of one's true character and how they would conduct themselves in office.  Willie Wonkem is doing everything thing to women that MG abhors, but she thinks he is sweet hog crap.  Hypocrites I admit live in both worlds, but the left talks one way and then the results are the opposite.  So we judge by action and not by rhetoric.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 01:01:52 PM
Where is the hypocrisy?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 12, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
It's hypocritical for Hillary to hold herself out as a champion for women and victims of sexual assault when she allegedly played a role in hushing and discrediting the victims of her husband's alleged sexual assaults. I use the word "alleged" in fairness, but let's be honest here: Bill Clinton has a rap(e) sheet almost as long as Bill Cosby.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillary-clinton-media-105901_Page2.html#.VpVlBtLnbGg (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillary-clinton-media-105901_Page2.html#.VpVlBtLnbGg)

Quote
In the 1992 presidential race, she encouraged efforts to push back against press inquiries into Bill Clinton’s infidelities and her own financial dealings, and cooperated with a campaign-within-a-campaign in Little Rock, along with Betsey Wright, her husband’s top aide, according to an account provided to journalist Carl Bernstein. The unit, known inside the Clinton campaign as the “Defense Department,” collected 2,000 boxes full of personal papers and correspondence and became a prototype of sorts for Clinton’s fortress-like approach to press relations from then on.

But she wasn’t just any staffer; she was Bill Clinton’s wife, and their job, as Wright so memorably put it, was to stomp out the “bimbo eruptions” before they could derail his presidential aspirations.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/03/and_speaking_of_perfect_unions_.2.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/03/and_speaking_of_perfect_unions_.2.html)

Quote
According to Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge, as her husband prepared to run for president, she pushed to get sworn statements from women he'd been rumored to have been involved with, statements in which they were supposed to say they'd had no relationship with him. She even interviewed one of these women herself, at her law firm. She also led efforts to undermine Gennifer Flowers, whom she referred to as "trailer trash."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 02:56:03 PM
If rolling stone had a story about clinton rapes, how conflicted would you be?

Obviously false because rolling stone

But also obviously true cause bill isn't on my team

So confusing  :runaway:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 12, 2016, 03:03:27 PM
I honestly think Bill is a massive piece of crap for what he did for Monica and libs hypocritically give him a free pass.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 03:12:52 PM
It's hypocritical for Hillary to hold herself out as a champion for women and victims of sexual assault when she allegedly played a role in hushing and discrediting the victims of her husband's alleged sexual assaults. I use the word "alleged" in fairness, but let's be honest here: Bill Clinton has a rap(e) sheet almost as long as Bill Cosby.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillary-clinton-media-105901_Page2.html#.VpVlBtLnbGg (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillary-clinton-media-105901_Page2.html#.VpVlBtLnbGg)

Quote
In the 1992 presidential race, she encouraged efforts to push back against press inquiries into Bill Clinton’s infidelities and her own financial dealings, and cooperated with a campaign-within-a-campaign in Little Rock, along with Betsey Wright, her husband’s top aide, according to an account provided to journalist Carl Bernstein. The unit, known inside the Clinton campaign as the “Defense Department,” collected 2,000 boxes full of personal papers and correspondence and became a prototype of sorts for Clinton’s fortress-like approach to press relations from then on.

But she wasn’t just any staffer; she was Bill Clinton’s wife, and their job, as Wright so memorably put it, was to stomp out the “bimbo eruptions” before they could derail his presidential aspirations.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/03/and_speaking_of_perfect_unions_.2.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/03/and_speaking_of_perfect_unions_.2.html)

Quote
According to Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge, as her husband prepared to run for president, she pushed to get sworn statements from women he'd been rumored to have been involved with, statements in which they were supposed to say they'd had no relationship with him. She even interviewed one of these women herself, at her law firm. She also led efforts to undermine Gennifer Flowers, whom she referred to as "trailer trash."

Neither of your quoted passages are hypocritical or rapey
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2016, 04:06:06 PM
Anything goes . . . As long as their Democrats
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 04:15:41 PM
Anything goes . . . As long as their Democrats

Arkansas fan outed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2016, 04:17:16 PM
Hypoco-Lib response, sad.

It's a shame that Clinton's are so closeted for the sake of political power. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 05:12:21 PM
Hypoco-Lib response, sad.

It's a shame that Clinton's are so closeted for the sake of political power.

It's ok if you missed the joke dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2016, 05:28:46 PM
Weird post, lib
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 05:29:50 PM
Sorry, I won't go they're again
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2016, 05:41:48 PM
Hillary really seems like she hates laws and regulations....at least as they apply to her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 12, 2016, 10:03:48 PM
Lib7 really showing his sexist and misogynist stripes in this thread. Typical libtard

"There's nothing wrong with raping women, or harboring a rapist. The Clinton's are okay by me." -lib7
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 10:05:21 PM
Innocent until proven guilty.... Unless there (dax!) a democrat
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 12, 2016, 10:08:29 PM
Take your war on women to clinton.org you monster
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 12, 2016, 10:20:51 PM
Innocent until proven guilty.... Unless there (dax!) a democrat
:D they're*
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2016, 10:22:12 PM
Go away edn
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 12, 2016, 10:25:21 PM
Go away edn

 :bawl:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2016, 10:26:40 PM
Man Hillary just had so much disdain for the law of the land.  Sad 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 12, 2016, 11:05:06 PM
I honestly think Bill is a massive piece of crap for what he did for Monica and libs hypocritically give him a free pass.

Oh. Word?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 12, 2016, 11:07:58 PM
word
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2016, 11:20:22 PM
....up
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 16, 2016, 08:53:03 AM
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Bill-Clinton-chooses.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 16, 2016, 08:53:45 AM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Hillary-Area-51.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 16, 2016, 10:27:50 AM
Are we, conservatives, being mean and hateful towards MG over Benghazi?   We get all froth up because she said the attack was caused by protards. Well, maybe she was just being.a good soldier and following orders from Odumbass.  Of course she then had to lie.when under oath.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 17, 2016, 08:37:28 AM
Gross. http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/awkward-pandering-spectacle-of-hillary-clinton-trying-to-be-real/ (http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/awkward-pandering-spectacle-of-hillary-clinton-trying-to-be-real/)

Hillary's version of "acting like a woman to appeal to women."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: OK_Cat on January 17, 2016, 10:12:02 AM
The butthurt is so strong. A third straight presidential election going to a democrat is killing them :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 17, 2016, 10:45:39 AM
I'm not sure that's the right word. If she's elected, yeah. But right now it's more revulsion and morbid curiousity as to how the Dems could even contemplate nominating her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2016, 12:24:27 PM
The love themselves some dishonesty, incompetence and rape, what can you say.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 19, 2016, 04:08:59 PM
She's going to be indicted. I don't even the Clinton Family can weasel out of this one. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html)

So it's down to TSS, unless Biden jumps in as the savior.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on January 19, 2016, 04:13:44 PM
It would be best for the country if Hil was indicted, and Biden was forced to run.  Biden would beat Cruz or Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 19, 2016, 04:18:55 PM
1340 classified emails.  She should be so mumped, but I have a feeling she isn't. 

Money.  Ppl have too much invested in her.  If she gets indicted, it will be after she loses, not before.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 19, 2016, 04:43:41 PM
I'm not even sure Biden could still get on most states' ballots at this point. The Iowa caucus is in less than 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 19, 2016, 04:45:54 PM
Parties can do whatever the eff they want
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 19, 2016, 07:16:58 PM
Fox news is reporting MG had two messages on her private server that were classified higher than top secret.  If Obama stops an indictment of Hillary for violating the espionage act, he should be impeached.  Why did Hillary want he own server and not one provided by the state department?   She reasoned that a private server is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.  She could be queen scuzzy and enrich her, Bill and Chipmunk girl.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bones129 on January 19, 2016, 11:31:06 PM
Fox news is reporting MG had two messages on her private server that were classified higher than top secret.  If Obama stops an indictment of Hillary for violating the espionage act, he should be impeached.  Why did Hillary want he own server and not one provided by the state department?   She reasoned that a private server is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.  She could be queen scuzzy and enrich her, Bill and Chipmunk girl.

Other sources are saying that those two messages were reclassified to a higher security level after they appeared on her server.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 20, 2016, 07:00:02 AM
Fox news is reporting MG had two messages on her private server that were classified higher than top secret.  If Obama stops an indictment of Hillary for violating the espionage act, he should be impeached.  Why did Hillary want he own server and not one provided by the state department?   She reasoned that a private server is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.  She could be queen scuzzy and enrich her, Bill and Chipmunk girl.

Other sources are saying that those two messages were reclassified to a higher security level after they appeared on her server.  :dunno:
So they were already classified, but bumped to a higher level of classification after they were sent to her private server that she legally isn't supposed to have?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 20, 2016, 07:01:23 AM
I mean, that is a forseeable outcome, as I imagine it happens often in the state dept, and probably one of the big reasons why you can't have private email.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 20, 2016, 10:12:54 AM
What is being lost in all of this too is she set a private server to avoid having her information and correspondence subject to Freedom of information act requests.  Why?   My only thought is personal enrichment.  How will her and Bill whore the office of President?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 20, 2016, 01:09:12 PM
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Brock Landers on January 20, 2016, 01:09:25 PM
It would be best for the country if Hil was indicted, and Biden was forced to run.  Biden would beat Cruz or Trump.

Theory - Joe has some bad dirt so that's why he didn't run when he could obviously destroy these other clowns.
Debunking - Joe has been around so long that any dirt would have been found and used by now.
Debunking rebuttal - dirt was found semi-recently and is being kept under wraps until needed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on January 20, 2016, 01:14:21 PM
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Media  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 20, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

It just means the media prefer Bernie to Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 20, 2016, 02:00:12 PM
It would be best for the country if Hil was indicted, and Biden was forced to run.  Biden would beat Cruz or Trump.

Theory - Joe has some bad dirt so that's why he didn't run when he could obviously destroy these other clowns.
Debunking - Joe has been around so long that any dirt would have been found and used by now.
Debunking rebuttal - dirt was found semi-recently and is being kept under wraps until needed.

Or he has been a solid guy and his family has been mega-mumped with tragedy and he wants to go off in the sunset and boss out with the loved ones he has left.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 20, 2016, 02:15:42 PM
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

It just means the media prefer Bernie to Hillary.

2008 all over again for Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 20, 2016, 02:45:13 PM
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

It just means the media prefer Bernie to Hillary.

2008 all over again for Hillary.

Except this time the media's chosen candidate is a cranky white septuagenarian self-avowed socialist, as opposed to a young black telegenic closet socialist.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 20, 2016, 02:50:10 PM
Media  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 20, 2016, 02:51:42 PM
Really the media seems to have picked an old white man with hair that looks like piss colored cotton candy and hates mexicans
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 20, 2016, 03:16:04 PM
Odd that the two leadings candidates for both parties favor stricter border control. It's almost like that's a winning issue of bipartisan agreement among many republican and democrat voters.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 20, 2016, 04:14:58 PM
The "Weiner" movie will be final nail in MG's coffin.  The story of how MG helped Huma through a stiff peroid of her life as her man's political life was deflated by his sorid contact with gals of the sisterhood supposedly is a killer of her ambitions.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 20, 2016, 04:23:04 PM
Really the media seems to have picked an old white man with hair that looks like piss colored cotton candy and hates mexicans

I'd say Bernie's hair is more white than yellow. His teeth are yellow, tho.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 20, 2016, 04:46:32 PM
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

It just means the media prefer Bernie to Hillary.

2008 all over again for Hillary.

Except this time the media's chosen candidate is a cranky white septuagenarian self-avowed socialist, as opposed to a young black telegenic closet socialist.

Wait, the media is now a shill for Bernie?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 20, 2016, 10:02:26 PM
Enforcing immigration laws = hating Mexicans iff you're a pub?????????

Interesting indeed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 21, 2016, 12:56:11 PM
The Weiner Scandal.  Two guys have produced a dooucementary about the rise and fall of Weiner, Anthony that is.  People who saw an early draft said it shows team Mean Granny telling wife Huma to cut ties with Tony Weiner.  HUMA is MG's closet aid, and is married to Weiner man who sextet women lewd messages about his happydandlers.  Interesting why MG offered this advice given Bill the Raper's sorid feats.   Not much of a sister in Association of the Hood of Tough Hides.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 21, 2016, 12:59:18 PM
Easy, hill had something to gain by maintaining Bill.  Weiner's wife doesn't have near the incentive.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 21, 2016, 07:29:14 PM
Odd that the two leadings candidates for both parties favor stricter border control. It's almost like that's a winning issue of bipartisan agreement among many republican and democrat voters.

Who the hell is against stricter border control? The disconnect is how much to spend and what to do with the undocumented.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 21, 2016, 08:22:35 PM
Odd that the two leadings candidates for both parties favor stricter border control. It's almost like that's a winning issue of bipartisan agreement among many republican and democrat voters.

Who the hell is against stricter border control? The disconnect is how much to spend and what to do with the undocumented.

:lol: "I'm totally for strict border control! But everyone who already broke the law should become a citizen. But we need strict border control!!!"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 21, 2016, 08:35:16 PM
FSD we gotta post transfer order in here for you :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 21, 2016, 09:01:57 PM
What if Hilrod has a colonel stand before congress and take the hit and then pursue a lucrative career on MSNBC complaining about how the right is a bunch of dishonest people who hate America?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on January 21, 2016, 09:06:57 PM
Have you ever listened to her talk for any length of time?   It wouldn't make it one season.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 22, 2016, 07:52:44 AM
Odd that the two leadings candidates for both parties favor stricter border control. It's almost like that's a winning issue of bipartisan agreement among many republican and democrat voters.

Who the hell is against stricter border control? The disconnect is how much to spend and what to do with the undocumented.

:lol: "I'm totally for strict border control! But everyone who already broke the law should become a citizen. But we need strict border control!!!"

All things considered, conservatives should have an issue with mass deportation considering the amount of government needed and the extreme costs that would be incurred. It makes no sense to on one hand complain about the amount of debt we have then on the other hand try to get rid of millions of potential tax payers. I would think it would be much more advantageous to a conservative to use our resources for getting these undocumented workers official.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 22, 2016, 07:57:12 AM
FSD we gotta post transfer order in here for you :lol:

Your stupid ass would think that. Immigration and border security is in no way a liberal versus conservative issue. Have you watched a republican debate? Have you seen the deportation numbers of the current president? I don't even know why I'm asking as you're either the first or second stupidest sonofabitch posting in the pit.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 22, 2016, 09:32:58 AM
Odd that the two leadings candidates for both parties favor stricter border control. It's almost like that's a winning issue of bipartisan agreement among many republican and democrat voters.

Who the hell is against stricter border control? The disconnect is how much to spend and what to do with the undocumented.

:lol: "I'm totally for strict border control! But everyone who already broke the law should become a citizen. But we need strict border control!!!"

All things considered, conservatives should have an issue with mass deportation considering the amount of government needed and the extreme costs that would be incurred. It makes no sense to on one hand complain about the amount of debt we have then on the other hand try to get rid of millions of potential tax payers. I would think it would be much more advantageous to a conservative to use our resources for getting these undocumented workers official.

And there it is - the "mass deportation" strawman. Libs have such simple minds.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 22, 2016, 09:34:02 AM
Isn't that why you hate rubio?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 22, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
So do you want them to just remain in the US illegally?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 22, 2016, 10:04:51 AM
Isn't that why you hate rubio?

No. Rubio is my preferred candidate. I happen to disagree with him on his softer position on immigration, but not because I favor "mass deportation." That is completely unnecessary. Tighten up employer verification and sanctions for hiring illegal labor, tighten up benefits to illegal aliens, and they will self-deport. I even agree with selling work permits to illegal immigrants once we have tighter border security in place (which will fund enforcement efforts), provided that we end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. I simply disagree with any "path to citizenship" for people who have broken our laws. It is patently unfair to allow them to jump the line ahead of people who have followed the law. That's where I differ from Rubio.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 22, 2016, 10:05:15 AM
So do you want them to just remain in the US illegally?

Again, such simple minds... :lol: See above.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 22, 2016, 10:06:11 AM
If you sell them work permits, they aren't illegal anymore. That is amnesty.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 22, 2016, 10:17:40 AM
 Have you noticed how mainstream lib media services are knipping at MG as it is revealed she had super secret information on her home brew server, and now is crying conspiracy between the top Inspector General and Republicans to leak information to damage her.  MG what is is when violating the espionage act?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 22, 2016, 10:24:08 AM
FSD we gotta post transfer order in here for you :lol:

Your stupid ass would think that. Immigration and border security is in no way a liberal versus conservative issue. Have you watched a republican debate? Have you seen the deportation numbers of the current president? I don't even know why I'm asking as you're either the first or second stupidest sonofabitch posting in the pit.

The presidents deportation numbers are notoriously unreliable.(they changed the way they are compiled)
I also recall the pubs having a requirement of securing the border before doing immigration reform, the Crats refused and reform died, but yeah I'm dumb :jerk:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 22, 2016, 10:24:33 AM
If you sell them work permits, they aren't illegal anymore. That is amnesty.

Sort of. The permits would expire and not be perpetually renewable, but it is certainly granting limited legal status. So if that is "amnesty" so be it. It helps fund the enforcement efforts without leaving certain industries in an immediate lurch. A reasonable and fiscally responsible compromise, in my opinion.

It is not in any way a "pathway to citizenship."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 22, 2016, 10:30:09 AM
Ksuw just can't stand the idea of brown citizens. MAAAAAYBE some brown quasi slaves, but def no brown citizens
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 22, 2016, 10:34:12 AM
Ksuw just can't stand the idea of brown citizens. MAAAAAYBE some brown quasi slaves, but def no brown citizens

Uh huh. Keep on trollin.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 22, 2016, 11:31:40 AM
If dems thought illegals would vote R there would already be a one-way high speed railroad into mexico running them out of the country at the rate of 1000 per hour.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 22, 2016, 11:34:12 AM
That's what the unions (actual racists) want anyways. Maybe they'll do like they did in the 50's and go around beating up brown people with bats and sticks. These are the same jerk offs calling the pubs racist for wanting to deport criminals.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 22, 2016, 11:40:37 AM
r's good d's bad!

Pretty convincing fsd
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 22, 2016, 04:41:33 PM
That's what the unions (actual racists) want anyways. Maybe they'll do like they did in the 50's and go around beating up brown people with bats and sticks. These are the same jerk offs calling the pubs racist for wanting to deport criminals.

But Op Wetback was during a Pub president....
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 22, 2016, 08:49:42 PM
If dems thought illegals would vote R there would already be a one-way high speed railroad into mexico running them out of the country at the rate of 1000 per hour.

Sounds like you are making the assumption that all Mexicans are Dems, I mean we have two Hispanics running for president as republicans. You likely don't get out much but a substantial portion of Cuban immigrants are republicans.

FSD, most people are good and decent people who just care for other good and decent people. One of my best friends was born in Mexico and he came over with his parents illegally at a very early age. His parents worked hard and raised a great family, they had three more kids that some would call anchor babies. They are good and decent people, and citizens now. They experienced the American Dream like European immigrants did. We have never ever had a conversation about who is voting for whom. I just want good things for good people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 22, 2016, 08:55:31 PM
The interesting thing about some people trying to make immigration a partisan issue is that you could put twenty people in a room and it's very possible that you could get 20 variations on what is right. I know all three democrat candidates differ on immigration and the republicans can't stop arguing about who has the best policy and who is flip flopping.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 23, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
Anecdotes and fuzzy feeling aside, if Hispanics broke 3:1 for pubs, we'd be getting a steady diet of immigration crisis and tragedy from the dems and Mexicans would be deported like hot cakes.

I don't think there's any denying that
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 23, 2016, 08:59:56 AM
They already have "dey took er jobs" union goon squad ready to roll, and the "living wage" rhetoric is a major libtard campaign issue. It's actually quite amazing they're able to pander to both demographics while pushing completely incongruent positions.

And lol at anyone who thinks illegals "want to pay taxes". Gmafb
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on January 23, 2016, 09:35:53 AM
Anecdotes and fuzzy feeling aside, if Hispanics broke 3:1 for pubs, we'd be getting a steady diet of immigration crisis and tragedy from the dems and Mexicans would be deported like hot cakes.

I don't think there's any denying that

Obama has deported more people than Bush and Clinton  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 23, 2016, 11:11:10 AM
Ok can we get this thread back on focus?

(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Hillary-too-big.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 23, 2016, 11:12:09 AM
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Trust-More-than-Hillary.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 23, 2016, 11:12:53 AM
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/H-Silent-copy.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 23, 2016, 11:13:46 AM
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/FS-vs-BS.jpeg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 23, 2016, 11:17:43 AM
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Clinton-Not-Rape.jpg)

(http://dl9fvu4r30qs1.cloudfront.net/d2/10/e33e2f55446980dd019dc0a7c6c8/cosby.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 23, 2016, 11:18:12 AM
Bloomberg is going to roll this
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 23, 2016, 11:21:24 AM
Wrong thread ksuw
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 23, 2016, 11:45:16 PM
Hilliary won't be indicted by Obama's lackey.  Obama is so crooked he probably has a corkscrew weasel.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 24, 2016, 06:00:06 PM
New york Post is reporting MG aids regularly pull top secret emails off of top secret servers and printer.  Cut off the secrecy label and psated it to a message that wasn't labelled to send to MG 12876539.   Explains why she keeps flapping her yap about no markings.  In two cases she clearly told an aid Sullivan to do this.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on January 24, 2016, 06:19:34 PM
Does any of this really matter?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on January 24, 2016, 06:19:45 PM
Does any of this really matter?
No.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 24, 2016, 06:33:02 PM
Hillary is running ads in kansas. That's how desperate she is for delagates.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 24, 2016, 06:34:20 PM
all 10 kansas democrats are on the #bern train  :billdance:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 24, 2016, 06:40:29 PM
Hillary spending dough on ads during the nfl playoffs, while bern buys a bunch of sidewalk chalk and deploys his army of grotesque adult children to draw campaign signs. :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on January 25, 2016, 02:27:59 AM
run, bloomie, run.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 25, 2016, 08:51:05 AM
I don't drink much soda, but when I do I like a 44 oz'er.  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on January 25, 2016, 09:03:12 AM
run, bloomie, run.

I heard he will only run as an independent if it is Sanders vs. Trump or Cruz. If Hillary wins he will not run. Probably because he is well known to be an establishment liberal.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 25, 2016, 09:43:16 AM
He isn't winning either way, but should run either way.  I think he stands a better chance than either Bernie or Hill.

I really hope he and trump go as independents.  An individual's vote would be pretty important in that election and we could have a president elected with an all time low percentage of the vote.  The "Not my president" sentiment would skyrocket higher than it is during discussion about Obama at a family reunion in central Mississippi.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2016, 10:57:48 AM
Hillary is such a loser :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 25, 2016, 01:34:14 PM
Hillary spending dough on ads during the nfl playoffs, while bern buys a bunch of sidewalk chalk and deploys his army of grotesque adult children to draw campaign signs. :ROFL:

Bernie has spent more money in Iowa than Hillary has. Huge shocker that FSD has no idea what he's talking about.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2016, 08:49:20 PM
Hillary spending dough on ads during the nfl playoffs, while bern buys a bunch of sidewalk chalk and deploys his army of grotesque adult children to draw campaign signs. :ROFL:

Bernie has spent more money in Iowa than Hillary has. Huge shocker that FSD has no idea what he's talking about.

Probably ought to go back and check for "context" before spouting off like an r-tard.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 29, 2016, 03:15:11 PM
KSUW and Dax get ready to change your shorts
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/government-declares-22-clinton-emails-top-secret/ar-BBoSo4n?ocid=spartanntp
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2016, 03:24:09 PM
KSUW and Dax get ready to change your shorts
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/government-declares-22-clinton-emails-top-secret/ar-BBoSo4n?ocid=spartanntp

The emails are just the proverbial cheery on top . . . the operation of a separate IT platform outside of the operational purview of Federal IT administrators, the hosting of domain names on foreign soil, operating an improper IT platform that's not properly secured both virtually and physically and on and on and on.    She was assuredly hacked, and foreign intel services and other bad guys likely monitored anything and everything going in and out.   But ProgLibs don't care.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 29, 2016, 03:32:22 PM
The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.  There is a clear, concise, federal policy on classified data.  The issue has always been whether or not someone could prove she stripped the classification and sent or stored it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2016, 03:41:20 PM
The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.

:lol: Never change, Edna.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2016, 03:48:18 PM
The GOP's woes pale in comparison to the Dems, who staked everything on a congenital liar who is going to be indicted for mishandling top secret information because she set up a private server to hide her communications from FOIA requests. And their Plan B is... an avowed socialist who is pushing 80. :lol: That is really amazing. The Dems' obsession with identity politics has come home to roost.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/29/official-some-clinton-emails-too-damaging-to-release.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/29/official-some-clinton-emails-too-damaging-to-release.html)

Quote
EXCLUSIVE: The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding. 

The determination was first reported by Fox News, hours before the State Department formally announced Friday that seven email chains, found in 22 documents, will be withheld “in full” because they, in fact, contain “Top Secret” information.

The State Department, when first contacted by Fox News about withholding such emails Friday morning, did not dispute the reporting – but did not comment in detail. After a version of this report was first published, the Obama administration confirmed to the Associated Press that the seven email chains would be withheld. The department has since confirmed those details publicly.

The decision to withhold the documents in full, and not provide even a partial release with redactions, further undercuts claims by the State Department and the Clinton campaign that none of the intelligence in the emails was classified when it hit Clinton's personal server.

Fox News is told the emails include intelligence from "special access programs," or SAP, which is considered beyond “Top Secret.” A Jan. 14 letter, first reported by Fox News, from intelligence community Inspector General Charles McCullough III notified senior intelligence and foreign relations committee leaders that "several dozen emails containing classified information” were determined to be “at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, AND TOP SECRET/SAP levels."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 29, 2016, 03:53:32 PM
The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.

:lol: Never change, Edna.

The child wonders into the thread.  Glad to see you weren't LaVoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Question_of_use_of_private_server_for_government_business
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2016, 04:05:31 PM
The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.

:lol: Never change, Edna.

The child wonders into the thread.  Glad to see you weren't LaVoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Question_of_use_of_private_server_for_government_business

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804 (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804)

Quote
The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.

...

Spokespeople for the State Department and Clinton stressed earlier this week that the agency had “no prohibition” on the use of private email for work purposes.

...

The 2005 policy says approved “telework solutions” satisfy the rule, which appears in a section of State Department regulations discussing “sensitive but unclassified” information — an extremely broad category of data. Former officials said a large volume of State Department paperwork and email falls into the swath of information known internally as “SBU.”

State Department rules say almost any information that could be withheld from a Freedom of Information Act request can be considered sensitive.

After this story was first published, a State Department official acknowledged the 2005 policy but emphasized that it is limited to records containing such sensitive information.

“Under State Department policy in the FAM referenced in news reports tonight, sensitive but unclassified information should be handled on a system with certain security requirements except in certain circumstances. That FAM policy pertains solely to SBU information,” the official said. “Reports claiming that by using personal email she is automatically out of step of that FAM are inaccurate.”

The official suggested it is possible a review the department is doing of a trove of emails Clinton returned to the agency in December at its request will conclude that none contains SBU information.


The State Department has now admitted that a number of Clinton's emails were not only classified, they were Top Secret. Several were even classified a level of protection above Top Secret (I didn't even know such a classification existed).

You know Edna, I've been calling you a libtard, but you might actually be clinically Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 29, 2016, 04:18:29 PM
Are you rough ridin' simple KSUW?

The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.  There is a clear, concise, federal policy on classified data.  The issue has always been whether or not someone could prove she stripped the classification and sent or stored it.
Dax was emphasizing the fact she was even running a server at all, which isn't the biggest issue.  It's the classified data. 
Go back to your playground equipment.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 29, 2016, 06:46:05 PM
MG has not driven a car since 1996.  So much for her common woman running to fight for the common Joe and Joette.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2016, 10:20:24 PM
Are you rough ridin' simple KSUW?

The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.  There is a clear, concise, federal policy on classified data.  The issue has always been whether or not someone could prove she stripped the classification and sent or stored it.
Dax was emphasizing the fact she was even running a server at all, which isn't the biggest issue.  It's the classified data. 
Go back to your playground equipment.

I took no issue with the bolder part of what you said. I did take issue with your very stupid preceding comment that "The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server." That's wrong and just plain stupid. There was a very clear policy, which she violated. By using that sever to disseminate classified info. In order to hide her communications from open records laws.

You can quibble all you want, but Hillary Clinton is a liar and by all rights should soon be a felon. The Dem front runner. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2016, 12:03:19 AM
LOL at the DOS, talk about a set of regulations so far out of touch with reality.    Other government agencies have far more strident rules on using IT platforms for official government business that are not managed by Federal IT departments.   Shocking, but not surprising.   What a bunch of amateurs.

To have this simply fall back on record keeping is laughable.   Wow, edn Whack-a-Doodle, it must feel really good for you to know that the Democratic front run would so blatantly mishandle DOS IT operations and know that the most limp wrist-ed sections of Federal law apply. 

The probability that she was hacked are about as close to 100% as you can't, intel agencies and other bad guys feast on these type of IT environments, rank amateurs can hack what she had.



 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 07:47:11 AM
She's going to prison isn't she?

For me, the fact that she set up a private server to evade/undermine the FOIA is sufficient to forever bar her from being president. All of the other stuff, which displays a reckless disregard for national security and impertinent protocols, are just aggravating facts.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 30, 2016, 08:39:19 AM
She's going to prison isn't she?

For me, the fact that she set up a private server to evade/undermine the FOIA is sufficient to forever bar her from being president. All of the other stuff, which displays a reckless disregard for national security and impertinent protocols, are just aggravating facts.
Have you noticed how MG is trying to steer the conversation from your base points.  It even goes deeper.  The decision to set up this server was made by Hilliarrhea without Obama's knowledge or approval.  This was a blatant act to violate State Deptartment policy so she could keep her conversations secret, Why?  She and Bill sure accumulated a lot of wealth while she was SOS and Bill's fees increased as well. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2016, 09:30:17 AM
She's going to prison isn't she?

For me, the fact that she set up a private server to evade/undermine the FOIA is sufficient to forever bar her from being president. All of the other stuff, which displays a reckless disregard for national security and impertinent protocols, are just aggravating facts.

The Clinton Privelege will keep her out of prison, but she's going to be indicted and she'll never be president.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on January 30, 2016, 09:33:51 AM
You guys don't really believe she is going to be indicted right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 30, 2016, 11:23:04 AM
Are you rough ridin' simple KSUW?

The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.  There is a clear, concise, federal policy on classified data.  The issue has always been whether or not someone could prove she stripped the classification and sent or stored it.
Dax was emphasizing the fact she was even running a server at all, which isn't the biggest issue.  It's the classified data. 
Go back to your playground equipment.

I took no issue with the bolder part of what you said. I did take issue with your very stupid preceding comment that "The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server." That's wrong and just plain stupid. There was a very clear policy, which she violated. By using that sever to disseminate classified info. In order to hide her communications from open records laws.

You can quibble all you want, but Hillary Clinton is a liar and by all rights should soon be a felon. The Dem front runner. :lol:

You guys keep saying this after link after link shows that you are wrong. 

And no she isn't, that is why the party highers are in damage control mode like their on the Titanic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 30, 2016, 11:45:45 AM
You guys don't really believe she is going to be indicted right?
I'd like to think that they aren't that dumb and blinded by R's and D's but :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2016, 11:54:37 AM
There have been people forced to retire under scorn and ridicule for far less (possibly summarily demoted even after their dismissal).

Look at the ProgLib apologists on this board . . . . so far in the tank for their movement they'll literally make excuses for anything in a quest for power.  Sad

Only in ProgLib Whack-A-Doodle land would anyone attempt to hide behind "well, there wasn't really a clear cut policy".  I mean  :lol:


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 01:59:09 PM
You guys don't really believe she is going to be indicted right?

You think the FOIA is something public officials should be able to avoid whenever they feel like it?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 02:00:39 PM
You guys don't really believe she is going to be indicted right?
I'd like to think that they aren't that dumb and blinded by R's and D's but :dunno:

Handling national security like it's email spam is a partisan issue? :sdeek:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 02:02:58 PM
I would personally be surprised if the DOJ indicted her in this administration, because the DOJ under obama is closer to the gestapo than a criminal justice bureau. It's a rough ridin' joke.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 02:04:03 PM
Fyi, that's really bad. R's and D's tho :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 30, 2016, 02:25:03 PM
I would personally be surprised if the DOJ indicted her in this administration, because the DOJ under obama is closer to the gestapo than a criminal justice bureau. It's a rough ridin' joke.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on January 30, 2016, 03:21:34 PM
I would personally be surprised if the DOJ indicted her in this administration, because the DOJ under obama is closer to the gestapo than a criminal justice bureau. It's a rough ridin' joke.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 03:25:38 PM
There have been people forced to retire under scorn and ridicule for far less (possibly summarily demoted even after their dismissal).

Look at the ProgLib apologists on this board . . . . so far in the tank for their movement they'll literally make excuses for anything in a quest for power.  Sad

Only in ProgLib Whack-A-Doodle land would anyone attempt to hide behind "well, there wasn't really a clear cut policy".  I mean  :lol:

There's a super clear cut policy against treating classified info like instagram.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 30, 2016, 05:56:25 PM
There have been people forced to retire under scorn and ridicule for far less (possibly summarily demoted even after their dismissal).

Look at the ProgLib apologists on this board . . . . so far in the tank for their movement they'll literally make excuses for anything in a quest for power.  Sad

Only in ProgLib Whack-A-Doodle land would anyone attempt to hide behind "well, there wasn't really a clear cut policy".  I mean  :lol:

There's a super clear cut policy against treating classified info like instagram.

It's funny that the only way your entire party can have a conversation is by assuming that anyone who questions your belief system must by default be a fundamentalist party member of your opposition. Pure black and white.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 30, 2016, 06:18:02 PM
I'm far more worried about the FOIA issue than classified documents issue. I just don't have as much blind faith and trust in our dear government leaders as republicans do.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 30, 2016, 07:19:56 PM
If MG is the model.woman, why don't they have a toad in a pantsuit Barbie?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on January 30, 2016, 07:24:25 PM
Because of the delay in release?
I'm far more worried about the FOIA issue than classified documents issue. I just don't have as much blind faith and trust in our dear government leaders as republicans do.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 08:57:30 PM
There have been people forced to retire under scorn and ridicule for far less (possibly summarily demoted even after their dismissal).

Look at the ProgLib apologists on this board . . . . so far in the tank for their movement they'll literally make excuses for anything in a quest for power.  Sad

Only in ProgLib Whack-A-Doodle land would anyone attempt to hide behind "well, there wasn't really a clear cut policy".  I mean  :lol:

There's a super clear cut policy against treating classified info like instagram.

It's funny that the only way your entire party can have a conversation is by assuming that anyone who questions your belief system must by default be a fundamentalist party member of your opposition. Pure black and white.

#whack-a-doodle-post
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2016, 08:59:45 PM
I said, even more hilarious that edn Whack-A-Doodle continues to clamor for excuses.   Pathetic and sad.

But typical

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 30, 2016, 11:35:48 PM
You guys don't really believe she is going to be indicted right?
I'd like to think that they aren't that dumb and blinded by R's and D's but :dunno:

Handling national security like it's email spam is a partisan issue? :sdeek:

No it isn't, not at all; your viewpoint of what will and should happen is though
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 30, 2016, 11:43:40 PM
I would personally be surprised if the DOJ indicted her in this administration, because the DOJ under obama is closer to the gestapo than a criminal justice bureau. It's a rough ridin' joke.

Exactly.

I appreciate the fact that anyone who doesn't see this issue the way the obviously partisan right sees this issue is the partisan hack, all the way up to the top. The doj has an agenda but the conservative blogs you guys are getting fed from have all the right answers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on January 31, 2016, 06:51:35 AM
Have any of you ever held a TS government clearance?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 31, 2016, 07:18:09 AM
Just me I think...
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2016, 08:43:53 AM
I've only been skimming the last page or so. Is MIR actually saying that he doesn't think Hillary should be indicted and convicted of mishandling classified information? That that is not warranted, but only ginned up by the partisan right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 31, 2016, 08:52:59 AM
You guys don't really believe she is going to be indicted right?
I'd like to think that they aren't that dumb and blinded by R's and D's but :dunno:

Handling national security like it's email spam is a partisan issue? :sdeek:

No it isn't, not at all; your viewpoint of what will and should happen is though

Not elect that person president :dunno:

How is that illogical?

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 31, 2016, 09:03:28 AM
I would personally be surprised if the DOJ indicted her in this administration, because the DOJ under obama is closer to the gestapo than a criminal justice bureau. It's a rough ridin' joke.

Exactly.

That being said, if the pubs take the whitehouse, she will be indicted (rightfully so) and probably cooked.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on January 31, 2016, 09:15:24 AM
Because of the delay in release?
I'm far more worried about the FOIA issue than classified documents issue. I just don't have as much blind faith and trust in our dear government leaders as republicans do.
Because she was trying to avoid a release altogether
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on January 31, 2016, 09:27:30 AM
No judgement with this question. Just looking for perspective.
Have any of you ever held a TS government clearance?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: EMAWican on January 31, 2016, 10:42:11 AM
No judgement with this question. Just looking for perspective.
Have any of you ever held a TS government clearance?
I have a friend with a TS clearance at Honeywell and it's his opinion that if he did the stuff that Hilrod did, he'd get X-filled and never heard from again. You bring up a legit point that people in this thread can't apparently comprehend.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on January 31, 2016, 11:07:20 AM
I would personally be surprised if the DOJ indicted her in this administration, because the DOJ under obama is closer to the gestapo than a criminal justice bureau. It's a rough ridin' joke.

Exactly.

That being said, if the pubs take the whitehouse, she will be indicted (rightfully so) and probably cooked.

Ok, indict Colin Powell too then. He used a personal e-mail as well.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on January 31, 2016, 11:40:53 AM
I would personally be surprised if the DOJ indicted her in this administration, because the DOJ under obama is closer to the gestapo than a criminal justice bureau. It's a rough ridin' joke.

Exactly.

That being said, if the pubs take the whitehouse, she will be indicted (rightfully so) and probably cooked.

Ok, indict Colin Powell too then. He used a personal e-mail as well.
Did he transmit classified material in violation of his NDA? If so, press onward.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 31, 2016, 11:58:04 AM
Agreed. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on January 31, 2016, 12:05:20 PM
Hillary is running for President only so she can escape these charges. It isn't right or fair that the people who elect her don't care about this issue. Or that she'll get a free pass when elected. But that's just the world we live in, I guess.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on January 31, 2016, 12:37:26 PM
Jeb used a private server while governer of Florida.  I'm not sure if anyone cares about official Florida business though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on January 31, 2016, 12:40:35 PM
Powell “used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.”
The statement continues: “He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on January 31, 2016, 12:50:07 PM
Nonpartisan issue for me. Investigate and prosecute.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on January 31, 2016, 01:11:57 PM
the american political system doesn't run like the united state military, dude.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 31, 2016, 01:55:02 PM
I've only been skimming the last page or so. Is MIR actually saying that he doesn't think Hillary should be indicted and convicted of mishandling classified information? That that is not warranted, but only ginned up by the partisan right?

If I thought that I would have said that, dummy. I have been pretty clear of my aggressive support of Bernie Sanders, if Hillary got indicted in the next 15 minutes,  it would effectively hand the nomination to my guy, so why would I be upset about that? The only people who think she is going to get convicted of anything are you dumbasses who root against anything with a D in front of it like politics are sports.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on January 31, 2016, 02:36:08 PM
the american political system doesn't run like the united state military, dude.
Again. This is not a political issue. People on this board and elsewhere need to stop treating it as such. This is about violations of a government NDA and the mishandling of classified information. Members of Congress as well as the public need to set aside their political alliances and hold each other accountable to the law.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 31, 2016, 02:39:08 PM
I said, even more hilarious that edn Whack-A-Doodle continues to clamor for excuses.   Pathetic and sad.

But typical
It's sad you don't have the intellectual capability to read posts and understand them on their face without using talking points to guide your thinking. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on January 31, 2016, 02:46:05 PM
I've only been skimming the last page or so. Is MIR actually saying that he doesn't think Hillary should be indicted and convicted of mishandling classified information? That that is not warranted, but only ginned up by the partisan right?

If I thought that I would have said that, dummy. I have been pretty clear of my aggressive support of Bernie Sanders, if Hillary got indicted in the next 15 minutes,  it would effectively hand the nomination to my guy, so why would I be upset about that? The only people who think she is going to get convicted of anything are you dumbasses who root against anything with a D in front of it like politics are sports.
Mostly great post.  Although I do think she will get charged at some point because of these new revelations.  Either she gets charged or we need to take a good hard look at how our government if operating if she gets off.  Because that would mark a whole new level of politicians protecting politicians.  I mean Olie North fell on the sword to get charged stopped from going up the food chain.  Clinton used some fantastic word manipulation to dodge the charge.   But this is pretty iron clad if we are to believe what the media is saying.  Obama was able to help Petraeus (would vote the crap out of him at the ballot box) out with that deal where he at least had to admit guilt.   (note: I mean felonies in general with the last couple points and dodging them, not that they were doing anything criminally similar to Hillary.)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2016, 02:47:57 PM
I've only been skimming the last page or so. Is MIR actually saying that he doesn't think Hillary should be indicted and convicted of mishandling classified information? That that is not warranted, but only ginned up by the partisan right?

If I thought that I would have said that, dummy. I have been pretty clear of my aggressive support of Bernie Sanders, if Hillary got indicted in the next 15 minutes,  it would effectively hand the nomination to my guy, so why would I be upset about that? The only people who think she is going to get convicted of anything are you dumbasses who root against anything with a D in front of it like politics are sports.

Ok - so you do think she should be convicted? But you think I'm being partisan for believing that she actually will be convicted? I really don't get your beef here.

The facts that have been reported are that she set up a private server to avoid open record requests, that server was not maintained in an adequately secured location (for a while it was in a bathroom closet at a Colorado IT firm), and that server contained numerous top secret communications.

So yeah, I've got enough faith in the rule of law - even under Obama's DOJ - that she'll be indicted and ultimately convicted if she doesn't plead. And that makes me the partisan?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 31, 2016, 02:54:58 PM
This morning Hillary was on ABC and ahe was interviewed by Stephruntoppolous.  MG said it is not.possible to transfer anything physically from the State Deptartment secure server to another server, interesting.  I think she turned the heat a little hotter with that comment as I am reading there were transfers.  Runt asked he about the confidentiality agreement she had to sign that says even if something is not.labelled top secret or classified, but clearly is auch, you cannot disseminate via unsecured means.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 31, 2016, 02:59:26 PM
I've only been skimming the last page or so. Is MIR actually saying that he doesn't think Hillary should be indicted and convicted of mishandling classified information? That that is not warranted, but only ginned up by the partisan right?

If I thought that I would have said that, dummy. I have been pretty clear of my aggressive support of Bernie Sanders, if Hillary got indicted in the next 15 minutes,  it would effectively hand the nomination to my guy, so why would I be upset about that? The only people who think she is going to get convicted of anything are you dumbasses who root against anything with a D in front of it like politics are sports.
Mostly great post.  Although I do think she will get charged at some point because of these new revelations.  Either she gets charged or we need to take a good hard look at how our government if operating if she gets off.  Because that would mark a whole new level of politicians protecting politicians.  I mean Olie North fell on the sword to get charged stopped from going up the food chain.  Clinton used some fantastic word manipulation to dodge the charge.   But this is pretty iron clad if we are to believe what the media is saying.  Obama was able to help Petraeus (would vote the crap out of him at the ballot box) out with that deal where he at least had to admit guilt.   (note: I mean felonies in general with the last couple points and dodging them, not that they were doing anything criminally similar to Hillary.)


I've only been skimming the last page or so. Is MIR actually saying that he doesn't think Hillary should be indicted and convicted of mishandling classified information? That that is not warranted, but only ginned up by the partisan right?

If I thought that I would have said that, dummy. I have been pretty clear of my aggressive support of Bernie Sanders, if Hillary got indicted in the next 15 minutes,  it would effectively hand the nomination to my guy, so why would I be upset about that? The only people who think she is going to get convicted of anything are you dumbasses who root against anything with a D in front of it like politics are sports.

Ok - so you do think she should be convicted? But you think I'm being partisan for believing that she actually will be convicted? I really don't get your beef here.

The facts that have been reported are that she set up a private server to avoid open record requests, that server was not maintained in an adequately secured location (for a while it was in a bathroom closet at a Colorado IT firm), and that server contained numerous top secret communications.

So yeah, I've got enough faith in the rule of law - even under Obama's DOJ - that she'll be indicted and ultimately convicted if she doesn't plead. And that makes me the partisan?

edn, the relevations are new to you/us, certainly they aren't new to the feds. KSUW, I don't think anything, I said like 12 hours ago ITT that I will continue to take my cues from the professional investigators who know a lot more about this than I do. They don't seem to be much of in a hurry to do anything so I'm confused as to how you and your ilk can be so convinced that she's a criminal.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on January 31, 2016, 03:17:58 PM
I mean, top Republicans have already admitted this was a ploy to drop her poll numbers. Kind of your cue to let up on the issue and not take it so seriously.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2016, 03:49:31 PM
I said, even more hilarious that edn Whack-A-Doodle continues to clamor for excuses.   Pathetic and sad.

But typical
It's sad you don't have the intellectual capability to read posts and understand them on their face without using talking points to guide your thinking.

Really?  The whack-a-doodle that keeps pointing to cryptic DNC talking points and clear attempts to hide behind government regulatory minutia in an attempt to downplay egregious security violations by a sitting SOS?

 :lol: @ you.


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2016, 05:00:06 PM
I mean, top Republicans have already admitted this was a ploy to drop her poll numbers. Kind of your cue to let up on the issue and not take it so seriously.

First, you're thinking of the Benghazi investigation - not this. This is a lot worse, and that's saying something.

Second, Kevin McCarthy's quote was a bit misconstrued. He said:

Quote
"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable," McCarthy said to Sean Hannity. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."

That doesn't mean the investigation was designed purely to hurt Clinton - though I think it's pretty common sense to infer that that was at least a reason. The point McCarthy was trying to make, as he later explained, was that there was merit to the investigation. If there hadn't been merit, it wouldn't have hurt her. Granted, that's a dubious suggestion, because phony attacks often cause all kinds of political damage, but it's also not an admission that the sole purpose of the investigation was to hurt Clinton. I'll grant you it was almost certainly a purpose. But Americans died in that terrorist attack, including a US Ambassador. There was going to be an investigation no matter who was SOS.

Again though, this has nothing to do with Hillary's email shenanigans, which should by all rights land her in jail.

And no, that's not a partisan assumption - that's common sense based on what has been reported. It is a FACT that Clinton had numerous top secret emails on her non-sanctioned private server.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on January 31, 2016, 05:16:07 PM
Thank you for clarifying but wasn't a large portion of the Benghazi investigation related to e-mails? Are they not one and the same?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2016, 06:54:51 PM
Thank you for clarifying but wasn't a large portion of the Benghazi investigation related to e-mails? Are they not one and the same?

Oh I see what you're saying. Yeah, it was discovered that Hillary exclusively used a private server as a result of doc requests during the Benghazi investigation. But no, I wouldn't say they're one and the same.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:28:51 AM
Thank you for clarifying but wasn't a large portion of the Benghazi investigation related to e-mails? Are they not one and the same?

Oh I see what you're saying. Yeah, it was discovered that Hillary exclusively used a private server as a result of doc requests during the Benghazi investigation. But no, I wouldn't say they're one and the same.

Can you point to an email that specifically states "hey guies, hit my gmail to male genitals block dem FOIA hits because Benghazi" or something like that. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 01, 2016, 07:00:45 AM
The investigation by the FBI is still ongoing Whack-a-Doodle apologist.   There's new and more damning evidence revealed every week . . . In spite of the extreme efforts by the White House and Clinton operatives to thwart the FBI. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on February 01, 2016, 09:16:15 AM
dax, were you formerly a liberal blogger?

(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/1/9/5/3/4/3/Lineup-47804881312.jpeg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 10:35:00 AM
Thank you for clarifying but wasn't a large portion of the Benghazi investigation related to e-mails? Are they not one and the same?

Oh I see what you're saying. Yeah, it was discovered that Hillary exclusively used a private server as a result of doc requests during the Benghazi investigation. But no, I wouldn't say they're one and the same.

Can you point to an email that specifically states "hey guies, hit my gmail to male genitals block dem FOIA hits because Benghazi" or something like that.

This stuff is gold! :lol: To Edna, there's no proof Clinton set up a private server to evade FOIA requests unless she expressly admitted it. :lol:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/clintons-private-email-account-exploits-foia-loophole-report-says.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/clintons-private-email-account-exploits-foia-loophole-report-says.html)

Quote
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton’s unorthodox use of a private email account and personal server for government business exploited a loophole in the State Department's FOIA, or Freedom of Information Act, process, according to the findings of the first Inspector General report to stem from her email scandal.

Congress asked the Office of Inspector General, the State Department's independent watchdog, to investigate the issue following the revelation that Mrs. Clinton did not use a government email account while secretary of state.

Fox News reviewed the 25-page report and its findings before they were made publicly available.

The report reads in part:

"FOIA neither authorizes nor requires agencies to search for Federal records in personal email accounts maintained on private servers or through commercial providers (for example Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail.)  Furthermore, the FOIA Analyst has no way to independently locate Federal records from such accounts unless employees take steps to preserve official emails in Department record keeping systems.”

The report strongly suggests that it relies on employees at all levels to follow the regulations, and when personal email is used, to forward copies to a State Department account so that it can be captured.

"Under current law and Department policy, employees who use personal email to conduct official business are required to forward or copy email from a personal account to their respective Department accounts within 20 Days.” 

Clinton did not have a State Department email address to which she could forward message traffic from her personal account, and it remains unclear whether she provided all her State Department business emails to the State Department or federal courts, where FOIA lawsuits have been filed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on February 01, 2016, 10:48:06 AM
Quote
"FOIA neither authorizes nor requires agencies to search for Federal records in personal email accounts maintained on private servers or through commercial providers (for example Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail.)  Furthermore, the FOIA Analyst has no way to independently locate Federal records from such accounts unless employees take steps to preserve official emails in Department record keeping systems.”

The report strongly suggests that it relies on employees at all levels to follow the regulations, and when personal email is used, to forward copies to a State Department account so that it can be captured.

"Under current law and Department policy, employees who use personal email to conduct official business are required to forward or copy email from a personal account to their respective Department accounts within 20 Days.” 

Clinton did not have a State Department email address to which she could forward message traffic from her personal account, and it remains unclear whether she provided all her State Department business emails to the State Department or federal courts, where FOIA lawsuits have been filed.

I mean, this kind of crap is exactly why you should want to elect someone.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on February 01, 2016, 11:42:22 AM
she didn't have a state dept email? LOL
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 12:10:17 PM
she didn't have a state dept email? LOL

And yet somehow it was a total shock to the State Department to discover this private server. :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 01, 2016, 12:14:18 PM
she didn't have a state dept email? LOL

And yet somehow it was a total shock to the State Department to discover this private server. :thumbs:

This simply tells me that there are a whole bunch of ppl doing it.  This is probably the reason nothing will come of it.  I would imagine a bunch of the ppl that would be pressing the issue are guilty of it as well. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on February 01, 2016, 12:46:24 PM
every politician in the history of the world has an email they use to avoid FOI

Non issue
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:06:50 PM
every politician in the history of the world has an email they use to avoid FOI

Non issue
Not an issue for Reno or KSUW when Brownback does it though....
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:08:08 PM
Thank you for clarifying but wasn't a large portion of the Benghazi investigation related to e-mails? Are they not one and the same?

Oh I see what you're saying. Yeah, it was discovered that Hillary exclusively used a private server as a result of doc requests during the Benghazi investigation. But no, I wouldn't say they're one and the same.

Can you point to an email that specifically states "hey guies, hit my gmail to male genitals block dem FOIA hits because Benghazi" or something like that.

This stuff is gold! :lol: To Edna, there's no proof Clinton set up a private server to evade FOIA requests unless she expressly admitted it. :lol:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/clintons-private-email-account-exploits-foia-loophole-report-says.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/clintons-private-email-account-exploits-foia-loophole-report-says.html)

Quote
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton’s unorthodox use of a private email account and personal server for government business exploited a loophole in the State Department's FOIA, or Freedom of Information Act, process, according to the findings of the first Inspector General report to stem from her email scandal.

Congress asked the Office of Inspector General, the State Department's independent watchdog, to investigate the issue following the revelation that Mrs. Clinton did not use a government email account while secretary of state.

Fox News reviewed the 25-page report and its findings before they were made publicly available.

The report reads in part:

"FOIA neither authorizes nor requires agencies to search for Federal records in personal email accounts maintained on private servers or through commercial providers (for example Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail.)  Furthermore, the FOIA Analyst has no way to independently locate Federal records from such accounts unless employees take steps to preserve official emails in Department record keeping systems.”

The report strongly suggests that it relies on employees at all levels to follow the regulations, and when personal email is used, to forward copies to a State Department account so that it can be captured.

"Under current law and Department policy, employees who use personal email to conduct official business are required to forward or copy email from a personal account to their respective Department accounts within 20 Days.” 

Clinton did not have a State Department email address to which she could forward message traffic from her personal account, and it remains unclear whether she provided all her State Department business emails to the State Department or federal courts, where FOIA lawsuits have been filed.

So you're saying you made up the part where she specifically used a private email server to get around Benghazi hearings.  Good to know facts and truth are relative. 

I'll await your next purely dogmaticly drive "truth" or "fact" based entirely in your reality.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:12:09 PM
every politician in the history of the world has an email they use to avoid FOI

Non issue
Not an issue for Reno or KSUW when Brownback does it though....

Oh did Brownback have access to classified info?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:17:31 PM
So you're saying you made up the part where she specifically used a private email server to get around Benghazi hearings.  Good to know facts and truth are relative. 

I'll await your next purely dogmaticly drive "truth" or "fact" based entirely in your reality.

Edna, you're crazy is showing. Zip it up. I never said "she specifically used a private email server to get around Benghazi hearings." Her use of the private server well predates Benghazi.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 01, 2016, 01:18:01 PM
I'd like to point out the "all politicians do this to evade the foia" is at best unsubstantiated, and really false juxtaposition from the usual libtard apologists.

We're talking about highly classified military information, not some account Jeb (not subject to foia) used to receive porn and manage his fantasy golf team.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:21:07 PM
So you're saying you made up the part where she specifically used a private email server to get around Benghazi hearings.  Good to know facts and truth are relative. 

I'll await your next purely dogmaticly drive "truth" or "fact" based entirely in your reality.

Edna, you're crazy is showing. Zip it up. I never said "she specifically used a private email server to get around Benghazi hearings." Her use of the private server well predates Benghazi.

Quote from: KSUW
Yeah, it was discovered that Hillary exclusively used a private server as a result of doc requests during the Benghazi investigation.
You can't even keep the facts straight in your posts.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
I'd like to point out the "all politicians do this to evade the foia" is at best unsubstantiated, and really false juxtaposition from the usual libtard apologists.

We're talking about highly classified military information, not some account Jeb (not subject to foia) used to receive porn and manage his fantasy golf team.

The fact that you guys can't even keep an internal narrative is funny.  Also great that you don't understand questioning your narratives isn't an endorsement of another position.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:25:22 PM
So you're saying you made up the part where she specifically used a private email server to get around Benghazi hearings.  Good to know facts and truth are relative. 

I'll await your next purely dogmaticly drive "truth" or "fact" based entirely in your reality.

Edna, you're crazy is showing. Zip it up. I never said "she specifically used a private email server to get around Benghazi hearings." Her use of the private server well predates Benghazi.

Quote from: KSUW
Yeah, it was discovered that Hillary exclusively used a private server as a result of doc requests during the Benghazi investigation.
You can't even keep the facts straight in your posts.

Edna, yu don't read gud. "It was discovered that Hillary exclusively used a private server as a result of doc requests during the Benghazi investigation." The Benghazi hearings led to the discovery. You can't really be this stupid, can you? The facts are that Hillary used a private server from the very start. That's not in dispute.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 01, 2016, 01:26:49 PM
There is def several concerns:

1. the FOIA issue.  Those aren't her emails, they are our emails.  The lack of access to her work product as a Sec of State is unacceptable
2. the security classification and national security issue.  eff her for putting us one hack away from others having classified info


#2 is def the worst of the two, but #1 needs to be addressed badly as well.  I don't give a crap about an official's access to classified info.  Any and all public office work needs to be on a public office provided email acct and server. 

Porn and golf teams to be managed off of private accts where no public biz is handled. 

Both are serious issues.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:28:53 PM
There is def several concerns:

1. the FOIA issue.  Those aren't her emails, they are our emails.  The lack of access to her work product as a Sec of State is unacceptable
2. the security classification and national security issue.  eff her for putting us one hack away from others having classified info


#2 is def the worst of the two, but #1 needs to be addressed badly as well.  I don't give a crap about an official's access to classified info.  Any and all public office work needs to be on a public office provided email acct and server. 

Porn and golf teams to be managed off of private accts where no public biz is handled. 

Both are serious issues.
Great post, and what 99% of us believe. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 01, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
I'd like to point out the "all politicians do this to evade the foia" is at best unsubstantiated, and really false juxtaposition from the usual libtard apologists.

We're talking about highly classified military information, not some account Jeb (not subject to foia) used to receive porn and manage his fantasy golf team.

The fact that you guys can't even keep an internal narrative is funny.  Also great that you don't understand questioning your narratives isn't an endorsement of another position.

Do you think we have otr pit meeting, whack-a-doodle?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 01, 2016, 01:33:02 PM
every politician in the history of the world has an email they use to avoid FOI

Non issue

It really is an issue, and it would be great if there were a high profile case to put a stop to that practice.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:35:28 PM
I'd like to point out the "all politicians do this to evade the foia" is at best unsubstantiated, and really false juxtaposition from the usual libtard apologists.

We're talking about highly classified military information, not some account Jeb (not subject to foia) used to receive porn and manage his fantasy golf team.

The fact that you guys can't even keep an internal narrative is funny.  Also great that you don't understand questioning your narratives isn't an endorsement of another position.

Do you think we have otr pit meeting, whack-a-doodle?

Yes, probably listen to neo-con radio waiting for your next commands while hold up in your Obamaproof bunkers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on February 01, 2016, 01:36:10 PM
There is def several concerns:

1. the FOIA issue.  Those aren't her emails, they are our emails.  The lack of access to her work product as a Sec of State is unacceptable
2. the security classification and national security issue.  eff her for putting us one hack away from others having classified info


#2 is def the worst of the two, but #1 needs to be addressed badly as well.  I don't give a crap about an official's access to classified info.  Any and all public office work needs to be on a public office provided email acct and server. 

Porn and golf teams to be managed off of private accts where no public biz is handled. 

Both are serious issues.

#1 is far worse
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 02:17:29 PM
Both are bad, but I'd say that Number 2 is much more damaging in the short run.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on February 01, 2016, 02:23:04 PM
If you think #2 is worse than #1, you have far more belief in the effectiveness of the security systems used by the government email servers than I have.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 02:28:52 PM
If you think #2 is worse than #1, you have far more belief in the effectiveness of the security systems used by the government email servers than I have.

Fair enough. I guess I do have a little faith in the government's ability to encrypt high level classified communications as opposed to running a server in a bathroom closet of a private IT firm. And I could very well be wrong. But many experts believe it is "a certainty" that Hillary's server was hacked. See, for example:

Quote
Former intelligence officials say it's a certainty that her server was compromised by foreign intelligence services.

Unless they were encrypted to U.S. government standards, "In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," said former CIA case officer Jason Matthews, an expert in Russian intelligence.

Then again, Clinton defenders point out, the State Department's unclassified email system also has been penetrated by Russian hackers, so it's unclear her use of home server made a difference.

http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:b54a250a40e9410baaaca5f9fb58ea94 (http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:b54a250a40e9410baaaca5f9fb58ea94)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 02:31:28 PM
As long as no more than 3% of Hillary's emails were classified we shouldn't really care.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on February 01, 2016, 02:45:41 PM
I have little confidence in our government with handling secrets, period. Secrets are bad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 01, 2016, 03:13:34 PM
I have little confidence in our govt to do anything in anyone's best interest other than their own personal interest.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 03:17:36 PM
I do enjoy this new excuse that Hilrod didn't know how to use a computer.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267727-clinton-didnt-know-how-to-access-email-by-computer-state-dept
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3uyIgVxP1qAjS/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 01, 2016, 03:48:33 PM
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.  Fox news is reporting the information in the 22 emails that the State Department will not release contains actionable information about human espionage pactices that puts people at jeopardy, and whether marked or not any one with security clearance should have known the sensitive nature of them.  The disclosure statement MG signed says whether marked or not a person with security clearance is obligated to protect this information.  Also apparently Sidney Blumenthal had access to secret information and was sending emails on the unsecured server to MG all of the time.  HE DID NOT HAVE SECURITY CLEARANCE.   What a ripper.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 03:58:42 PM
Well it's TS for a reason...

But I think this is where the rubber has to hit to road.  Unfortunately the policy and the actual info at risk are reaching critical mass.  Before I was fine with Hilrod manipulating things on a policy violation level.  On a meta level it's totally mumped that FOIA, one of the great tools of transparency, was so easily circumvented.   But now that we know, for sure, classified info was "at risk" we've reach another level.  It's one thing to farm your bullshit out on your server, but classified, especially TS level material being at risk is just so rough ridin' stupid on her part.  Really shows she gives no fucks about the system. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on February 01, 2016, 07:13:36 PM
Still zero percent chance of indictment under current administration.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 01, 2016, 08:04:10 PM
If the head of the FBI recommends charges, you think they won't?   Political suicide for all close to her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 08:17:51 PM
If the head of the FBI recommends charges, you think they won't?   Political suicide for all close to her.

*FuckBoys Incorporated
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on February 01, 2016, 08:19:20 PM
If fbi recommends and it doesn't happen, you'll see a mass exodus from fbi and military leadership.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 09:03:56 PM
If fbi recommends and it doesn't happen, you'll see a mass exodus from fbi and military leadership.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

Of course the administration will levy charges if the FuckBoys recommend that they do. wetwillie is being a weirdo about this for some reason.

I used to have an asus transformer tf300t but by dog sat on it and broke it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on February 01, 2016, 10:31:57 PM
I think it's past Bill's bedtime.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 10:34:27 PM
LOL, now Grimace has fallen to 10th place.  Gilmore is up to 12 votes :emawkid:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 01, 2016, 10:45:00 PM
FuckBoys?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 01, 2016, 11:07:23 PM
If Hillary loses, will she give old magic Bill a swift kick in his vegan shriveled nuts?  She is going to be a mean one in the morning.  Heaven help if you are an old man with wild hair and you meet her in the morning.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on February 02, 2016, 04:45:48 AM
If fbi recommends and it doesn't happen, you'll see a mass exodus from fbi and military leadership.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

Of course the administration will levy charges if the FuckBoys recommend that they do. wetwillie is being a weirdo about this for some reason.

I used to have an asus transformer tf300t but by dog sat on it and broke it.
Oops. Need to disable that. Just pulled it from storage to use as a reader.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 02, 2016, 08:17:21 AM
FuckBoys?

FuckBoy Inc. actually

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=26046.msg1513594#msg1513594
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 03:27:31 AM
Let's play a game, guess who this belongs to:
(http://i.imgur.com/nKSVxiO.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 03:31:19 AM
I'm also going to use this as a master thread for the desperate crap that #TeamHillz says and does to defect weaknesses of their girl
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10909354/morning-joe-hillary-clinton-shouts-bob-woodward
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on February 04, 2016, 06:41:52 AM

Let's play a game, guess who this belongs to:
(http://i.imgur.com/nKSVxiO.jpg)

Ben Carson?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 04, 2016, 07:38:28 AM
The dem party leadership's rental for the weekend. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on February 04, 2016, 11:43:16 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

posted without comment
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 04, 2016, 11:51:10 AM
Prosecute them, too, then.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on February 04, 2016, 12:08:51 PM
Quote
"I wish they would release them," Powell said, "so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, 'What's the issue?'"


 :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on February 04, 2016, 12:39:16 PM
Quote
Powell, who served as secretary from 2001 to 2005, said he used a personal email account because State's email system was slow and cumbersome. Powell is credited with modernizing State's computer infrastructure, which did not at the time allow each employee to have the internet at their desks.

Holy crap, these are people the right thinks should be trusted with secrets.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 04, 2016, 12:41:22 PM
Just call him #uncletom and get it out of your system. :opcat:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 04, 2016, 01:20:38 PM
Quote
"I wish they would release them," Powell said, "so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, 'What's the issue?'"


 :ROFL:

Hillary's campaign said something to that effect, too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on February 04, 2016, 01:57:01 PM
Quote
"I wish they would release them," Powell said, "so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, 'What's the issue?'"


 :ROFL:

Wow, probably the most qualified person to call it a non-issue just did it
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 03:49:09 PM
Let's play a game, guess who this belongs to:
(http://i.imgur.com/nKSVxiO.jpg)

crap, I forgot my game. That license plate belongs to Dr. Andy McGuire the chair of the Iowa Democrat Party, the person in charge of running the sham of a caucus.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 03:51:12 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

posted without comment

I really need to see IPA4ME comment on this, unfortunately I don't think I'll get that wish.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 04, 2016, 04:31:15 PM
Let's play a game, guess who this belongs to:
(http://i.imgur.com/nKSVxiO.jpg)

crap, I forgot my game. That license plate belongs to Dr. Andy McGuire the chair of the Iowa Democrat Party, the person in charge of running the sham of a caucus.

Man, I was close.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 04, 2016, 04:32:08 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

posted without comment

I really need to see IPA4ME comment on this, unfortunately I don't think I'll get that wish.

He has said that if they did it, they should be looked into just as Hill is now.  I agree, btw. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 04:58:54 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

posted without comment

I really need to see IPA4ME comment on this, unfortunately I don't think I'll get that wish.

He has said that if they did it, they should be looked into just as Hill is now.  I agree, btw.

He talked this nonsense about how what Hillary did is an affront to military people because of honor and other mythical b.s. and a military person would never do such a thing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 05:06:45 PM
I've read several posts here regarding Hillary's handling of classified materials as no big deal.

Well, it is a big deal. Military personnel are held to high standards regarding classified materials. The POTUS or a candidate is expected to uphold those same standards.

For those that don't see the problem, talk to your friends that are active duty with twenty or more years especially those holding an O-4 rank or higher. Some of you are too young to have friends that old. Might have to speak to your parent's friends.

Anyhow, I'll vote for Paul in the primary. We'll see beyond that if he makes the ticket.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on February 04, 2016, 05:07:02 PM
:(
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 05:09:57 PM
I realize I'm kinda being a dick, sorry.

So did you overestimate what you think Hillary did or did you overestimate how you think military people would do it the same spot?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on February 04, 2016, 05:12:01 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

posted without comment

I really need to see IPA4ME comment on this, unfortunately I don't think I'll get that wish.

He has said that if they did it, they should be looked into just as Hill is now.  I agree, btw.

He talked this nonsense about how what Hillary did is an affront to military people because of honor and other mythical b.s. and a military person would never do such a thing.

I felt he was implying that a low-level nobody military employee could get away with it. Colin Powell could, but Private Gump can't.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on February 04, 2016, 05:15:18 PM
Lol. It's all good. Just Internet bbs'n.

I still think the mishandling is important as do many military members. I am friends with several mid to upper level officers (we served together). They are screaming within the community for sanctions. We'll see down the road.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on February 04, 2016, 05:16:23 PM
And Powell is correct. Most higher ranking government workers and Admiral level officers don't get hammered.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on February 04, 2016, 05:19:24 PM
Here's an example of higher ups getting a pass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/

People that work under him are calling for his transfer or resignation. Nope. Just collecting his check and not doing his job.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on February 04, 2016, 05:29:02 PM
Here's an example of higher ups getting a pass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/

People that work under him are calling for his transfer or resignation. Nope. Just collecting his check and not doing his job.

Again, another article confirming that the people in charge of our "top secret intelligence" are inept buffoons that shouldn't be trusted with top secret intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people who can be trusted doing important work, but overall it's a bad system based on fear mongering and government agencies determined to justify their existences.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 05:36:04 PM
Here's an example of higher ups getting a pass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/

People that work under him are calling for his transfer or resignation. Nope. Just collecting his check and not doing his job.

(http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jaguars-fan-cant-believe-it-nfl-fan-gifs.gif)
Very odd
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 04, 2016, 06:57:36 PM
Oh I get it. So the new strategy to protect Hill is "eh, plenty of high ranking people do this." That's what we're down to?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 04, 2016, 08:02:49 PM
Apparently you have to be one of the "blessed" ones to avoid prosecution, prison, public humiliation, demotion and/or termination in these types of deals. 

Hil will just try and stand behind semantics and government minutia to get out of this sticky wicket.   Non anointeds get walked out in handcuffs



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 04, 2016, 08:16:23 PM
Sticky wicket  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 04, 2016, 08:19:19 PM
Sticky wicket  :love:

 :lol:  Hillary sign primed and ready for the yard, Lib?

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 04, 2016, 08:22:21 PM
Just take the compliment dax, rough ridin' weirdo
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 04, 2016, 08:29:55 PM
Here's an example of higher ups getting a pass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/

People that work under him are calling for his transfer or resignation. Nope. Just collecting his check and not doing his job.

(http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jaguars-fan-cant-believe-it-nfl-fan-gifs.gif)
Very odd
I hope that guy gets paid for that gif. It's the best!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 04, 2016, 08:31:17 PM
Just take the compliment dax, rough ridin' weirdo

Watch out, no jokin around with Lib  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 08:34:25 PM
She's the worst. I'm saying it now and I'm sticking to this, but I absolutely will not vote for her if she wins the nomination. She's slimier than TRUSTED
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on February 04, 2016, 08:48:16 PM
She's the worst. I'm saying it now and I'm sticking to this, but I absolutely will not vote for her if she wins the nomination. She's slimier than TRUSTED

Another general election vote for Rubio!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 04, 2016, 09:08:49 PM
She's the worst. I'm saying it now and I'm sticking to this, but I absolutely will not vote for her if she wins the nomination. She's slimier than TRUSTED

Another general election vote for Rubio!

Not so much
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 04, 2016, 09:12:24 PM
That cnn guy asked MG why did she accept  $600,000 for a wall street speech.  That is more than Bellowing Bernie made in 3 Congressman years. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 04, 2016, 11:45:01 PM
Didnt see the debate. Did the slimy lying felon or the socialist promise more "free" stuff?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2016, 10:29:47 AM
Did Maddie aka the butcher of the Balkans actually say women who don't vote for Hil should burn in Hades?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on February 08, 2016, 10:53:48 AM
I think the Colin Powell thing would be a bigger deal if say . . . he was running for the highest office in the United States.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on February 08, 2016, 11:13:22 AM
I was wrong.  I think the FBI will eventually recommend an indictment and the department of justice will comply.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 08, 2016, 11:22:52 AM
I think the Colin Powell thing would be a bigger deal if say . . . he was running for the highest office in the United States.

Not really. I'd love to see him prosecuted. No public official should be conducting state business on a private server, but if focusing on mishandling confidential information is what it takes to get change, then that needs to happen.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on February 08, 2016, 11:39:05 AM
I think the Colin Powell thing would be a bigger deal if say . . . he was running for the highest office in the United States.

Not really. I'd love to see him prosecuted. No public official should be conducting state business on a private server, but if focusing on mishandling confidential information is what it takes to get change, then that needs to happen.

I see your point, but if the general consensus is "No lives were lost because of it so I guess it is ok." Then that doesn't hurt him. It does come back up as a talking point though when you are trying to vet a candidate to see if they are responsible in their work. Just my  :th_twocents:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 02:06:33 PM
So do you think there won't be as much pressure to prosecute Clinton in the increasingly likely possibility that she doesn't get the nomination? Cause I still think she needs to be prosecuted.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 02:09:25 PM
Just saw a bumper sticker that said "Hillary for Prison 2016".   :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 02:09:59 PM
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/557b41f8e4b0e197d1188067/t/55d55760e4b0e9be3d6a8fe1/1454085733332/?format=1500w)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 04:07:13 PM
Can you spot what's wrong with this picture? This actually happened in New Hampshire yesterday.

(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Settle-for-Hillary.jpg?resize=580%2C321)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2016, 04:08:55 PM
She's not in jail?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 04:14:26 PM
Does that guy's shirt say Settle for Hillary?   :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on February 09, 2016, 04:14:36 PM
abc news forgot the space in "new hampshire" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 04:16:06 PM
Does that guy's shirt say Settle for Hillary?   :lol:

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on February 09, 2016, 04:53:33 PM
That's a fantastic shirt
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 10, 2016, 11:30:45 PM
Hilrod hittin' the ads hard!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-reaches-base-with-aol-login-page-ad/article/2001023
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bones129 on February 11, 2016, 12:04:16 AM
Hilrod hittin' the ads hard!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-reaches-base-with-aol-login-page-ad/article/2001023

AOL still exists?  :horrorsurprise:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on February 11, 2016, 07:42:03 AM
When you have a prob with everyone under 55, you refocus your campaign, call up AOL, and hit them hard with ads.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 11, 2016, 09:48:24 PM
If Hillary wins the nomination, she will win the presidency in a landslide
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 11, 2016, 09:50:05 PM
Bernie too, fyi
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on February 12, 2016, 08:33:08 AM
Bernie too, fyi

Wow! For real? I guess the GOP should just quit and hand it over. What happened to guarantee it? Must have been pretty scandalous. Or did you just talk with every American voter and get a feel for how they would vote in the general? Mildly surprised since the "reliable" polls all seem to say it would be a very close race. But I am sure you know better than the polls. Polls, who needs em right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 12, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
I'd like to see sb come back from that thrashing, but damn that was savage yard dog
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2016, 08:45:04 AM
Hillary . . . For Prison 2016

#HilforPrison2016

Wow,  you can really run with that, so . . . pliable.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on February 12, 2016, 09:00:12 AM
There are a number of Repblicans who would smash Hillary in the general election, but none of them will win their own party's nomination. It's a true lose-lose situation.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 12, 2016, 03:21:08 PM
Clinton Foundation allegedly will be subpoenaed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2016, 05:58:35 PM
Hillary is going to win the nomination and completely eff the democrat party in the process, I hope she's happy. John Lewis minimizing the civil rights work Bernie Sanders did is tragically gross and damages his legacy a bit. Anything for the almighty dollar.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 12, 2016, 06:27:24 PM
Hillary is going to win the nomination and completely eff the democrat party in the process, I hope she's happy. John Lewis minimizing the civil rights work Bernie Sanders did is tragically gross and damages his legacy a bit. Anything for the almighty dollar.

I really hope you're right. But Trump. GOP hasn't had this good a chance to win since Carter. But Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2016, 06:34:12 PM
Hillary is going to win the nomination and completely eff the democrat party in the process, I hope she's happy. John Lewis minimizing the civil rights work Bernie Sanders did is tragically gross and damages his legacy a bit. Anything for the almighty dollar.

I really hope you're right. But Trump. GOP hasn't had this good a chance to win since Carter. But Trump.

Trump has seemingly been great for the GOP. You finally don't have a stale, stodgy candidate leading the fray, people are energized, and the base has widened.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 12, 2016, 07:03:33 PM
 :th_twocents:
Hillary is going to win the nomination and completely eff the democrat party in the process, I hope she's happy. John Lewis minimizing the civil rights work Bernie Sanders did is tragically gross and damages his legacy a bit. Anything for the almighty dollar.

I really hope you're right. But Trump. GOP hasn't had this good a chance to win since Carter. But Trump.

Trump has seemingly been great for the GOP. You finally don't have a stale, stodgy candidate leading the fray, people are energized, and the base has widened.

It's certainly widened to encompass more angry working class traditional Dems. But I think a lot of traditional GOP who just can't stand him will stay home. I mean, maybe the prospect of Hillary winning will be enough to keep the GOP unified, but I'm kinda skeptical.

I also just can't stand Trump. He and Bernie are quite similar, except one hopes to win by promising a bunch of free crap we can't pay for, and the other hopes to win by just promising "it's gonna be so much better" and "we're gonna build the biggest wall you've ever seen." Both candidates are an insult to the electorate - or they should be, but evidently they're not, which I also find insulting.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on February 12, 2016, 08:05:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY)

Courtest of the Cruz Campaign, hands down the best political ad I've ever seen. "Damn it feels good to be a Clinton" Office Space rip.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 12, 2016, 08:17:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY)

Courtest of the Cruz Campaign, hands down the best political ad I've ever seen. "Damn it feels good to be a Clinton" Office Space rip.

Luket!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on February 12, 2016, 08:19:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY)

Courtest of the Cruz Campaign, hands down the best political ad I've ever seen. "Damn it feels good to be a Clinton" Office Space rip.

Luket!

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Ptolemy on February 12, 2016, 11:35:36 PM
If Cruz or Rubio get the nomination, Republicans win the White House, because moderates do not have the spine to stay home on election day...they're moderates after all.

If Trump wins the nomination, Hillary or Bernie wins the White House, because conservatives DO have the spine to stay home  - they've shown it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 09:33:48 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FECIYlo3KRY)

Courtest of the Cruz Campaign, hands down the best political ad I've ever seen. "Damn it feels good to be a Clinton" Office Space rip.

Luket!

 :facepalm:

Bucket would have known this if lib7 would update his thread title.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 09:39:33 AM
If Cruz or Rubio get the nomination, Republicans win the White House, because moderates do not have the spine to stay home on election day...they're moderates after all.

If Trump wins the nomination, Hillary or Bernie wins the White House, because conservatives DO have the spine to stay home  - they've shown it.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 12:09:44 PM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Albright-Steinem.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 12:10:40 PM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Whitmore-on-NH-Women.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 12:11:31 PM
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Hillary-Trek.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 13, 2016, 12:12:40 PM
If Cruz or Rubio get the nomination, Republicans win the White House, because moderates do not have the spine to stay home on election day...they're moderates after all.

If Trump wins the nomination, Hillary or Bernie wins the White House, because conservatives DO have the spine to stay home  - they've shown it.

No doubt that it's just that simple in your mind.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 03:31:59 PM

(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Hillary-Trek.jpg)

That one is pretty good.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 03:33:18 PM
Maybe not many debate watchers in here, but does anyone else think Hillary has been coached to lower the tone of her voice to sound more manly? Every time I see her during the debates it sounds like she is a chain smoker or something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:21:24 PM
Clinton Foundation allegedly will be subpoenaed

Nobody else thinks this is funny???
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 09:41:10 AM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Albright-Steinem.jpg)

This is so fantastic. I'd love for the libtards to chime in
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on February 14, 2016, 09:51:56 AM
It's not fantastic but I'm not a lib
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 10:33:42 AM
Just another example of the conservative media misreporting what they said
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 14, 2016, 12:22:07 PM
Chelsea is a damn crook too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on February 14, 2016, 12:38:01 PM
They released more emails yesterday and will continue to release more until the 29th. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 02:24:53 PM
Just another example of the conservative media misreporting what they said

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 02:26:48 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 02:28:06 PM
A feminist who harbors rapists and attacks their victims. :ROFL: If you don't vote for her, your not a feminist. :nono:

Now, back to that whole people boo'd the WMD thing :Rusty:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 16, 2016, 10:06:07 PM
MG's dog bark speech is the the weirdest thing to date.  Trying to go Gomer Pyle.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 16, 2016, 11:14:33 PM
Dogbarker did not.sign a separation state when she left as SOS. This statement says she has returned classified information and protecting secrets she has knowledge of.  Not signing this is a.violation of federal law.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 23, 2016, 12:20:35 PM
What an egotistical ripper.  She apparently visted the set of a tv show called Scandal.  This is either the most.stupid political move ever or she is signaling that obama administration won't prosecute.  Could.a republican administration file charges when a law abiding man is elected President.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on February 23, 2016, 12:33:25 PM
reno, how come a lot of times there is a period instead of a space in your posts?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2016, 12:47:15 PM
IPhone probably
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on February 23, 2016, 12:48:26 PM
:jerk:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 23, 2016, 02:28:19 PM
IPhone probably
Correct.  Plus fat fingers and getting too excited when posting; either enraged pissed psycho or getting groin zingers from sharing with goEMAW folks.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on February 23, 2016, 02:35:37 PM
Just read on msn, a federal judge has ordered that Hillary's former aids and State Department officials must be questioned under oath about MG avoiding FOiA.  A depends moment for mean granny.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2016, 03:20:26 PM
Just read on msn, a federal judge has ordered that Hillary's former aids and State Department officials must be questioned under oath about MG avoiding FOiA.  A depends moment for mean granny.
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2016, 03:20:46 PM
It will be so great when they all Fif.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdeo7Q2E5cE
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 23, 2016, 06:34:50 PM
Yep nothing says innocence like PTF. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on February 23, 2016, 07:09:30 PM
It will be so great when they all Fif.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdeo7Q2E5cE

so good i watched it a fifth time
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2016, 09:29:02 PM
Yep nothing says innocence like PTF.
If you say so.
(http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/1989/article/what-oliver-norths-trial-means-to-us-19890601/182980/large_rect/1422054568/1401x788-51506774.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 23, 2016, 09:30:25 PM
Ollie North should have gone too prison, maybe he could have given Hillary for Prison 2016 some prison pointers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 27, 2016, 08:12:53 PM
Becoming the political version of Ali G. was a great strategy. What's she going to do to get people to care after she removes the blackface makeup in a week in a half?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 27, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
Hillary for Prison 2016 kicked Feel the Bern's ass 7 ways from Sunday.   

Sad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 29, 2016, 09:16:15 PM
http://nyti.ms/21rtwB3

This alone should render her unelectable. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 01, 2016, 09:19:23 AM
Trump makes her electable.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on March 01, 2016, 09:25:24 AM
Trump makes her electable.

She will absolutely destroy him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-general-election.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on March 01, 2016, 09:29:18 AM
He has shown in the past that he is horrible in arguing with women.  he will resort to that stuff and we will either get to see how mumped up our ppl are or see a bunch of  :Wha: from voters then shortly after a Clinton landslide.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 01, 2016, 09:31:44 AM
He has shown in the past that he is horrible in arguing with women.  he will resort to that stuff and we will either get to see how mumped up our ppl are or see a bunch of  :Wha: from voters then shortly after a Clinton landslide.

It will be a very interesting election because most republicans hate Hillary so much that things Trump says that normally make them  :horrorsurprise: would just fire them up instead.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 01, 2016, 11:30:15 AM
He has shown in the past that he is horrible in arguing with women.  he will resort to that stuff and we will either get to see how mumped up our ppl are or see a bunch of  :Wha: from voters then shortly after a Clinton landslide.

It will be a very interesting election because most republicans hate Hillary so much that things Trump says that normally make them  :horrorsurprise: would just fire them up instead.

This. Also, the one direct shot Hillary has taken so far at Trump backfired horribly. When Hillary trotted out the "War on Women" meme against Trump shortly after the Megyn Kelly Kerfluffle, he essentially responded "Really wife of serial rapist Bill Clinton? You wanna go there?"

If she wants to go after his dishonesty, he's got Servergate. If she wants to go after his business dealings, he's got Clinton Foundation. If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

Trump could very well mop the floor with Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying he will - goodness knows I've completely misjudged the electorate so far is making Trump the frontrunner - but he sure might.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 01, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
I'd love to see how calling the most popular president of the last 50 years a serial rapist goes for ol' don  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on March 01, 2016, 11:33:54 AM
meme
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on March 01, 2016, 11:35:15 AM
He has shown in the past that he is horrible in arguing with women.  he will resort to that stuff and we will either get to see how mumped up our ppl are or see a bunch of  :Wha: from voters then shortly after a Clinton landslide.

It will be a very interesting election because most republicans hate Hillary so much that things Trump says that normally make them  :horrorsurprise: would just fire them up instead.

This. Also, the one direct shot Hillary has taken so far at Trump backfired horribly. When Hillary trotted out the "War on Women" meme against Trump shortly after the Megyn Kelly Kerfluffle, he essentially responded "Really wife of serial rapist Bill Clinton? You wanna go there?"

If she wants to go after his dishonesty, he's got Servergate. If she wants to go after his business dealings, he's got Clinton Foundation. If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

Trump could very well mop the floor with Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying he will - goodness knows I've completely misjudged the electorate so far is making Trump the frontrunner - but he sure might.

Oh, I am not saying he doesn't have adequate ammo.  I am saying his implementation is what might be a problem
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on March 01, 2016, 11:36:39 AM
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

This one's interesting
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on March 01, 2016, 11:39:13 AM
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

This one's interesting

Not really.  I mean, Brittan has been actively discussing banning Trump from their country.  They can't be the only country with this view on him.  That is a different kind of level from just not being up to date on policy and world affairs.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on March 01, 2016, 11:51:21 AM

If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

This one's interesting

Not really.  I mean, Brittan has been actively discussing banning Trump from their country.  They can't be the only country with this view on him.  That is a different kind of level from just not being up to date on policy and world affairs.

My Aussie friends have messaged me in disbelief asking if this Trump stuff is really happening. They are sure it must be a joke.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on March 01, 2016, 11:55:52 AM
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

This one's interesting

Not really.  I mean, Brittan has been actively discussing banning Trump from their country.  They can't be the only country with this view on him.  That is a different kind of level from just not being up to date on policy and world affairs.

I just think it would be interesting to have a republican candidate criticize her Iraq vote while also saying we need to kill families of suspected terrorists.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on March 01, 2016, 12:04:17 PM
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

This one's interesting

Not really.  I mean, Brittan has been actively discussing banning Trump from their country.  They can't be the only country with this view on him.  That is a different kind of level from just not being up to date on policy and world affairs.

I just think it would be interesting to have a republican candidate criticize her Iraq vote while also saying we need to kill families of suspected terrorists.

Well, the good news is you probably only have to watch two debates, or maybe one and a separate interview, to see Donald do that.  He seems like he wouldn't do that in the same debate, though.  I could be wrong. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on March 01, 2016, 12:07:42 PM
Trump won't be able to resist bullying her (because he loves bullying women...Fiorina, Kelly, O'Donnell) and Clinton in the past has kicked major ass in elections when her male counterpart tried to bully her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 01, 2016, 12:37:57 PM
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

This one's interesting

Not really.  I mean, Brittan has been actively discussing banning Trump from their country.  They can't be the only country with this view on him.  That is a different kind of level from just not being up to date on policy and world affairs.

I just think it would be interesting to have a republican candidate criticize her Iraq vote while also saying we need to kill families of suspected terrorists.

Sort of like a rich, entitled, undeserving white woman talking about wealth/gender/race inequality.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on March 01, 2016, 12:40:27 PM
Why is she undeserving?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 01, 2016, 12:41:13 PM
What makes her entitled and undeserving?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 01, 2016, 12:41:48 PM
What's wrong with pointing out the hypocrisy in her Iraq vote?

Or, what makes her deserving?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 01, 2016, 12:42:56 PM
Nothing, the iraq vote should be pointed out
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 01, 2016, 12:53:29 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-quotes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on March 01, 2016, 12:58:45 PM
If there's one thing voters care about this year, it's Libya.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on March 01, 2016, 01:01:58 PM
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.

This one's interesting

Not really.  I mean, Brittan has been actively discussing banning Trump from their country.  They can't be the only country with this view on him.  That is a different kind of level from just not being up to date on policy and world affairs.

I just think it would be interesting to have a republican candidate criticize her Iraq vote while also saying we need to kill families of suspected terrorists.

Sort of like a rich, entitled, undeserving white woman talking about wealth/gender/race inequality.


And yet instead of playing any of those cards, the Republicans are going with Trump
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 01, 2016, 01:02:08 PM
They should, because it's now a major national security issue.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on March 01, 2016, 10:30:59 PM
So this bad person is going to win the nomination on the strength of winning red states by a lot, lovely. We're going to have a Democrat nominee that won't be the popular choice in actual blue and purple states, hot crap, well done crats.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on March 01, 2016, 10:36:19 PM
congratulations, your majesty.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on March 01, 2016, 10:41:53 PM
It was an amazing strategy to go into southern churches and just repeat the word Obama a lot to low educated, pro life, anti gay, democrat black folks. If I ever come face to face with one of these pasty ass pundits talking about Hillary and the black vote like we're a monolith I'm going to murder one of them with my bare hands. I assure you all she didn't win the black vote in Minnesota and Colorado.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on March 01, 2016, 10:48:30 PM
Minnesota is vastly studlier than i thought. Rubio and Sanders, wow
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on March 01, 2016, 10:51:16 PM
Yeah anybody that thinks black 'crats won't vote their own mind in a 'crat primary............
Everybody knows they are not a voting monolith, just look at the facts for Christs sake.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 01, 2016, 11:15:02 PM
She is a psychopath who lost 4 states to a bumbling isolationist imbecile (who is also out fund raising her).  Not exactly the strongest candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on March 02, 2016, 02:58:20 AM
It was an amazing strategy to go into southern churches and just repeat the word Obama a lot to low educated, pro life, anti gay, democrat black folks. If I ever come face to face with one of these pasty ass pundits talking about Hillary and the black vote like we're a monolith I'm going to murder one of them with my bare hands. I assure you all she didn't win the black vote in Minnesota and Colorado.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/young-voter-challenges-clinton-on-african-american-issues-is-dismissed-and-ushered-out-by-aides/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 02, 2016, 08:22:11 AM
Minnesota is vastly studlier than i thought. Rubio and Sanders, wow

This is quite promising, really. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on March 03, 2016, 04:08:40 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-does-a-former-staffers-immunity-deal-mean-for-hillary-clinton/2016/03/03/0fbb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-does-a-former-staffers-immunity-deal-mean-for-hillary-clinton/2016/03/03/0fbb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html)

Quote
Bryan Pagliano — a 2008 presidential campaign worker who set up the server in Clinton’s home — will avoid charges as he cooperates with FBI agents is a significant, if incremental, development, according to former federal prosecutors and white-collar defense lawyers who have been following the case.

Do they hand out immunity all willy nilly on most cases where there is absolutely nothing going on?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 03, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
Probably
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on March 03, 2016, 06:55:54 PM
All the time
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 03, 2016, 08:29:34 PM
Dems are white knuckling this so hard. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on March 03, 2016, 08:54:24 PM

Dems are white knuckling this so hard.

Moderates are just looking at properties in Vancouver
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 03, 2016, 10:06:06 PM


Dems are white knuckling this so hard.

Moderates are just looking at properties in Vancouver

If Hillary gets elected?  Totally understandable.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 03, 2016, 11:05:15 PM
Like half the leftist media outlets are still denying she had a server in her bathroom. Now immunity for the plumber/network guy  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bones129 on March 04, 2016, 12:55:18 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-does-a-former-staffers-immunity-deal-mean-for-hillary-clinton/2016/03/03/0fbb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-does-a-former-staffers-immunity-deal-mean-for-hillary-clinton/2016/03/03/0fbb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html)

Quote
Bryan Pagliano — a 2008 presidential campaign worker who set up the server in Clinton’s home — will avoid charges as he cooperates with FBI agents is a significant, if incremental, development, according to former federal prosecutors and white-collar defense lawyers who have been following the case.

Do they hand out immunity all willy nilly on most cases where there is absolutely nothing going on?

Standard DOJ practice, aimed at persons they have no interest in seeking charges against, but who they want to say had nothing relevant to say against the person being investigated. Or so I understand.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on March 04, 2016, 06:46:18 AM
Will MG's man puppet squeal on her.  Paybacks for bitch slapping and.abuse
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on March 04, 2016, 07:20:54 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-does-a-former-staffers-immunity-deal-mean-for-hillary-clinton/2016/03/03/0fbb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-does-a-former-staffers-immunity-deal-mean-for-hillary-clinton/2016/03/03/0fbb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html)

Quote
Bryan Pagliano — a 2008 presidential campaign worker who set up the server in Clinton’s home — will avoid charges as he cooperates with FBI agents is a significant, if incremental, development, according to former federal prosecutors and white-collar defense lawyers who have been following the case.

Do they hand out immunity all willy nilly on most cases where there is absolutely nothing going on?

Standard DOJ practice, aimed at persons they have no interest in seeking charges against, but who they want to say had nothing relevant to say against the person being investigated. Or so I understand.

Could indicate a bit of desperation though. They don't like handing out immunity or they would have done it a long time ago.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 04, 2016, 07:58:39 AM

The immunity is in exchange for his testimony, obviously. The FBI isn't handing out coupons, they're preparing for trial. The reason Federal prosecutors convict at such an absurd rate is because they cherry pick the eff out of cases.

This is horrible news for hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Asteriskhead on March 04, 2016, 08:29:51 AM
Minnesota is vastly studlier than i thought. Rubio and Sanders, wow

Minnesota might be the studliest state in the union, when it comes to politics.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on March 04, 2016, 07:24:02 PM
Hillary made her campaign pay her a $250,000 salary.  I guess it is legal, but she is the only candidate to do so.  What will she do when she has the U.S. Treasury at her disposal?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 05, 2016, 01:13:05 AM
The only thing left to do is find a wooden stake and a hammer. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 05, 2016, 03:00:45 PM
That's peanuts compared to what her charitable money laundering foundation pays her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 08, 2016, 09:52:31 PM
Dems in the GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI love them some HFP2016
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on March 09, 2016, 10:29:36 AM
Dems in the GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI love them some HFP2016

Yep, all 63 of them. Hillary whippin ass in these deeply red states but doing jack crap in blue and purple states is clearly the best path to nomination and ensuring a huge democrat turnout in November.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 09, 2016, 10:31:16 AM
Okay then
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on March 12, 2016, 01:42:40 AM
I hope Trump names Katlyn Jenner as his VP.  Shee said MG is not good for women.  This is an.expert he has played in both gender sandboxes.   The militant denutters need to listen to this wisd transister.  A trump jenner.ticket would rile people up.  She is smarter.than Palin and better looking than Hill.  Old.Horndog Bill though might attack her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 12, 2016, 05:55:37 AM
HFP2016 really riled up the perpetually angry with her Nancy Reagan AIDS comment. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on March 12, 2016, 06:10:21 AM
My sincere hope is that Trump re-makes the Republican National Convention as a star studded prime time must see entertainment event.

Caitlin comes out in a white ball gown and starts a speech:

"I've been a proud Republican for 45 years.  Today, I'd like to talk about why there is only one person I can support in this race.  There is going to be a lot of talk about women's issues in this campaign, so lets introduce some women that are part of the Republican family!"

Crowd cheers!
Lights go dark
Video montage begins

It is Phyllis Schlafly appears on the screen: "Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be." 

Spotlight stage left as Phyllis appears waving triumphantly and joining Caitlin at center stage.

Laura Bush sitting politely in a wingback chair, book on her lap talking to children.  "We can overcome evil with greater good."

Spotlight stage right, she appears and waves smiles and walks to flank Caitlin.

The dignitaries continue to appear until they are all lined up 20 Republican dignitaries when the outrageous Cuban rhythms of Gloria Estefan overwhelm the loud cheers and the spotlights go crazy.  Gloria is being lowered on to the stage and the sea of Republican women part to show a mysterious woman dressed as the Chiquita banana lady!

IT'S TED CRUZ DANCING HIS ASS OFF!

The ladies start a conga line around the stage until Gloria's number hits the third chorus (only 2 verses and then everyone stops and poses for the thunderous, sweaty applause)

Suddenly, Tony Bennet starts crooning about New York and a mysterious woman emerges again,  IT'S RUDY!!

A second number!  For the final Chorus of "NEW YORK!" Trump appears with his blonde menagerie of family and former lovers and the entire stage explodes in bright lights. 

The curtain starts to close, but the crowd is having none of it.  Trump emerges and announces a special encore, he talked it over with them and they've agreed.  Ted and Rudy are going to mud wrestle in drag.

The crowd roars and the night's entertainment continues.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 12, 2016, 05:54:37 PM
Thanks KK, I don't know if that belonged in the HFP2016 thread, but.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 15, 2016, 04:25:34 PM
https://youtu.be/_NTPrvwoGVs (https://youtu.be/_NTPrvwoGVs)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 18, 2016, 10:42:28 AM
SD's are the great Eff You from the DNC to the cattle chuters that make up the majority of the Dem masses.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 18, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/#.VuxPBgQDWOA

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 21, 2016, 08:06:29 PM
“But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the 7 years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."   Bill Clinton 3/21/2016

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 21, 2016, 08:40:48 PM
“But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the 7 years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."   Bill Clinton 3/21/2016

Bill forgot he signed the bill that deregulated the banks that caused the crash.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 21, 2016, 08:42:10 PM
“But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the 7 years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."   Bill Clinton 3/21/2016

Bill forgot he signed the bill that deregulated the banks that caused the crash.

The Clintonites have done a great job of painting an historical bit of revisionism and either ignore that entirely or make it sound like Bill had his life threatened if he didn't sign. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on March 21, 2016, 09:20:36 PM
“But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the 7 years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."   Bill Clinton 3/21/2016

Bill forgot he signed the bill that deregulated the banks that caused the crash.

The Clintonites have done a great job of painting an historical bit of revisionism and either ignore that entirely or make it sound like Bill had his life threatened if he didn't sign.

I'm confused. Is he calling the Obama administration awful? The same admin she's been clinging to the last couple months.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 21, 2016, 11:30:38 PM
“But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the 7 years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."   Bill Clinton 3/21/2016

Bill forgot he signed the bill that deregulated the banks that caused the crash.

The Clintonites have done a great job of painting an historical bit of revisionism and either ignore that entirely or make it sound like Bill had his life threatened if he didn't sign.

I'm confused. Is he calling the Obama administration awful? The same admin she's been clinging to the last couple months.

Yes, the Clintons hate Obama. He played the race card on them in 2008.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 21, 2016, 11:53:40 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/5UVRZqv.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on March 22, 2016, 01:57:58 AM
“But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the 7 years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."   Bill Clinton 3/21/2016

Bill forgot he signed the bill that deregulated the banks that caused the crash.

The Clintonites have done a great job of painting an historical bit of revisionism and either ignore that entirely or make it sound like Bill had his life threatened if he didn't sign.

I'm confused. Is he calling the Obama administration awful? The same admin she's been clinging to the last couple months.

Yes, the Clintons hate Obama. He played the race card on them in 2008.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/011/032/ORLY.jpg)

Southern primaries are done.and Trump or Cruz are her opponents, no need to conveniently be all things black anymore. She doesn't have to worry about church anymore and Bill can burn his dashikis
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 22, 2016, 09:20:10 AM
In addition to her email problems, it sounds to like she may have some Theranos problems.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 23, 2016, 01:24:31 PM
HFP2016 and husband have pretty much painted the 7.5 or so years of Obama as a dystopian nightmare.    If you think about it, at least in the early Dem debate summations, they all painted the Obama years as being awful.

I wonder if HFP2016 and husband will continue to play on this theme as they work thru the cycle.   Provided she isn't indicted. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 23, 2016, 01:50:55 PM
Whill the resident libtards are conjecturalizing whether Trump and Cruz would intern all Muslims or just illegally monitor them,

B.O. is actually using the IRS, FDIC, EPA, DOJ and other agencies to attack political opponests. Don't oppose the administration or else they'll audit you, freeze your assets, press campaign finance charges against you, expand regulatory oversight on your industry and do anything else we can to detach you from your livelihood.

Which is a-OK in libtard land. Oh yeah, the administration will be expanding what legal surveillance includes and you libtards will shut up and like it, and we'll send you the talking points as to why it's okay later.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 23, 2016, 01:58:51 PM
Lol, you actually believe that  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 23, 2016, 02:01:28 PM
 :lol: here he comes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 23, 2016, 02:05:29 PM
It's like lib (tapout king) lives in some sort of alternative universe.

Sad

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 23, 2016, 02:09:50 PM
Reality for you dweebs is an alternate universe  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 23, 2016, 03:03:41 PM
Just taps out all the time anymore, doesn't even engage.   

Sad

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 23, 2016, 03:23:28 PM
He couldn't be more sheltered, delusional, or ignorant.

He is an interesting study in defense mechanisms. Those are a well oiled and highly sensitive machine within his psyche.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 23, 2016, 03:27:06 PM
Like, does he actually deny "illegal" monitoring has dramatically increased under b.o.?

Does he actually have no awareness of the IRS and FDIC scandals?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on March 23, 2016, 04:55:00 PM
Radical leftist AG.  MG radical leftist.  Both love McQuickie Planned planned hamburgers.  Prosecution won't happen.  Never.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 24, 2016, 03:20:00 PM
The Clinton bashing of the Obama presidency picking up speed.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001707
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on March 24, 2016, 03:28:09 PM
LOL couldn't be that any of these neocon groups were doing anything illegal could it? 

And the FDIC is a new one.  I'll wait for a detailed analysis with citations before making up my mind.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 24, 2016, 03:38:34 PM
It's so sad that ednwhackadoodle is so partisan.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 24, 2016, 03:41:16 PM
LOL couldn't be that any of these neocon groups were doing anything illegal could it? 

And the FDIC is a new one.  I'll wait for a detailed analysis with citations before making up my mind.

http://on.wsj.com/1VGqZhz

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on March 24, 2016, 03:45:25 PM
LOL couldn't be that any of these neocon groups were doing anything illegal could it? 

And the FDIC is a new one.  I'll wait for a detailed analysis with citations before making up my mind.

http://on.wsj.com/1VGqZhz

FDIC != IRS
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 24, 2016, 03:53:01 PM
I didn't know you were talking only about the FDIC Whackadoodle.

FDIC equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia. CNN

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 24, 2016, 04:18:34 PM
I didn't know you were talking only about the FDIC Whackadoodle.

FDIC equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia. CNN

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on March 25, 2016, 11:10:15 AM
I didn't know you were talking only about the FDIC Whackadoodle.

FDIC equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia. CNN

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf

Why would you think otherwise when I specifically said FDIC you rough ridin' idiot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 25, 2016, 06:10:09 PM
I didn't know you were talking only about the FDIC Whackadoodle.

FDIC equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia. CNN

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf

Why would you think otherwise when I specifically said FDIC you rough ridin' idiot.


We've discussed multiple agencies (which is sad).   But alas you have nothing. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 25, 2016, 06:10:15 PM
I didn't know you were talking only about the FDIC Whackadoodle.

FDIC equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia. CNN

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf

Why would you think otherwise when I specifically said FDIC you rough ridin' idiot.


We've discussed multiple agencies (which is sad).   But alas you have nothing. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 25, 2016, 06:10:21 PM
I didn't know you were talking only about the FDIC Whackadoodle.

FDIC equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia. CNN

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf

Why would you think otherwise when I specifically said FDIC you rough ridin' idiot.


We've discussed multiple agencies (which is sad).   But alas you have nothing. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 25, 2016, 06:10:27 PM
I didn't know you were talking only about the FDIC Whackadoodle.

FDIC equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia. CNN

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf

Why would you think otherwise when I specifically said FDIC you rough ridin' idiot.


We've discussed multiple agencies (which is sad).   But alas you have nothing. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 25, 2016, 06:10:46 PM
So, nothing.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on March 25, 2016, 08:30:31 PM
Nothing Dax, he's got nottaeffingthing, sad.......
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on March 27, 2016, 12:28:44 AM
So, nothing.

Only you'd be so ridiculous to go in another direction when someone references a specific scandal.  Nice work dude. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 27, 2016, 07:54:30 AM
Nice job deflecting and avoiding whackadoodle
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on March 27, 2016, 12:56:49 PM
Is any thread other than the Facebook thread worth reading anymore in the pit? This is pathetic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on March 27, 2016, 04:18:05 PM
Nice job deflecting and avoiding whackadoodle
There is no deflecting you rough ridin' idiot. But I'm not surprised since you can't actually talk about issues and all you can do is distract with other talking points. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 27, 2016, 07:44:51 PM
If anyone knows a talking point when they see one, it's edna :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 28, 2016, 09:54:03 PM
Nice job deflecting and avoiding whackadoodle
There is no deflecting you rough ridin' idiot. But I'm not surprised since you can't actually talk about issues and all you can do is distract with other talking points.

So, nothing then.

As usual
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 28, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
Is any thread other than the Facebook thread worth reading anymore in the pit? This is pathetic.

I guess we could talk about how the Dem front runner is a pathological liar warmongering latent racist and one of the worst and most unaccomplished SOS's in the history of the United States some more.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 28, 2016, 09:57:39 PM
Let's do it
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 28, 2016, 09:59:35 PM
Lib7, Hillary foot soldier and resident mongoloid
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 28, 2016, 10:00:34 PM
So, nothing.

Only you'd be so ridiculous to go in another direction when someone references a specific scandal.  Nice work dude.

So we've now addressed the FDIC in case you missed it (how could you thanks to tapatalk) and yet you still have nothing.   Be honest whackadoodle, you don't want to see the reality of the corruption.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on March 28, 2016, 10:03:38 PM
Is any thread other than the Facebook thread worth reading anymore in the pit? This is pathetic.

I guess we could talk about how the Dem front runner is a pathological liar warmongering latent racist and one of the worst and most unaccomplished SOS's in the history of the United States some more.

I don't know, I'd say James Buchanan did a lot worse.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 28, 2016, 10:03:56 PM
Lib7, Hillary foot soldier and resident mongoloid

Stay on topic
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 28, 2016, 10:06:52 PM
Lib7, Hillary foot soldier and resident mongoloid

Stay on topic

Do you guys March with your knees locked?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 06, 2016, 08:32:32 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495

It's so sad that three of our remaining five major presidential candidates left lie so much they forgot how to tell the truth.

Quote
"There is a persistent, organized effort to misrepresent my record, and I don’t appreciate that, and I feel sorry for a lot of the young people who are fed this list of misrepresentations,” Clinton said, a few minutes after talking herself hoarse at a rally here. “I know that Senator Sanders spends a lot of time attacking my husband, attacking President Obama. I rarely hear him say anything negative about George W. Bush, who I think wrecked our economy.”

I can't stand her, it's too bad the likely Republican primary winner is somehow worse. If W ran as a third party candidate in this election I'd likely vote for him.

I also love how she talks about not being a politician and then divulged the disingenuous bullshit she knowingly played against Lazio in their debate. Like I said she can't even identify the truth when it comes out of her own mouth.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 06, 2016, 08:54:43 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495

It's so sad that three of our remaining five major presidential candidates left lie so much they forgot how to tell the truth.

Quote
"There is a persistent, organized effort to misrepresent my record, and I don’t appreciate that, and I feel sorry for a lot of the young people who are fed this list of misrepresentations,” Clinton said, a few minutes after talking herself hoarse at a rally here. “I know that Senator Sanders spends a lot of time attacking my husband, attacking President Obama. I rarely hear him say anything negative about George W. Bush, who I think wrecked our economy.”

I can't stand her, it's too bad the likely Republican primary winner is somehow worse. If W ran as a third party candidate in this election I'd likely vote for him.

I also love how she talks about not being a politician and then divulged the disingenuous bullshit she knowingly played against Lazio in their debate. Like I said she can't even identify the truth when it comes out of her own mouth.

Cruz isn't worse, MIR. Politically I can understand why you would be opposed to a brilliant and combative conservative winning the presidency, but he is a better human being than Hillary Clinton. And as far I know, he never compromised national security intelligence by setting up a private server to dodge FOIA requests.

I hear the blather about how Cruz's Senate colleagues can't stand him. I'm still not sure why that's a bad thing. Our Congress is rotten. Cruz is unpopular because he didn't fall into line. That's the kind of person we're going to need in the WH.

I likewise think Bernie Sanders is a much better human being than Hillary. Like I've said before, I appreciate his honesty. I can't support him politically because he's a Marxist, but I respect that at least he's honest about it unlike most Democrats.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 06, 2016, 08:59:17 AM
You have some cruz colored glasses on my friend
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on April 06, 2016, 09:32:40 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495

It's so sad that three of our remaining five major presidential candidates left lie so much they forgot how to tell the truth.

Quote
"There is a persistent, organized effort to misrepresent my record, and I don’t appreciate that, and I feel sorry for a lot of the young people who are fed this list of misrepresentations,” Clinton said, a few minutes after talking herself hoarse at a rally here. “I know that Senator Sanders spends a lot of time attacking my husband, attacking President Obama. I rarely hear him say anything negative about George W. Bush, who I think wrecked our economy.”

I can't stand her, it's too bad the likely Republican primary winner is somehow worse. If W ran as a third party candidate in this election I'd likely vote for him.

I also love how she talks about not being a politician and then divulged the disingenuous bullshit she knowingly played against Lazio in their debate. Like I said she can't even identify the truth when it comes out of her own mouth.

Cruz isn't worse, MIR. Politically I can understand why you would be opposed to a brilliant and combative conservative winning the presidency, but he is a better human being than Hillary Clinton. And as far I know, he never compromised national security intelligence by setting up a private server to dodge FOIA requests.

I hear the blather about how Cruz's Senate colleagues can't stand him. I'm still not sure why that's a bad thing. Our Congress is rotten. Cruz is unpopular because he didn't fall into line. That's the kind of person we're going to need in the WH.

I likewise think Bernie Sanders is a much better human being than Hillary. Like I've said before, I appreciate his honesty. I can't support him politically because he's a Marxist, but I respect that at least he's honest about it unlike most Democrats.

people don't hate Cruz because he "didn't fall into line" - whatever that means. everyone hates him because he shut down the federal government. you know, like a child.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on April 06, 2016, 10:13:20 AM
The disdain for Cruz among both dems and pubs means he would accomplish absolutely nothing as president. Which is amazingly still better than like 2/3 of the remaining candidates.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 06, 2016, 10:29:35 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495

It's so sad that three of our remaining five major presidential candidates left lie so much they forgot how to tell the truth.

Quote
"There is a persistent, organized effort to misrepresent my record, and I don’t appreciate that, and I feel sorry for a lot of the young people who are fed this list of misrepresentations,” Clinton said, a few minutes after talking herself hoarse at a rally here. “I know that Senator Sanders spends a lot of time attacking my husband, attacking President Obama. I rarely hear him say anything negative about George W. Bush, who I think wrecked our economy.”

I can't stand her, it's too bad the likely Republican primary winner is somehow worse. If W ran as a third party candidate in this election I'd likely vote for him.

I also love how she talks about not being a politician and then divulged the disingenuous bullshit she knowingly played against Lazio in their debate. Like I said she can't even identify the truth when it comes out of her own mouth.

Cruz isn't worse, MIR. Politically I can understand why you would be opposed to a brilliant and combative conservative winning the presidency, but he is a better human being than Hillary Clinton. And as far I know, he never compromised national security intelligence by setting up a private server to dodge FOIA requests.

I hear the blather about how Cruz's Senate colleagues can't stand him. I'm still not sure why that's a bad thing. Our Congress is rotten. Cruz is unpopular because he didn't fall into line. That's the kind of person we're going to need in the WH.

I likewise think Bernie Sanders is a much better human being than Hillary. Like I've said before, I appreciate his honesty. I can't support him politically because he's a Marxist, but I respect that at least he's honest about it unlike most Democrats.

It isn't just his Senate colleagues that can't stand him, it's damn near everyone he's come across. It doesn't have anything to do with him not falling in line and it appears to have little to do with him shutting down the government. I'll post this article again since you missed it the first time. Bear in mind this was before the crap he's pulled during this election cycle, like the Ben Carson/CNN garbage. Ted Cruz appears to be a legit bad dude.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ted-cruz-jerk-hated
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 06, 2016, 11:39:32 AM
Thanks for posting that article MIR, very telling.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 06, 2016, 11:44:02 AM
I find it funny that Ted Cruz would ask anyone about their IQ, when I hear him speak I don't hear anyone that's particularly eloquent or bright or quick on their feet.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on April 06, 2016, 11:50:06 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/these-five-are-the-best-we-can-do-1459899387
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 11:35:21 PM
The Clintons are literally tearing the Obama legacy to shreds.  Bernie is as well only in a slightly nicer way. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 08, 2016, 01:09:15 AM
Bill Clinton should have just quietly went away after he got out of the Lewinsky scandal relatively unscathed, he seems hell bound to torch his own legacy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/rorschachs-crime-bill/477426/

THE ATLANTIC
What Do Bill Clinton’s Crime Act Comments Say About the Election?
Vann R. Newkirk II

“The ones that won’t let you answer are afraid of the truth,” Bill Clinton admonished protesters at a campaign event for Hillary Clinton today in Philadelphia. The protesters peppered him with questions about the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a piece of legislation that has become wrapped up in this campaign cycle as Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders both build criminal justice promises built on dismantling parts of it. The crime bill, a signature accomplishment of his presidency and one to which Hillary has been tied, has been identified as a main culprit behind mass incarceration.

Bill’s response certainly won’t do Hillary any favors. In an 11-minute answer that wandered along a path of condescension, through tone-deaf comments, and into a difficult digression about Black Lives Matter and Africa, Clinton attempted to provide a defense for the bill and give context to the reasons why it had such broad support. He talked over protesters and attempted to play up the crowd to shout them down. His tone and talking points play especially poorly given Hillary’s early struggles in engaging with young black protesters. But even though his diatribe will be widely covered as a major misstep in Hillary’s campaign, it does provide some real insight as to why the issue of the crime bill seems to animate so much of the Democratic primary race.

In comments last year, Bill expressed real regret over the outcomes of the Act. “I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Clinton said. “And I want to admit it.” His statements today were not necessarily a full repudiation of that contrition, but definitely a walk back: He regrets some of the outcomes, but not his decision-making process. Clinton used much of the same language as he did in 1994 to defend the bill. He also gave somewhat baffling defenses of the efficacy of the bill, claiming massive decreases in crime that were directly attributable to its penchant for incarceration. This is probably not true.

When pressed on the harsh sentencing laws in the Act, Bill gave the standard defense. “I talked to a lot of African American groups, he said. “They thought Black Lives Mattered. They said ‘take this bill’ because our kids are being shot in the street by gangs.”

Clinton is right in many senses. The Act was pitched in exactly the same way to black groups in the 90s and many of them accepted it as an ugly, scorched-earth tactic, that was necessary to bring down immense crime rates in black neighborhoods. The coalition was broad, and much of the current Democratic leadership class, including Sanders and Vice President Biden, was prominently involved. As Clinton noted in the speech today, that crime bill also contained several less-controversial provisions that are still widely embraced today by liberals, such as the assault-weapons ban, overtures toward community policing, and the Violence Against Women Act. Hillary was not directly connected to the crime bill’s passage, but her strong support of it on the trail, including ex post facto racial fear-mongering about “super-predators” has earned her the ire of many criminal-justice activists.

As she and Sanders both sprint away from the crime bill, pushing plans to end mass incarceration, it binds both of them, especially informing the age and racial differences between the two campaigns. Sanders has explained his support of the bill as a reluctant compromise that allowed him to press for reforms to the death penalty, assault weapons, and domestic violence, despite its other problematic provisions. He seems to have been forgiven by young voters, who are likely more apt to see the bill as an abject failure.

Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the crime bill is more complex. Her coalition might be the coalition of voters that wanted it: older white and black voters in rural areas and black urban centers. While she has fully wrapped herself in the mantle of reform, promising to roll back the bill’s terrible effects, I suspect some of the old ideas about its necessity still linger among her base, even among the black voters. The tie to Bill Clinton’s legacy is strong, and many older voters still remember him—rightly or wrongly—as a president who brought order out of a drug-fueled crime wave. In some places, there is a strong generational divide about the necessity of Black Lives Matter, which arose as a sort of generational blowback to the crime bill, even among black people. Reports of Sanders’ struggles to hold older black audiences captive with his criminal-justice message roughly outline this divide.

Of course, the crime bill is easily regarded today as bad, racist policy. Even though—as Bill noted in his speech—state and local prisons are responsible for most of the incarceration epidemic, the federal government still plays an immensely important role in setting the national-policy table, and federal laws do interact with state laws to amplify incarceration. And Clinton’s justifications don’t quite hold up, as many of those who joined the coalition did so begrudgingly and with on-the-record reservations. Nor were liberals and black people unanimous on the issue. A group led by Reverend Jesse Jackson, who has long had ties to both the Clintons and Sanders, denounced the bill in no uncertain terms, foreseeing its effects on incarceration.

It seems the best way to describe the 1994 crime bill is that it was a tragedy of groupthink produced under the pressure of real, imminent dangers. The need to fix a crisis gave way to an awful policy that—as awful policies tend to do—further marginalized poor people and people of color. Younger voters, especially younger black voters who are seeing its effects up close, don’t have to grapple with the legacy of a mistake. They react to what they experience, which is a clearly bad policy. But Bill Clinton’s own attitude toward the bill displays the struggle that must be happening for many of those in the original coalition. Even Dr. Frankenstein couldn’t bring himself to kill his monster.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 08, 2016, 10:11:28 AM
Lol at the ever expanding list of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law that only made things worse.   Yet Dems will defend the guy until the bitter end and even as both his wife and Bernie continue to pour it on in terms of telling everyone how much Obama sucks.  Each in their own way. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on April 08, 2016, 01:36:31 PM
Hillary. UFO NUT.  What is her deal with this? If a Republican said this they would be branded a lunatic. Her and podesta keep bringing this up. I think this woman is losing it. So who are the alien? There will be plenty of them in prison.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 08, 2016, 01:46:37 PM
The UFO stuff is easily the most endearing thing about Hillary, imo.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 08, 2016, 02:07:01 PM
Lol at the ever expanding list of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law that only made things worse.   Yet Dems will defend the guy until the bitter end and even as both his wife and Bernie continue to pour it on in terms of telling everyone how much Obama sucks.  Each in their own way.

Even in times like this when it should for you people to take a victory lap, you can't help but to ramp up the partisan rhetoric to unnecessary levels. I mean this election cycle has been nothing but Hillz and Billy being beaten over the head for policies, like this one, that you people favor; and republicans pissed they don't have anyone that fits their cookie cutter model; but yeah mindless libs blah blah blah.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 08, 2016, 02:09:35 PM
Lol at the ever expanding list of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law that only made things worse.   Yet Dems will defend the guy until the bitter end and even as both his wife and Bernie continue to pour it on in terms of telling everyone how much Obama sucks.  Each in their own way.

Even in times like this when it should for you people to take a victory lap, you can't help but to ramp up the partisan rhetoric to unnecessary levels. I mean this election cycle has been nothing but Hillz and Billy being beaten over the head for policies, like this one, that you people favor; and republicans pissed they don't have anyone that fits their cookie cutter model; but yeah mindless libs blah blah blah.

Apparently the reality of a crumbling Clinton legacy has struck a nerve. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 08, 2016, 02:22:23 PM
So what did the crime bill do? The article posted just says it's bad and racist, but doesn't say how.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 08, 2016, 02:27:13 PM
So what did the crime bill do? The article posted just says it's bad and racist, but doesn't say how.

Pretty sure the first paragraph said it was the main culprit for mass incarceration. The objectionable parts of the bill were mandatory minimums, tougher but inequitable drug sentencing, etc.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 08, 2016, 02:29:29 PM
Lol at the ever expanding list of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law that only made things worse.   Yet Dems will defend the guy until the bitter end and even as both his wife and Bernie continue to pour it on in terms of telling everyone how much Obama sucks.  Each in their own way.

Even in times like this when it should for you people to take a victory lap, you can't help but to ramp up the partisan rhetoric to unnecessary levels. I mean this election cycle has been nothing but Hillz and Billy being beaten over the head for policies, like this one, that you people favor; and republicans pissed they don't have anyone that fits their cookie cutter model; but yeah mindless libs blah blah blah.

Apparently the reality of a crumbling Clinton legacy has struck a nerve.

LOL, when you think Clinton supporter, think of ol makeitrain.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 08, 2016, 02:31:02 PM
So what did the crime bill do? The article posted just says it's bad and racist, but doesn't say how.

Pretty sure the first paragraph said it was the main culprit for mass incarceration. The objectionable parts of the bill were mandatory minimums, tougher but inequitable drug sentencing, etc.

This is what I was looking for, thanks
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 08, 2016, 03:03:19 PM
Lol at the ever expanding list of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law that only made things worse.   Yet Dems will defend the guy until the bitter end and even as both his wife and Bernie continue to pour it on in terms of telling everyone how much Obama sucks.  Each in their own way.

Even in times like this when it should for you people to take a victory lap, you can't help but to ramp up the partisan rhetoric to unnecessary levels. I mean this election cycle has been nothing but Hillz and Billy being beaten over the head for policies, like this one, that you people favor; and republicans pissed they don't have anyone that fits their cookie cutter model; but yeah mindless libs blah blah blah.

Apparently the reality of a crumbling Clinton legacy has struck a nerve.

LOL, when you think Clinton supporter, think of ol makeitrain.

Okay  :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 08, 2016, 04:45:56 PM
So what did the crime bill do? The article posted just says it's bad and racist, but doesn't say how.

Pretty sure the first paragraph said it was the main culprit for mass incarceration. The objectionable parts of the bill were mandatory minimums, tougher but inequitable drug sentencing, etc.

What is inequitable drug sentencing? Weren't minimums put in place to make sentencing more equitable?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on April 08, 2016, 05:08:38 PM
Equitable doesn't necessarily mean equal / consistent. I think the issue is the punishments for drug offenses were out of line with the severity of the crime. (As compared to something like aggravated assault for example).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 08, 2016, 05:17:30 PM
So what did the crime bill do? The article posted just says it's bad and racist, but doesn't say how.

Pretty sure the first paragraph said it was the main culprit for mass incarceration. The objectionable parts of the bill were mandatory minimums, tougher but inequitable drug sentencing, etc.

What is inequitable drug sentencing? Weren't minimums put in place to make sentencing more equitable?

See the sentencing difference between Crack and cocaine, I believe that is what is meant
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 08, 2016, 08:55:26 PM
So what did the crime bill do? The article posted just says it's bad and racist, but doesn't say how.

Pretty sure the first paragraph said it was the main culprit for mass incarceration. The objectionable parts of the bill were mandatory minimums, tougher but inequitable drug sentencing, etc.

What is inequitable drug sentencing? Weren't minimums put in place to make sentencing more equitable?

See the sentencing difference between Crack and cocaine, I believe that is what is meant

It is and he knew that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2016, 09:15:47 AM
I bet it's close, but it's entirely possible more people hate hillary than rafael.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2016, 09:17:02 AM
Also, Ted should use Rafael on ballots in states like cali, nevada and new Mexico to try and pick up votes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on April 09, 2016, 10:03:38 AM
Also, Ted should use Rafael on ballots in states like cali, nevada and new Mexico to try and pick up votes

Throw in a red TMNJ headband and I would definitely vote for him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on April 09, 2016, 11:32:50 AM
Rafael was always my least fav turtle.  Also, the sai?  GTFOOMF.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 09, 2016, 01:33:49 PM
I bet it's close, but it's entirely possible more people hate hillary than rafael.

It's possible but too many liberals are Clintonites or "but she's a womanites" for that too be true.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2016, 08:13:25 AM
I bet it's close, but it's entirely possible more people hate hillary than rafael.

It's possible but too many liberals are Clintonites or "but she's a womanites" for that too be true.

I was weighing that against the pubs who hate him, but probably couldn't pick him out of a lineup, that will all of the sudden realize they like him
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on April 11, 2016, 09:02:59 AM
I think we can safely take off the Indictment Watch off the thread title, but that is for others to decide.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: TCUHornedFrog on April 11, 2016, 10:01:24 AM
Also, Ted should use Rafael on ballots in states like cali, nevada and new Mexico to try and pick up votes

lolz

Won't work.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 11, 2016, 08:49:04 PM
B.O. says the investigation is ongoing and non partisan, and when has he ever been wrong about anything
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on April 13, 2016, 08:52:57 PM
MG knew full well about DeBlasthole's racial joke.  She is laying the blame on him.  I wish for a politician that accepts the buck,stopping with them.  Liberals will never do this, at least those of obama ilk.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 14, 2016, 09:05:30 PM
Based upon twitter, Hillary appears to be outwitting the bumbling imbecile, but only by a slim margin because she is about as sharp as a polyester Dr. Evil costume.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on April 15, 2016, 12:38:15 AM
DWS with her perm and dolphin teeth just essentially said on CNN that Hilarity Clinton will be the presumptive nominee before the convention. :flush:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 15, 2016, 07:22:34 AM
Good to know the party of science and technology has an unfounded fear and ignorance of hydraulic fracturing. Something that has helped provide cheap gad to power homes and businesses for almost 70 years.

Oh yeah, they hate nasa too
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 15, 2016, 07:24:18 AM
If the DNC convention is 100% powered by wind and solar, and everyone doesn't arrive by bicycle, it's a giant hypocritical sham.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ednksu on April 15, 2016, 02:56:57 PM
Good to know the party of science and technology has an unfounded fear and ignorance of hydraulic fracturing. Something that has helped provide cheap gad to power homes and businesses for almost 70 years.

Oh yeah, they hate nasa too
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 16, 2016, 06:44:42 AM
Whackadoodle, indeed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 27, 2016, 03:57:07 PM
http://theweek.com/speedreads/620740/stephen-colbert-digs-hot-sauce-hillary-clintons-purse-really-pandering-black-voters
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2016, 11:21:18 AM
Well Trump has been great for Hillary.  Very little coverage of her pandering to every group out there in some of the most disengenius campaigning in history.  More stories of foreign entities buying influence via the Clinton Foundation.

Libya and Syria still a mess, a situation she had a huge hand in creating.   Relations with Russia at an all time post breakup low, a situation that she kick started.   The FBI still investigating her massive information security missteps.   

But Trump might build a wall.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2016, 08:02:11 PM
(http://media.salon.com/2016/02/hillary_clinton_blm-620x412.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2016, 08:05:24 PM
Unfortunately for HFP2016 the girl in the picture wasn't running on "C.P. Time".

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 04, 2016, 09:52:09 PM
Am I the only person that has no earthly clue as to what we're looking at in that picture?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on May 04, 2016, 09:52:59 PM
Yes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 04, 2016, 09:53:41 PM
I don't get it, mir
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2016, 10:33:57 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSDqbot-EI

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 04, 2016, 11:19:00 PM
 :blank:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 05, 2016, 02:50:01 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/clinton-should-concede-to-sanders-before-fbi-reveals-findings_b_9836720.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on May 05, 2016, 03:04:36 PM
I have heard a similar response from an ex CIA guy on a podcast recently.  He also said that if anyone else did this, they would be in jail awaiting trial. 

The bullshit act of not understanding anything digital makes me hate her more.  I mean, you rough ridin' understand what it is to wipe a server if you direct someone to set up your own server.  Also, the note that she surely did this for some political reason, is something that basically everyone else is avoiding.  Why go to the trouble of setting up a server if you aren't trying to avoid FOIA or something else?  The whole thing is bullshit and she deserves jail. 

I am not voting for Trump, but at least his supporters know that he hasn't violated the Espionage Act of the same country that he is trying to become pres of.

Clinton supporters are shills.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on May 05, 2016, 03:07:35 PM
If trump wins she is mumped.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 05, 2016, 03:08:17 PM
If Clinton gets indicted after the convention, do the democrats get to choose a different name for the ballot?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on May 05, 2016, 03:09:49 PM
Like if trump wins she will probably need to hurry up and ask for a conviction so Obama can pardon her on his way out
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on May 05, 2016, 03:23:26 PM
If Clinton gets indicted after the convention, do the democrats get to choose a different name for the ballot?

yes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on May 05, 2016, 03:50:42 PM
I have heard a similar response from an ex CIA guy on a podcast recently.  He also said that if anyone else did this, they would be in jail awaiting trial. 

The bullshit act of not understanding anything digital makes me hate her more.  I mean, you rough ridin' understand what it is to wipe a server if you direct someone to set up your own server.  Also, the note that she surely did this for some political reason, is something that basically everyone else is avoiding.  Why go to the trouble of setting up a server if you aren't trying to avoid FOIA or something else?  The whole thing is bullshit and she deserves jail. 

I am not voting for Trump, but at least his supporters know that he hasn't violated the Espionage Act of the same country that he is trying to become pres of.

Clinton supporters are shills.

I'm probably what you would call shill and that is fine, I get it. But if I knew the GOP was gonna FOIA every email I made to try politicize every little thing I did wrong, I would probably try to hide as much of the info as possible too.


I just for the life of me can not understand the logic, how did she not know this was gonna blow up in her face?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 05, 2016, 03:55:46 PM
I have heard a similar response from an ex CIA guy on a podcast recently.  He also said that if anyone else did this, they would be in jail awaiting trial. 

The bullshit act of not understanding anything digital makes me hate her more.  I mean, you rough ridin' understand what it is to wipe a server if you direct someone to set up your own server.  Also, the note that she surely did this for some political reason, is something that basically everyone else is avoiding.  Why go to the trouble of setting up a server if you aren't trying to avoid FOIA or something else?  The whole thing is bullshit and she deserves jail. 

I am not voting for Trump, but at least his supporters know that he hasn't violated the Espionage Act of the same country that he is trying to become pres of.

Clinton supporters are shills.

I'm probably what you would call shill and that is fine, I get it. But if I knew the GOP was gonna FOIA every email I made to try politicize every little thing I did wrong, I would probably try to hide as much of the info as possible too.


I just for the life of me can not understand the logic, how did she not know this was gonna blow up in her face?

If I were in her shoes, I'd want the GOP to FOIA every thing I do, because at some point it makes them look petty and makes me look better. Of course, that's assuming I'm not doing anything unethical or criminal.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on May 05, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
So you think she did this, you think its wrong, and you are ok with her judgment as president? 

Also, she has zero hassle with the FOIA, other than trying to cover up bad decisions or something that would cause her to lose face.  She has a whole stable of aides to handle crap like that.  As a fed elected official, everything she creates in her office is ours.  eff her trying to hide any of it.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on May 05, 2016, 04:17:18 PM
So you think she did this, you think its wrong, and you are ok with her judgment as president? 

Also, she has zero hassle with the FOIA, other than trying to cover up bad decisions or something that would cause her to lose face.  She has a whole stable of aides to handle crap like that.  As a fed elected official, everything she creates in her office is ours.  eff her trying to hide any of it.

I think it as bad judgement, but I also don't expect our leaders to have 100% judgement. I think if she did it over again she wouldn't have done the private server. I have no idea how I would act after being in politics for 25 years and having the GOP going after you that entire time. I'd probably be paranoid as hell too.

And I have no idea what the actual statue says, if it needs to be willfully or not to be a crime, but everything I have read says they have found no evidence she willfully broke the law.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: waks on May 05, 2016, 04:20:56 PM
So you think she did this, you think its wrong, and you are ok with her judgment as president? 

Also, she has zero hassle with the FOIA, other than trying to cover up bad decisions or something that would cause her to lose face.  She has a whole stable of aides to handle crap like that.  As a fed elected official, everything she creates in her office is ours.  eff her trying to hide any of it.
Isn't the Secretary of State an appointed position?  :confused:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on May 05, 2016, 04:59:41 PM
To me this a "vote for the crook it's important" type election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 05, 2016, 05:04:04 PM
To me this a "vote for the crook it's important" type election.

I'm crossing my fingers that she gets indicted so I can vote for someone I at least sort of like.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2016, 06:09:15 PM
Guccifer claims he hacked HFP2016's servers, claims it was easy, claims others hacked the servers as well.   That community tends to be a little hyperbolic, we'll see.

I can't imagine it was hard, the IT security level on her stuff was a joke and that's being nice.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 05, 2016, 07:04:06 PM
Trump has a near bottomless cache a negative ads to run about hillary. He could put something new and horrific out about her every day until the election. It's going to be awesome.

She'll run the same tired crappie, that 4 of his hundreds of companies filed bankruptcy, as if anyone in this country cares.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on May 05, 2016, 07:49:35 PM
I'm not 100% convinced she did anything that egregious, but even if she did, lol to everyone who thinks she won't get away with it. She's Frank rough ridin' Underwood, man.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 05, 2016, 08:26:08 PM
She's a caricature of a gilded age politician. Not a good look in the current populist revolt.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 08:37:07 PM
Trump has a near bottomless cache a negative ads to run about hillary. He could put something new and horrific out about her every day until the election. It's going to be awesome.

She'll run the same tired crappie, that 4 of his hundreds of companies filed bankruptcy, as if anyone in this country cares.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/hillary-clinton-wont-let-republicans-forget-never-trump

Yup, just the same old crap about bankruptcy, trump has absolutely no other negatives and isn't a crazy person
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 05, 2016, 09:10:00 PM
Hillary supporter outed :lol:

I'm sure she'll run a stellar campaign like she did in 2008 and has done so far in 2016. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 09:17:18 PM
Fsd being a trumpist is less surprising than shellsquawk being a trumpist. Great fit for him
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2016, 09:23:01 PM
Flying Spaghetti Monster has no fury like lib when lib spots a neg on his gal HFP2016, he'll slap two more HFP2016 stickers on the car tomorrow morning.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 09:44:32 PM
Dax being a trumpist is a 3/7 on the surprise scale. 7 being the equivalent of sd being a trumpist
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 09:47:20 PM
Make America ellipsis again . .  .
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 09:52:44 PM
Putting a little thought in it, I'm going to downgrade dax to a 2/7 on the surprise-o-meter since trump also gets his news from sources such as the National enquirer
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2016, 09:58:58 PM
Putting a little thought in it, I'm going to downgrade dax to a 2/7 on the surprise-o-meter since trump also gets his news from sources such as the National enquirer

Nobody's gonna talk about lib's gal like that!  Nobody!   Another 72 hours of volunteer work at HFP2016 local office courtesy of lib coming up.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 10:06:07 PM
Gal? Good grief you are old.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2016, 10:14:04 PM
Gal? Good grief you are old.

That's what people Hillary's age call women, damn.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 10:19:44 PM
I didn't think you were that old  :sdeek:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2016, 10:25:57 PM
Hillary's age, not mine.   

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2016, 10:31:18 PM
Now I understand why you believe all those e-mail forwards and only talk about the 70's
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 06, 2016, 08:29:41 AM
Reading lib7's predictable retorts is like looking into the eyes of a child. So adorable, so much to learn. :emawkid:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on May 06, 2016, 08:51:36 AM
Reading lib7's predictable retorts is like looking into the eyes of a child.

well, to dax, yes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on May 06, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Screwer in Chief. That is what Hillary will be to America if elected.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on May 06, 2016, 01:20:13 PM
That's like, most presidents, btw.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2016, 01:48:24 PM
Look at lib digging so deep as the  :curse: boils within over all Hillary neg'ing.

So, sad


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 08, 2016, 09:09:43 AM
Another group of Hispanics beat up by Hillrod staffers. Smh

http://theamericanmirror.com/protester-confronts-hillary-on-rope-line-youre-a-murderer/

What a despicable racist
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on May 08, 2016, 11:18:05 AM
Another group of Hispanics beat up by Hillrod staffers. Smh

http://theamericanmirror.com/protester-confronts-hillary-on-rope-line-youre-a-murderer/

What a despicable racist

The American Mirror  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on May 08, 2016, 11:41:37 AM
Reading lib7's predictable retorts is like looking into the eyes of a child. So adorable, so much to learn. :emawkid:

https://youtu.be/YU3vcvGpALQ?t=16m3s
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 08, 2016, 12:11:19 PM
Relevant  :Ugh:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2016, 01:48:48 AM
http://abcn.ws/24HclJX
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on May 10, 2016, 07:28:48 AM
Pagliano.  The guy who set up the MG private server.  He was her personal IT guy while she was SOS. He did this for 4 years.  Republican party filed a FOIA suit for copies of.his emails.  ABC is reporting the state department can't find any, anywhere.  Smells fishy.  MG the self.proclaimed IT amish moron never communicated with IT guy?  IT guy who can't use email?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2016, 08:32:32 AM
I'm just stunned by these developments.  What did MG know and when did she know it? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on May 10, 2016, 03:13:21 PM
"You mean, like, wipe it with a cloth or something?"

Actual quote

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 10, 2016, 03:34:36 PM
Quote
Clinton collected $73,437 from individuals who listed the “Department of Justice” as their employer. Twelve of the 228 contributions were for $2,700, the maximum individual amount allowed by law.

The fundraising haul marks a dramatic increase over Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential run in 2008, when she took in 23 contributions totaling $15,930 from employees at the agency, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Trump, by comparison, has received little help from Justice Department employees, recording just two contributions for a total of $381.

Sanders has taken 51 donations totaling $8,900 from Justice Department employees
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 10, 2016, 09:34:01 PM
Got whooped in another primary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 12, 2016, 12:55:24 AM
Bill out "fund raising" for the CF, big event attended by billionaires including the former head of Saudi intelligence.    But one attendee actually asked why HFP2016 won't address the foreign money issue. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 14, 2016, 12:50:22 PM
Bill's buddy Jeff Epstein, great guy.   Wherever the Clinton's go Federal investigations seem to follow, and people go to prison, but not them. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 14, 2016, 01:47:53 PM
Got whooped in another primary.

 :Woot:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 14, 2016, 01:52:29 PM
This probably belongs here:


http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on May 14, 2016, 10:24:17 PM
She and bill the thrill acceped 110 million from the wahbi mob and its shiektators.  Biggest damn political crooks next to Putin.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 20, 2016, 02:53:08 AM
Saw her CNN interview, I want to punch her in the throat. I'm 90% sure I won't be voting for her in the general.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 22, 2016, 12:29:02 PM
http://freedomoutpost.com/hillary-clintons-pathological-lying-and-erratic-behavior-due-to-drug-and-alcohol-addiction/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 22, 2016, 11:29:55 PM
http://freedomoutpost.com/hillary-clintons-pathological-lying-and-erratic-behavior-due-to-drug-and-alcohol-addiction/

Sounds legit
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on May 23, 2016, 12:43:29 AM
Saw her CNN interview, I want to punch her in the throat. I'm 90% sure I won't be voting for her in the general.

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 23, 2016, 09:36:17 AM
Seems highly plausible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: LickNeckey on May 23, 2016, 10:27:21 AM
Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: slobber on May 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?
Plausible on my end. All of my 'publican friends trying to convince me that Trump is the answer...man, that would be a tough lever for me to pull. I would also consider that tall 'crat from NY at this point. I should point out that, my 'crat friends who act like Hillary would be great are losing any credibility that they had with me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 23, 2016, 02:56:01 PM
While Hillary has a proven track record as a miserable leader and politician, and one who frequently self deals in the public trust, we can only conjecturalize that trump would do the same because of the things he says, and what he's done.

Congrats America, we're down to definitely bad versus almost certainly bad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 23, 2016, 03:22:57 PM
While Hillary has a proven track record as a miserable leader and politician, and one who frequently self deals in the public trust, we can only conjecturalize that trump would do the same because of the things he says, and what he's done.

Congrats America, we're down to definitely bad versus almost certainly bad.

Maybe this is how things were back when America was great.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on May 23, 2016, 03:46:34 PM
Why do old people refer to voting as pulling a lever? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 24, 2016, 01:23:41 AM
Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?

HAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD PASS. Islamaphobes aren't for.me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 24, 2016, 07:58:05 AM
Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?

HAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD PASS. Islamaphobes aren't for.me.

What about presidents and former SOS's who kill Muslims, and overthrow and destabilize Muslim countries leading to the death of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians)? 
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 25, 2016, 04:38:41 PM
Just saw pics of more boatloads of Libyan refugees clinging for life in the Med.  Trying to flee the hell on earth in their now lawless country created by HFP2016.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 25, 2016, 05:24:02 PM
Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?

HAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD PASS. Islamaphobes aren't for.me.

What about presidents and former SOS's who kill Muslims, and overthrow and destabilize Muslim countries leading to the death of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians)?

Who are you referring to and why are you asking me?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 25, 2016, 07:05:33 PM
It's a fair question for anyone throwing around "islamaphobe"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on May 25, 2016, 10:13:17 PM
It's a fair question for anyone throwing around "islamaphobe"
[/quote
Great point.  Fsd, can you read the new Washington Times expose out today about MG email.debacle.  Your poignant comments will be an interesting read.  This OIG report is.like.a nuke up the wazoo.]
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 25, 2016, 11:25:01 PM
It's a fair question for anyone throwing around "islamaphobe"

I'm not certain what my opinion of Gary Johnson has to do with anything Dax mentioned.

I also hope you aren't seriously questioning categorizing the banning of burqas as Islamaphobic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 25, 2016, 11:31:53 PM
How about invading Muslim countries, killing them and destroying their system of government leaving the weak to suffer at the hand of savages? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 25, 2016, 11:34:26 PM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on May 25, 2016, 11:37:33 PM
I also hope you aren't seriously questioning categorizing the banning of burqas as Islamaphobic.

i would certainly question that.  i don't have the time or the energy to debate the issue tonight, but it is far more nuanced than simply banning burqas is islamphobic.  the wikipedia entry on france's ban has some decent discussion.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 25, 2016, 11:42:01 PM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 25, 2016, 11:49:04 PM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 25, 2016, 11:54:14 PM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 25, 2016, 11:54:59 PM
I also hope you aren't seriously questioning categorizing the banning of burqas as Islamaphobic.

i would certainly question that.  i don't have the time or the energy to debate the issue tonight, but it is far more nuanced than simply banning burqas is islamphobic.  the wikipedia entry on france's ban has some decent discussion.

Are you kidding me sys, what in the world? France has a ban on all face covering in public including people wearing costumes; Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas. I can see why you wouldn't want to argue this, it isn't even the same conversation.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 12:00:37 AM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

Your first paragraph is a rationalization. What you accused the Obama administration of can absolutely be used to eviscerate the Reagan administration for what he did in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia. I'm not saying you are right or wrong for your assertion of what the Obama administration did but if you're interested in consistency you can't have a different view of what Reagan did.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on May 26, 2016, 12:00:54 AM
Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.

he also publicly changed his mind like five minutes later.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 26, 2016, 12:06:52 AM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

Your first paragraph is a rationalization. What you accused the Obama administration of can absolutely be used to eviscerate the Reagan administration for what he did in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia. I'm not saying you are right or wrong for your assertion of what the Obama administration did but if you're interested in consistency you can't have a different view of what Reagan did.

Where the eff did I say I had a different view?  But apparently you don't know the difference.   Reagan via the CIA supported an insurgency and had to do it pretty much in secret because it didn't have substantial bi-partisan support, in fact it had no support from Democrats.    In Libya the U.S. was directly responsible via explicit and direct U.S./NATO support of the overthrow of the government.    Syria is similar to Latin American, but still had direct U.S. military engagement and dwarfs Latin America on every conceivable scale in terms of being a humanitarian disaster.   There's been little to no dissent on recent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East because the U.S. is now on a perpetual war footing. 



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 12:18:57 AM
Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.

he also publicly changed his mind like five minutes later.

He absolutely retracted that. I hope you can understand my skepticism as to what his motivation was for the retraction, it's not like the question was difficult to interpret.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 12:21:28 AM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

Your first paragraph is a rationalization. What you accused the Obama administration of can absolutely be used to eviscerate the Reagan administration for what he did in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia. I'm not saying you are right or wrong for your assertion of what the Obama administration did but if you're interested in consistency you can't have a different view of what Reagan did.

Where the eff did I say I had a different view?  But apparently you don't know the difference.   Reagan via the CIA supported an insurgency and had to do it pretty much in secret because it didn't have substantial bi-partisan support, in fact it had no support from Democrats.    In Libya the U.S. was directly responsible via explicit and direct U.S./NATO support of the overthrow of the government.    Syria is similar to Latin American, but still had direct U.S. military engagement and dwarfs Latin America on every conceivable scale in terms of being a humanitarian disaster.   There's been little to no dissent on recent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East because the U.S. is now on a perpetual war footing.

(http://www.kimberlydurban.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Split-Shift.jpg)

(http://s306.photobucket.com/user/nancyrzez/media/Animated/Carousel.gif.html)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 26, 2016, 12:22:21 AM
Pretty great tap out MIR.   :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 12:33:45 AM
Thank you, dax.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on May 26, 2016, 09:14:50 AM
Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.

he also publicly changed his mind like five minutes later.

He absolutely retracted that. I hope you can understand my skepticism as to what his motivation was for the retraction, it's not like the question was difficult to interpret.

he has a zero % chance of winning the election and he knows that, so i'm not sure it's fair to hugely suspect ulterior motivations.  i think it's reasonable to just assume that he thought about his response and realized it wasn't consistent with libertarian ideals.

if you want to assume that his initial response revealed some subconscious characterizations of muslims as "other" or something like that, that's probably fair.  but you should also then credit him for overriding his subconscious with rational thought.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on May 26, 2016, 09:21:17 AM
We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 26, 2016, 09:39:48 AM
Seems reasonable
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 26, 2016, 10:03:00 AM
We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

If you're talking about Clinton, Lib.  Well it was nice knowing you, RIP, and I'll make sure someone takes the Hillary signs out of your front yard and takes the Hillary 2016 stickers off your car(s) before they're sold (obviously covering the Hillary 2008 stickers if your car(s) are that old).   We'll also make sure the DNC and Hillary Campaign take you off their mailing and call lists, and we'll let the HFP 2020 team know that they'll not be getting any checks from you.   Is the Clinton Foundation in your will?



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 26, 2016, 10:05:01 AM
We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

If you're talking about Clinton, Lib.  Well it was nice knowing you, RIP, and I'll make sure someone takes the Hillary signs out of your front yard and takes the Hillary 2016 stickers off your car(s) before their sold.   We'll also make sure the DNC and Hillary Campaign take you off their mailing and call list.   Is the Clinton Foundation in your will?

Weird post
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 26, 2016, 10:06:03 AM
We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

If you're talking about Clinton, Lib.  Well it was nice knowing you, RIP, and I'll make sure someone takes the Hillary signs out of your front yard and takes the Hillary 2016 stickers off your car(s) before their sold.   We'll also make sure the DNC and Hillary Campaign take you off their mailing and call list.   Is the Clinton Foundation in your will?

Weird post

Typical lib response to a spot on post regarding his political leanings.    :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 26, 2016, 10:07:45 AM
OK
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 26, 2016, 10:39:51 AM
We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!

Not a terrible idea, really.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on May 26, 2016, 10:41:53 AM
Between all the killings of trump and Hillary voters, we might be down to 2% of the human population, but goddammit, it will be the cream of the crop!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on May 26, 2016, 10:43:23 AM
we might be down to 2% of the human population.

 :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 26, 2016, 10:44:23 AM
we might be down to 2% of the human population.

 :love:

More like 60%  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on May 26, 2016, 11:02:18 AM
Can we just make this into another Gary Johnson thread?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 11:48:59 AM


"In an interview with Reason Wednesday, I was asked about a ban on women wearing burqas. The question came in a discussion of Sharia law and its incompatibility with the fundamental tenets of liberty. I answered the question in the context of the fact that, under Sharia law, women have no choice but to wear the burqa, and live under a system of law that not only allows, but condones, abuse of women. In that context, I stated that banning the full-face burqa, as was done in France, would be a reasonable step toward preventing signs of abuse from being hidden. My response was not about telling women what they can and cannot wear, but about protecting them from harm under a brutal ideology under which women have nothing resembling equal rights.

However, having had time to consider, my response was wrong. As with many well-intentioned ideas, a government-imposed ban on full-face coverings would have unintended consequences and likely result in government overreach. As governor, I vetoed many such well-intended laws, and on reflection, would in fact veto a government ban on full face burqas. While the law must provide protection for women from abuse, it is clear that banning face veils wouldn’t work, and would be impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights.

Sharia law is incompatible with the freedoms upon which America is founded, and it must not be overlooked that, under Sharia ideology, women have no rights, and are certainly not free to dress as they wish. Imposing such a system on women under some guise of freedom of religion or expression is not acceptable under any notion of liberty. On that point I am firm. But a government ban on an item of clothing might well have the consequence of restricting, not protecting, freedom."

-Isalmaphob Gary Johnson

Yeah, I read that when it happened months ago. If the defense is that he's an idiot not a bigot then I guess you can roll with that. Someone on this blog, maybe sys, talked about a thin line between being a moron and a bigot, maybe Gary is on the moron side. Again, I'll point out that Gary wasn't misquoted or trapped into saying he would ban a piece of religious clothing if he's elected president. I'd be a lot less skeptical if the statement was sometime later and he said something like "After meeting with Muslim leaders, I realize that my previous statement about burquas was misguided and ill informed. I am appreciative of the discourse and I am sincerely sorry for my previous statement on the matter." The apology he gave to Medium was literally hours later after he took a beating in the MSM and on social media.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on May 26, 2016, 12:02:36 PM
you'd give him more credit if he was harder to persuade that he was wrong, and it took him longer to change his mind?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on May 26, 2016, 12:23:33 PM
This strikes me as one of the lesser outrageous things I've heard a politician say. I feel like Gary likes to publicly spitball sometimes and hypersensitive people see that as a weakness. I don't mind people that say stupid things if they are willing to think through them and admit when they are stupid.

I also hate people who aren't willing to opine on anything and just say crap like "we're going to move America forward."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 26, 2016, 01:24:27 PM
If only Gary had said that we need to bring Muslims to heel, then he gets a free pass.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on May 26, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
(http://www.cinesnob.net/wp-content/uploads/tonyhalepic.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 02:02:58 PM
you'd give him more credit if he was harder to persuade that he was wrong, and it took him longer to change his mind?

I'd give him more credit if there seemed to be a factor, other than public sentiment, that changed his mind of something he believed. He very well may have been sincere but I can't see that.

It's fair to assume that our view of his apology is formed by how we feel about him based on other factors. If Donald Trump did the exact same thing I doubt that I would have to defend questioning his sincerity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 26, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
I think the "apology" is detailed enough that I don't really question sincerity. It doesn't smell like bullshit, which is not so much the case with anything at all trump or Clinton might say
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on May 26, 2016, 02:13:21 PM
I think the "apology" is detailed enough that I don't really question sincerity. It doesn't smell like bullshit, which is not so much the case with anything at all trump or Clinton might say

also he doesn't apologize to the burqa-wearing (burqa-forcing-to-wear) muslims, he makes that clear.  he's apologizing for not exemplifying libertarian philosophy.  which makes it seem even more sincere.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 26, 2016, 02:13:32 PM
you'd give him more credit if he was harder to persuade that he was wrong, and it took him longer to change his mind?

I'd give him more credit if there seemed to be a factor, other than public sentiment, that changed his mind of something he believed. He very well may have been sincere but I can't see that.

It's fair to assume that our view of his apology is formed by how we feel about him based on other factors. If Donald Trump did the exact same thing I doubt that I would have to defend questioning his sincerity.

If Trump did the same thing, he'd be telling us all that he never believed that burqas should be banned in the first place, that the question was hard to follow or that he couldn't hear it clearly, and that from an academic point of view, he was actually very correct that they should be banned. From an academic point of view, of course.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 02:32:58 PM
I think the "apology" is detailed enough that I don't really question sincerity. It doesn't smell like bullshit, which is not so much the case with anything at all trump or Clinton might say

also he doesn't apologize to the burqa-wearing (burqa-forcing-to-wear) muslims, he makes that clear.  he's apologizing for not exemplifying libertarian philosophy.  which makes it seem even more sincere.
[/quote
Which circles back to what I said about the rationale behind the apology. I'll retract a bit, he seems sincere about being sorry for abandoning his libertarian ideals. "Muslims shouldn't wear burqas in public but the government shouldn't ban them."  I have no problem using a broad brush to paint someone who has an issue with any private citizen wearing any religious symbol or clothing in public.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on May 26, 2016, 02:45:26 PM
i don't see a problem with forming opinions about someone based on their philosophy, be it religious or not.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on May 26, 2016, 08:35:57 PM
I think the "apology" is detailed enough that I don't really question sincerity. It doesn't smell like bullshit, which is not so much the case with anything at all trump or Clinton might say

also he doesn't apologize to the burqa-wearing (burqa-forcing-to-wear) muslims, he makes that clear.  he's apologizing for not exemplifying libertarian philosophy.  which makes it seem even more sincere.

That is the interesting part to me(as far as MIR's disgust goes). The discussion was about Sharia law and its compatibility with liberty and the balance between a woman's liberty and religious freedom. I think it is reasonable to question Sharia law and not be considered a bigot as it pertains to Islam. But I could be speaking out of ignorance on the moron/bigot line.

Here is the quote with the context because I think the context Johnson provided in his apology was misleading
Quote
Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson, who recently resigned as the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana marketing form, said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of "politics" and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution.

"Under sharia law," he argued, "women are not afforded the same rights as men." Under a burqa, how do you know if a woman has been beaten?, he asked rhetorically. "Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims." Likening followers of sharia to members of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson said that he wouldn't censor the speech of people promoting sharia law but would mount a cultural campaign to counter its growth here. He said the Islamic terrorism proceeds directly from the same sources as the thinking behind sharia and that the United States government must make sure it is not inadvertently funding sharia overseas.

His rationale for banning burqas is so we can see if women are being beaten? WTF? Lets ban sweaters for white people, hats for Mexicans, and jackets for black people.

Having issues with Sharia Law is one thing, but I'm confused as to why he thought banning a burqa was the answer here. Lets ban public displays of crosses because the clan burns them, or ban Buddha statues in restaurants because Buddhists extremists in Myanmar commit atrocities against Muslims.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on May 26, 2016, 11:53:29 PM
I felt like he was trying to grab the attention of some trumpers with some anti Muslim rhetoric but wasn't prepared for the amount of negative attention he drew. So I guess I don't think he was sincere in his initial statement or his backtracking.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2016, 01:06:34 PM
Hello friends, just dropping by. So now that the State Department Inspector General has thoroughly shredded two more of Clinton's lies about her email server - (1) emails prove she violated department policy, and knew she was violating policy, and (2) emails prove she did it keep her emails "private" (from FOIA requests) as opposed to the "convenience" she claimed - it seems like a good time to mention this piece from HuffPo by a Bernie supporter. Other than supporting a socialist, he's dead on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/dear-fbi-the-democratic-p_b_9784334.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/dear-fbi-the-democratic-p_b_9784334.html)

Quote
To the Honorable James B. Comey, Jr. and all the good people at the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

The majority of the Democratic Party does not believe there is an ongoing FBI criminal investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails. They believe, as the former Secretary of State has told them, that your work is merely a “security review,”  :lol: or as one Democratic strategist call it, “another BS scandal.” Your work, thus far, has been relegated to yet another “witch hunt.” In fact, Clinton and her campaign have managed to convince millions that former secretaries of state did the same thing, which of course isn’t true.

Also, an interesting brand of logic has been used to rationalize ignoring your email investigation. While the number of agents working on this case is said to have been around 100, some voters have actually taken solace in the fact recent reports only list dozens. Only a dozen FBI agents, say loyal supporters, isn’t that big of a deal.  :lol:

Since your investigation has taken so long, many people believe that nothing has been found, or simply that Clinton is too powerful to face any serious repercussions. Any attempt to warn people that Hillary Clinton could realistically face criminal indictments is either viewed as a Republican scare tactic, or lunacy. Even many Bernie Sanders supporters, a group that would benefit the most from the FBI recommending indictment of Clinton, feel it’s either disloyal, or pointless to bring up the email controversy. The massive group think within the Democratic Party, fostered by years of circumventing political scandals, has literally altered the mindset of normally rational individuals, and voters. [This might the single truest thing ever written on HuffPo.]

To a great many people, there is simply nothing Hillary Clinton can do wrong; even FBI investigations are merged with Republican Benghazi hearings.

Ultimately, your hard work, and your investigation into Clinton’s email server and correspondence, is viewed as a big, fat “nothingberger.” As Esquire’s Charles Pierce writes, The Great Hillary Email Nothingburger is Still on the Grill, and It’s Certainly Overcooked. Sadly, the FBI has become part of a satirical narrative centered upon Clinton being the victim of never-ending Republican attacks.

It’s important for everyone at the FBI to know that your investigation, and I say this with all due respect, is viewed as a source of amusement for many writers, pundits, and observers loyal to Clinton. The 22 Top Secret emails on a private server (something that should disqualify anyone running for president) are either completely ignored by party faithful, or rationalized by twisted logic. Nothing is taken seriously anymore; everything is viewed through the belief that Republicans are worse, therefore Clinton’s indiscretions are meaningless. [Again, this is just so true! The Democrats have become accustomed to getting away with murder.]

This should tell you something about the state of our Republic. [Indeed.] This should also tell you something about the rule of law in our country. [Double indeed, though this somewhat ironic coming from a person who likely supports Obama's lawless actions on immigration, Obamacare, etc.] If anyone else in the U.S. government owned a private server storing Top Secret intelligence, for the sake of “convenience,” they’d be in jail. [I don't think anyone can seriously deny this.] Lt. General Michael Flynn made that case on CNN with Jake Tapper.

The mere notion that Hillary Clinton could face criminal indictments is simply unrealistic to many voters, and I explain here what the Clinton campaign and supporters think of you and your organization. There used to be a time in U.S. history when FBI investigations were bad for campaigns; now it’s not even a speed bump for the former Secretary of State.

While I’ve stated on this CNN International appearance that Clinton could face indictment, and in a CNN New Day appearance that Clinton manages to continually circumvent scandal, only the FBI can resolve this grandiose issue.

Our country is getting closer to electing a person, under FBI investigation for potential misconduct pertaining to classified documents, that will have complete access to every single American intelligence agency.

When Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked Clinton “If you get indicted, will you drop out?” the former Secretary of State’s answer spoke volumes. She responded, “Oh, for goodness — that’s not going to happen.” The audience then cheered, for a response that no other American citizen would give to a question regarding possible DOJ indictment.

I’m not saying that people should fear the FBI. I’m saying people should respect the FBI. At this point, Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, yet Clinton is leading in delegates. This dynamic would never take place in any other leading democracy. If David Cameron had been investigated by MI5, rest assured the British would never have allowed him to become leader of his political party, and eventually Prime Minister.

No doubt, you must perform your investigation without political pressure, but the reality is that millions of Bernie Sanders supporters are awaiting your verdict. Millions of independent voters, and millions of Democrats who aren’t voting for Clinton, need to hear your verdict. Needless to say, the Republicans are waiting as well.

The entire nation is waiting for you to disclose the details of your year-long email investigation.

Whether or not you recommend indictment, and whether or not you’ve found criminal wrongdoing pertaining to Clinton, should be known before the end of the Democratic Primary. Democrats can’t nominate a person who could potentially face indictment on November 7, 2016.

Of course, I’m a huge Bernie Sanders supporter, and while even many Bernie voters have surrendered to the myth that this investigation is purely politics, I believe otherwise. I remember a time when government officials respected the FBI, and a time when FBI investigations could never be associated with winning the presidency. In my humble view, I’d take the recent letter you received from agents who worked on ABSCAM very seriously, and I explain here why your reputation is at stake.

If Clinton wins, and if she did nothing wrong, then Americans need to know. However, if Clinton jeopardized national security, or might have jeopardized national security, then Democrats must rally around Bernie Sanders before it’s too late.

Your own website states “Every day, criminals are invading countless homes and offices across the nation—not by breaking down windows and doors, but by breaking into laptops, personal computers, and wireless devices via hacks and bits of malicious code.”

America needs to know if this observation also applies to Clinton’s email server.

Senator Sanders hasn’t addressed the email scandal, even though Clinton would never have hesitated to do so, out of respect for your investigation. Thus, most Democrats think it’s blasphemous to even mention the possibility of indictment, or criminal wrongdoing. The sooner we all know, the sooner we can address the spin, either way, from both Trump and Clinton. Both Clinton and Trump will form their own narrative, from your year-long investigation, and Democratic voters need time to process your findings.

Hopefully, this will take place before June, so that Bernie Sanders has a chance to become nominee, and so that Democrats don’t attempt to further a person linked to criminal indictments into the White House. Future generations will learn about this era in American politics, and your actions will highlight a great deal about our nation’s value system. Future generations will remember when you disclosed your findings, and the impact this timing had on the future of the Democratic Party.

Sincerely,

H. A Goodman
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on May 27, 2016, 01:13:55 PM
welcome back ksuw
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 27, 2016, 01:32:54 PM
Hillary and the Democrats  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on May 27, 2016, 01:43:31 PM
When the FBI do conclude, the following weeks will be extremely interesting news wise.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 27, 2016, 02:06:12 PM
How awesome would it be to have a newly elected president that is criminally pardoned by the outgoing president?  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 27, 2016, 02:08:15 PM
I hope o-dawg wouldn't do that  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 27, 2016, 02:18:04 PM
I'd like to see a line chart wherein the x axis represents time, x=0 being today, and x=1 being the election date, and y represents the odds of a Republican victory based on the assumption that at day x Hillary is indicted. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 27, 2016, 02:21:32 PM
Well if she's indicted then we get biden/warren so I would say it'd be a flat 0 percent chance
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 27, 2016, 02:22:55 PM
The republican odds get better the closer to election day. Biden/Warren couldn't put a competent campaign together in October.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 27, 2016, 06:41:19 PM
The republican odds get better the closer to election day. Biden/Warren couldn't put a competent campaign together in October.

Are you saying a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and a lunatic couldn't whip a campaign into shape in this election cycle? Because that statement would lack some serious levity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: pvegs on May 27, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
The republican odds get better the closer to election day. Biden/Warren couldn't put a competent campaign together in October.

Are you saying a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and a lunatic couldn't whip a campaign into shape in this election cycle? Because that statement would lack some serious levity.

I was gonna say something mean to fsd, but it's like, what's the point? His own profile says, "racist piece of crap," and "suck my dick," so that's cool.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 27, 2016, 10:13:34 PM
"I was gonna" is bitch for I'm a bitch, fwiw
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 28, 2016, 07:48:37 AM
Must be watched to be believed. When you've completely lost an entire panel of devout Dems on MSNBC...  http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/mika-it-feels-like-clinton-is-lying-straight-out-693313091808 (http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/mika-it-feels-like-clinton-is-lying-straight-out-693313091808)

My favorite part is Mika's small "I know...." uttered with such anguish and disgust.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2016, 03:47:47 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/01/hillarys-role-in-honduran-coup-sunk-us-relations-with-latin-america-to-a-new-low/

Quote
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat down with the New York Daily News editorial board in April, she was asked what must have been a surprising and unwelcome question. In the years since the 2009 coup in Honduras, there has been remarkably little scrutiny in the major media of how Clinton’s State Department handled it, and she has had to answer few questions about it.

But Juan González asked why she resisted cutting off aid to the coup regime and instead brokered a deal for new elections. Clinton controversially doubled down on defending the coup, outrageously suggesting that the oligarchs and generals who had forced President Manuel Zelaya out had a legal justification. Worse, she suggested that Honduras emulate Plan Colombia: the U.S.-funded war on drugs and guerrillas that sparked the biggest internal refugee crisis in the world outside of Syria, involved the deliberate killing of thousands of innocent civilians by Colombian armed forces, and fostered death squads now poised to stick around even as the country nears an end to its civil war.

Honduras also pops up in Clinton’s memoir, “Hard Choices.” The paperback edition, published shortly after she launched her presidential campaign, is roughly 100 pages shorter than the original hardcover edition, but some of the abridgments seem rather convenient. In her original account of the coup and its aftermath, which was entirely deleted from the paperback, Clinton openly admits to having intervened directly to prevent Zelaya from returning to office:

In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary Espinosa in Mexico. We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot and give the Honduran people a chance to choose their own future.

Clinton’s declassified emails shed light on her role in prolonging negotiations so that elections would occur before Zelaya returned to office. In an email a week after the coup, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon raises the possibility of former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias serving as mediator. This enabled the U.S. to avoid working through the Organization of American States (OAS), where most governments insisted on restoring Zelaya to the presidency and isolating the coup regime. A July 31 email from Craig Kelly, Shannon’s deputy, makes it clear that this was indeed the U.S.’ motive: “The OAS meeting today turned into a non-event — just as we hoped. We want Arias out front. We will keep at it.”

When Zelaya attempted to return to Honduras from exile, via the Nicaragua border on July 24, Clinton condemned it as “reckless” and counterproductive “to the broader effort to restore democratic and constitutional order.” And whereas the U.S. was quick to suspend aid following Madagascar’s March 17, 2009 coup, it would take months before the State Department would act in a similar fashion with Honduras. Notably, the U.S. suspended Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) money three days after Madagascar’s coup, but declined to hold up the more than $190 million of MCC funds designated for Honduras. As secretary of state, Clinton chaired the MCC board of directors at the time.

The split between the U.S. and its neighbors widened when, on September 28, 2009, U.S. State Department officials blocked the OAS from adopting a resolution on Honduras that would have refused to recognize Honduran elections without the prior restoration of the country’s elected president. While Latin America — seeing the inherent danger from the precedent of a successful military coup — demanded Zelaya’s “immediate and unconditional” restoration, the U.S. pushed instead for a “national unity government.” In Clinton’s telling, this was something she triumphantly pressured regime head Roberto Micheletti into accepting. The question is why this was the goal, instead of the restoration of democracy. Seen from another angle, Clinton’s State Department collaborated with an illegal government that had seized power through force. When Shannon made the administration’s true intentions public on November 3, by telling CNN en Español that Zelaya’s return to the presidency prior to the elections was not necessary, the coup regime had all the leverage and Zelaya and his elected government suddenly had none.

The November 2009 elections, held under a coup government, were widely seen as illegitimate, and the OAS, the European Union, and the Carter Center refused to send observers. Following the elections, Honduras continued to be excluded from the OAS for almost two years.

Most significantly, though, the actions of Clinton and her State Department precipitated a new low point in U.S.-Latin American relations. In a clear sign of rejection of U.S. regional influence, all the countries in the Western Hemisphere formed a new group, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) — all of them, that is, except for the U.S. and Canada, which were excluded.


If Clinton’s State Department was concerned by the extent of this foreign diplomacy failure in what Washington used to refer to as its “backyard,” their emails and diplomatic cables do not hint at it. Rather, senior officials appeared to revel at having gotten one over on Brazil and other governments that wanted to see Honduras’ democratic government restored. Just after the November 2009 election results were announced, Shannon emailed Clinton triumphantly, noting, “The turnout [ … ] and the clear rejection of [Zelaya’s] Liberal Party shows our approach was the right one, and puts Brazil and others who would not recognize the election in an impossible position.”

We can only assume that this is the sort of diplomacy we could expect from a Clinton presidency. Her feelings on military force are already well known, and are of course even more harmful to the interests of both the U.S. and the true “international community.” But Clintonian diplomacy might also further isolate the U.S. from its neighbors and even from some historic allies.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2016, 05:00:37 PM
Hillary Clinton Uber Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal, but YAH Status Quo!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/14/exposing-the-libyan-agenda-a-closer-look-at-hillarys-emails/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2016, 05:21:22 PM
I love it when dax finds a new right wing blog and chain posts all their articles  :D
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2016, 05:28:51 PM
Counterpunch a right wing blog?    :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe your best one ever lib,  :lol: :lol: :lol:

New?   :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2016, 05:31:27 PM
Right wing blog?    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/01/make-presidential-race-about-issues-not-a-spitball-fight/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 01, 2016, 06:15:52 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2016, 06:32:31 PM
dax, did i say anything about counterpunch.org?  weird anger you have there.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
dax, did i say anything about counterpunch.org?  weird anger you have there.

 :lol:   

I guess your rage about all the bad stuff about Hillary really got to you.   Two more Hillary signs in (libs) yard!

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on June 01, 2016, 06:41:59 PM
we could just redirect all pit threads to it?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 09, 2016, 08:49:25 PM
Emails reveal drone strikes in Pakistan  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 09, 2016, 09:02:18 PM
And to think, she's still gonna be president.


(https://media.giphy.com/media/RDlxad4sL55O8/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 09, 2016, 09:35:26 PM
Racist outed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2016, 10:28:02 PM
SB loves corruption and war.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on June 09, 2016, 10:32:57 PM
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?

I just want to make sure I've got this right.   You're totally against voting for someone because they reportedly may want to ban an article of clothing and thus you've concluded that they're "Islamophoic".   But based on a recent post you're still not 100% sure you're not going to vote for one of the primary drivers behind the horrific invasion of Libya, the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent death and displacement of thousands upon thousands of Muslims (and Christians).    I just find that fascinating.

 

1. I'm not "with her," I thought I made this clear.
2. No matter what you think of Hillary and I don't think she's worth crap; I don't see the correlation between someone not allowing religious clothing in a Santa Fe grocery store and the United States' foreign policy. Using the logistical gymnastics you're attempting we can infer that Ronald Reagan had Latin American-phobia.

No Reagan just had Communist in Latin-America phobia, and he was hated by many on the left for it.   Hillary just destroys countries and flashes the peace sign and pretty much lead to the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII as SOS.   Yes, there is a correlation and one is vastly more serious, deathly serious then the other.   

As an aside, there seems to be very little effort by the current administration, of which HFP2016 was a big part of in ending the war in Syria, they (which includes Hillary) are clearly just as much in favor of the continence and expansion of perpetual war then their predecessors were.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but this is just lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2016, 10:36:43 PM
Oh geezus, really KK?  The women was an unmitigated geo political disaster as SOS.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on June 09, 2016, 10:39:40 PM
Oh geezus, really KK?  The women was an unmitigated geo political disaster as SOS.

I mean, just going chronologically, you think this is worse than Korea?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2016, 10:43:07 PM
WTF? Korea? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on June 09, 2016, 10:55:59 PM
WTF? Korea?

you said Hillary as SOS presided over the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2016, 10:57:10 PM
WTF? Korea?

you said Hillary as SOS presided over the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII.

On a global scale, absolutely.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on June 09, 2016, 11:19:58 PM
WTF? Korea?

you said Hillary as SOS presided over the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII.

On a global scale, absolutely.

Just a for instance-->I thought Iraq was very bad for people in the US and many other places, but even I never claimed it was worse than Vietnam.  You are claiming that the world is worse off than during the rough ridin' Cold War?

Welp, I think I'm good with saying let's agree to disagree on this one.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2016, 11:26:36 PM
WTF? Korea?

you said Hillary as SOS presided over the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII.

On a global scale, absolutely.

Just a for instance-->I thought Iraq was very bad for people in the US and many other places, but even I never claimed it was worse than Vietnam.  You are claiming that the world is worse off than during the rough ridin' Cold War?

Welp, I think I'm good with saying let's agree to disagree on this one.

LOL, during the cold war there were two super-powers playing a game of geo-political chess.   Today, it's a total cluster eff.   

   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 10, 2016, 01:06:04 AM
Dax, you got mushed right there, bud. Just take it like a champ and move on.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 10, 2016, 07:04:43 AM
Dax, you got mushed right there, bud. Just take it like a champ and move on.

Hardly.

Korea . . .  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 10, 2016, 07:36:38 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

Quote
Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2016, 08:22:32 AM
Mashed by the libtard gospel, the huff post.

IDK about the Korean War, but the ME is unquestionably a blazing conflagration of crap since B.O. and Hillrod began their little social experiment over there. As far as foreign policy goes, they are abject failures and I'd love to hear somebody argue otherwise.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 10, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Dax, you got mushed right there, bud. Just take it like a champ and move on.

More like M*A*S*H'd.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on June 10, 2016, 09:05:49 AM
Dax, you got mushed right there, bud. Just take it like a champ and move on.

More like M*A*S*H'd.

this is my favorite post out of Alda other posts in this thread
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Brock Landers on June 10, 2016, 09:28:16 AM
Man that was nicely done.  Outstanding work, mocat.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 10, 2016, 09:31:01 AM
I seriously don't understand the "I don't like Hillary, but here's this little side nugget to tell right wing nut jobs to eff off" crowd.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Asteriskhead on June 10, 2016, 09:35:56 AM
I seriously don't understand the "I don't like Hillary, but here's this little side nugget to tell right wing nut jobs to eff off" crowd.

it's pretty similar to your display (whether you were trolling or not) in the sales email thread, so i think you should be able to understand that type of response. :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 10, 2016, 09:39:12 AM
I was simply trying to tell ppl who grew up with silver spoons in their mouth, that sales ppl/servers are ppl too. Not someone to look down upon. Hillary is just as bad as Trump IMO. Almost worse, since she should be in prison.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Asteriskhead on June 10, 2016, 09:41:40 AM
I was simply trying to tell ppl who grew up with silver spoons in their mouth, that sales ppl/servers are ppl too. Not someone to look down upon. Hillary is just as bad as Trump IMO. Almost worse, since she should be in prison.

so, do you see the parallels or not?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 10, 2016, 09:42:24 AM
I guess. I'm kinda dumb.  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Asteriskhead on June 10, 2016, 10:14:32 AM
I guess. I'm kinda dumb.  :frown:

seems to be a pretty standard human response, at least on social media.

"hey, that derogatory stereotype about a group that i can identify with doesn't apply to all of us, you rough ridin' bad person!"  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on June 10, 2016, 11:02:03 AM
I find it weird that WC08 groups sales people and servers together
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 10, 2016, 11:22:36 AM
I find it weird that WC08 groups sales people and servers together
Both get ragged on. I dunno, just jobs that i've worked at, where ppl treat you like crap.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on June 10, 2016, 11:44:06 AM
Is Google unfairly supporting Hilldawg?

https://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg

For fans of Silicon Valley, seems pretty Hooli - esque.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on June 10, 2016, 12:24:57 PM
Is Google unfairly supporting Hilldawg?

https://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg

For fans of Silicon Valley, seems pretty Hooli - esque.

I dunno, I just tried searching this and nothing came up.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on June 10, 2016, 05:19:39 PM
It doesn't take long to undo something like this, fwiw
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 10, 2016, 06:00:18 PM
If elected president Will Bill give up speaking for money. And I'm will they dissolve the Clinton Foundation. Today it was reported a big donor to the foundation has was name to an important Security Commission and he had never been trained in this area and had no qualifications. Seems kind of screwy to me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 10, 2016, 06:19:18 PM
Hell nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster hath no fury like  :curse:  Hillites.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 10, 2016, 06:48:38 PM
Hell nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster hath no fury like  :curse:  Hillites.
what in the previous 50 posts made you post this weird comment, weirdo?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 10, 2016, 07:32:34 PM
Watching 13 hours right now. This country is so mumped either way. :cry:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on June 10, 2016, 08:39:28 PM
Watching 13 hours right now. This country is so mumped either way. :cry:
Political opinions based on big Hollywood movies? Yep, sounds like wacky
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 10, 2016, 10:50:23 PM
Hell nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster hath no fury like  :curse:  Hillites.
what in the previous 50 posts made you post this weird comment, weirdo?

So weird
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2016, 10:57:09 PM
I can't even fathom how big of a loser you'd have to be in real life to support Hillary Clinton in any way shape or form.  Shame
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 10, 2016, 11:01:34 PM
I find it weird that WC08 groups sales people and servers together

Good servers are sales people that realize they actually work on commission.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2016, 12:17:47 AM
hey guys, got some bad news for ya. your political party is imploding because it has shitload of paranoid lunatics in it.

btw, how's your 25-year long witch hunt going?  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on June 11, 2016, 02:32:46 AM
I seriously don't understand the "I don't like Hillary, but here's this little side nugget to tell right wing nut jobs to eff off" crowd.

Can you quote a post where this happened itt, can't find one?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 11, 2016, 09:09:11 AM
Two sided MG is in favor of releasing all government files on ufos, but not her emails. ?????
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on June 11, 2016, 01:17:26 PM
If Elizabeth Warren is the VP pick I'm all in with Hillary. Talk about a dream team.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on June 11, 2016, 04:12:22 PM
If Elizabeth Warren is the VP pick I'm all in with Hillary. Talk about a dream team.

clinton is too smart to pick that dumbass.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2016, 04:14:41 PM
if she could somehow talk biden into a second go around  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 11, 2016, 04:18:53 PM
I seriously don't understand the "I don't like Hillary, but here's this little side nugget to tell right wing nut jobs to eff off" crowd.

Can you quote a post where this happened itt, can't find one?
I could link you to the pit. It had to end daily. It's ok. My party does the same without liking try trump. It's science
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 11, 2016, 04:24:49 PM
if she could somehow talk biden into a second go around  :love:
And she is married to goddam Bill Clinton.  Is that the wildest White House since the Kennedy boys hammered narragansetts in the rose garden?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2016, 04:38:24 PM
if she could somehow talk biden into a second go around  :love:
And she is married to goddam Bill Clinton.  Is that the wildest White House since the Kennedy boys hammered narragansetts in the rose garden?
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1840171/thumbs/o-100-EMOJI-570.jpg?5)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: pvegs on June 11, 2016, 04:43:11 PM
"continence" lol. it should be no surprise bc dax is 800 years old. shitting the bed/never rough ridin' is nothing new to him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2016, 04:46:27 PM
don't be a dick pvegs
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: pvegs on June 11, 2016, 05:23:59 PM
don't be a dick pvegs

thx, sd. always good to be checked. but, also, i am always mean to dax. it's like my thing. i will dial it back, tho.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on June 11, 2016, 05:25:53 PM
don't be a dick pvegs

thx, sd. always good to be checked. but, also, i am always mean to dax. it's like my thing. i will dial it back, tho.

Dial back your posting to like, never.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: pvegs on June 11, 2016, 05:33:06 PM
don't be a dick pvegs

thx, sd. always good to be checked. but, also, i am always mean to dax. it's like my thing. i will dial it back, tho.

Dial back your posting to like, never.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

dial back yr face, hoss :)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on June 11, 2016, 05:38:21 PM
If pvegs thinks "his thing" is being mean to dax then I don't even...
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: pvegs on June 11, 2016, 05:48:27 PM
If pvegs thinks "his thing" is being mean to dax then I don't even...

i'm taking a nap and going back to real life, 8man. hope your day is going well. all the best, pvegs.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on June 11, 2016, 05:51:18 PM
If pvegs thinks "his thing" is being mean to dax then I don't even...

i'm taking a nap and going back to real lif, 8man. hope your day is going well. all the best, pvegs.

Just meant that "your thing" as it pertains to the gE blogsite is clearly related to the Master Dating Thread, not being mean to dax

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 06:36:58 PM
The passive aggressive rage (followed by the "where in this thread did you see that"  :lol:) by ProgLibs and faux Centerists over the fact that their party is about to nominate the worst person in the world is palpable.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: pvegs on June 11, 2016, 06:45:06 PM
The passive aggressive rage (followed by the "where in this thread did you see that"  :lol:) by ProgLibs and faux Centerists over the fact that their party is about to nominate the worst person in the world is palpable.

that post is not super coherent, daxy. you should let me edit it for you next time before posting. "pvegs is a douchebag." vs. "douchebags, like pvegs, are ruining this board/world." now that second phrase is an example of an appositive. which is when one thing re-names the other. if you would like to come to my 10th grade english class on monday, let me know.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 06:47:08 PM
The passive aggressive rage (followed by the "where in this thread did you see that"  :lol:) by ProgLibs and faux Centerists over the fact that their party is about to nominate the worst person in the world is palpable.

that post is not super coherent, daxy. you should let me edit it for you next time before posting. "pvegs is a douchebag." vs. "douchebags, like pvegs, are ruining this board/world." now that second phrase is an example of an appositive. which is when one thing re-names the other. if you would like to come to my 10th grade english class on monday, let me know.

Actually my post was spot on, and extremely coherent, and yes, your rage is palpable.

Your response was a classic case of over explaining and flailing.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2016, 06:48:31 PM
"IM NOT CRAZY YOURE CRAZY"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on June 11, 2016, 06:48:52 PM
The passive aggressive rage (followed by the "where in this thread did you see that"  :lol:) by ProgLibs and faux Centerists over the fact that their party is about to nominate the worst person in the world is palpable.

that post is not super coherent, daxy. you should let me edit it for you next time before posting. "pvegs is a douchebag." vs. "douchebags, like pvegs, are ruining this board/world." now that second phrase is an example of an appositive. which is when one thing re-names the other. if you would like to come to my 10th grade english class on monday, let me know.

Actually my post was spot on, and extremely coherent, and yes, your rage is palpable.

Your response was a classic case of over explaining and flailing.

#explaining
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 06:50:00 PM
The passive aggressive rage (followed by the "where in this thread did you see that"  :lol:) by ProgLibs and faux Centerists over the fact that their party is about to nominate the worst person in the world is palpable.

that post is not super coherent, daxy. you should let me edit it for you next time before posting. "pvegs is a douchebag." vs. "douchebags, like pvegs, are ruining this board/world." now that second phrase is an example of an appositive. which is when one thing re-names the other. if you would like to come to my 10th grade english class on monday, let me know.

Actually my post was spot on, and extremely coherent, and yes, your rage is palpable.

Your response was a classic case of over explaining and flailing.

#explaining

over explaining #over #libsoangry



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 06:51:09 PM
"IM NOT CRAZY YOURE CRAZY"

Bubble hates the truth.   :curse:  #truth

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: pvegs on June 11, 2016, 06:52:54 PM
The passive aggressive rage (followed by the "where in this thread did you see that"  :lol:) by ProgLibs and faux Centerists over the fact that their party is about to nominate the worst person in the world is palpable.

that post is not super coherent, daxy. you should let me edit it for you next time before posting. "pvegs is a douchebag." vs. "douchebags, like pvegs, are ruining this board/world." now that second phrase is an example of an appositive. which is when one thing re-names the other. if you would like to come to my 10th grade english class on monday, let me know.

Actually my post was spot on, and extremely coherent, and yes, your rage is palpable.

Your response was a classic case of over explaining and flailing.

 :) ya know, dax, i've always liked our convos. it's also important to keep in mind that humanity/the planet is gonna die no matter what we post on goEMAW or what we believe.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 07:04:03 PM
The passive aggressive rage (followed by the "where in this thread did you see that"  :lol:) by ProgLibs and faux Centerists over the fact that their party is about to nominate the worst person in the world is palpable.

that post is not super coherent, daxy. you should let me edit it for you next time before posting. "pvegs is a douchebag." vs. "douchebags, like pvegs, are ruining this board/world." now that second phrase is an example of an appositive. which is when one thing re-names the other. if you would like to come to my 10th grade english class on monday, let me know.

Actually my post was spot on, and extremely coherent, and yes, your rage is palpable.

Your response was a classic case of over explaining and flailing.

 :) ya know, dax, i've always liked our convos. it's also important to keep in mind that humanity/the planet is gonna die no matter what we post on goEMAW or what we believe.

Probably sooner rather later then later with the "3 minutes to midnight" queen as the odds-on favorite to win the election.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2016, 07:08:57 PM
Bubble hates the truth.   :curse:  #truth
the paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism.  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 07:11:11 PM
Bubble hates the truth.   :curse:  #truth
the paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism.  :love:

No more so then the outright denial by many on the left that their so called leaders are just as much, if not more so the hegemonic war mongers than the people they supposedly despise.   Carrying forth an agenda of perpetual war and pandering to the uber rich almost unrivaled in modern American history.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2016, 07:16:26 PM
Bubble hates the truth.   :curse:  #truth
the paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism.  :love:

No more so then the outright denial by many on the left that their so called leaders are just as much, if not more so the hegemonic war mongers than the people they supposedly despise.   Carrying forth an agenda of perpetual war and pandering to the uber rich almost unrivaled in modern American history.
these words don't make sense, they're put together in the wrong order or being used incorrectly.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 07:19:11 PM
Bubble hates the truth.   :curse:  #truth
the paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism.  :love:

No more so then the outright denial by many on the left that their so called leaders are just as much, if not more so the hegemonic war mongers than the people they supposedly despise.   Carrying forth an agenda of perpetual war and pandering to the uber rich almost unrivaled in modern American history.
these words don't make sense, they're put together in the wrong order or being used incorrectly.

They make perfect sense, you just hate the reality of the message.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2016, 07:23:45 PM
Bubble hates the truth.   :curse:  #truth
the paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism.  :love:

No more so then the outright denial by many on the left that their so called leaders are just as much, if not more so the hegemonic war mongers than the people they supposedly despise.   Carrying forth an agenda of perpetual war and pandering to the uber rich almost unrivaled in modern American history.
these words don't make sense, they're put together in the wrong order or being used incorrectly.

They make perfect sense, you just hate the reality of the message.
i'm being serious.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2016, 07:24:43 PM
Bubble hates the truth.   :curse:  #truth
the paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism.  :love:

No more so then the outright denial by many on the left that their so called leaders are just as much, if not more so the hegemonic war mongers than the people they supposedly despise.   Carrying forth an agenda of perpetual war and pandering to the uber rich almost unrivaled in modern American history.
these words don't make sense, they're put together in the wrong order or being used incorrectly.

They make perfect sense, you just hate the reality of the message.
i'm being serious.

Well then, I feel sorry for you.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2016, 07:36:55 PM
your algorithm is a bit off. try a hard reset.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on June 11, 2016, 07:52:17 PM
:love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2016, 12:57:25 AM
In the days before the outright pandering to secure votes and the desire to create millions of insta-Democrats, Hillary by and large said we want that wall, we need that wall . . .

[youtube]https://youtu.be/_uXJ1mgkyF0[/youtube]

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 12, 2016, 05:39:22 AM
Dax who hurt you early in your life to make you so perpetually paranoid, angry, and butthurt? It's okay friend, this is a safe space.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2016, 08:23:52 AM
So having some fun pointing out the perpetual circle of lies strung across decades, love of war, propagation of US hegemony, unrivaled levels of say anything/anywhere/anytime to win votes,  decades of corruption and too many other things to mention that is Hillary Clinton and her husband.   

Is butthurt and paranoia?   Funny stuff, SB.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on June 12, 2016, 11:05:15 AM
So having some fun pointing out the perpetual circle of lies strung across decades, love of war, propagation of US hegemony, unrivaled levels of say anything/anywhere/anytime to win votes,  decades of corruption and too many other things to mention that is Hillary Clinton and her husband.   

Is butthurt and paranoia?   Funny stuff, SB.

My favorite one was when she was under "sniper fire" in Bosnia.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 12, 2016, 01:56:41 PM
love of war, propagation of US hegemony
I've always been fascinated with your obsession and confidence in this ridiculous argument. I had never seen or heard it from anyone else until yesterday when I caught a bit of our friend Alex Jones talking about his boy Donald and Evil Hillary.

So I just did some searching for the word "hegemony" and what do you know? Dax loves him some AJ.

Infowars (http://www.infowars.com/search-page/?hegemony) (must disable add block)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/search/?text=hegemony) uses it to talk about sports
 FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=hegemony&ss=fn) hasn't used it since 2007
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on June 12, 2016, 02:00:48 PM
could've sworn I've seen sonofalexjones before
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on June 12, 2016, 02:03:51 PM
I've always assumed that dax and ksuw merely repeat what they hear on conservative talk radio here verbatim. Coming up with that much bullshit is a full time job.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 12, 2016, 02:07:06 PM
I've always assumed that dax and ksuw merely repeat what they hear on conservative talk radio here verbatim. Coming up with that much bullshit is a full time job.
yeah, but i thought maybe this one idea was original and that explained him cramming it in everywhere
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2016, 02:08:17 PM
love of war, propagation of US hegemony
I've always been fascinated with your obsession and confidence in this ridiculous argument. I had never seen or heard it from anyone else until yesterday when I caught a bit of our friend Alex Jones talking about his boy Donald and Evil Hillary.

So I just did some searching for the word "hegemony" and what do you know? Dax loves him some AJ.

Infowars (http://www.infowars.com/search-page/?hegemony) (must disable add block)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/search/?text=hegemony) uses it to talk about sports
 FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=hegemony&ss=fn) hasn't used it since 2007

You have to be an incredible simpleton to not understand what's going on, in fact Glenn Greenwald did an excellent job of outlining how the Obama administration is out PNAC'ing (Project for a New American Century) the so called PNAC'ers/Neo-Cons.   

If you want to get a good primer, start with zbigniew Brzezinski"The Grand Chess Board".   

Idiots think that Obama is rolling back U.S. hegemony, but nothing could be further from the truth.   Take the fact that the recent "made operational" U.S. anti-missile defense systems in Eastern Europe (former Soviet Satellites), done under the auspices of keeping Iran's burgeoning missile program under check, but in reality it's to counter Russia's nuclear missiles which despite their efforts to modernize their military is the only thing they have to project power on a global scale, thus the ongoing Nuclear saber rattling by Putin and his military leaders.    The U.S./NATO is currently engaged in the largest military exercises ever in former Soviet Satellite countries. 

Usage of a term in media is an idiotic way of understanding its actual application in the real world.

LOL, anyone who thinks that discussing U.S. Hegemony and the U.S. propagating war on a global scale is the subject of "conservative talk radio" is as dumb as the day is long.   


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 12, 2016, 02:10:32 PM
yeah, greenwald's liberal masochism is often anti-west enough for the conspiracy crowd. that's not new.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2016, 02:11:51 PM
yeah, greenwald's liberal masochism is often anti-west enough for the conspiracy crowd. that's not new.

There's no conspiracy in the actual reporting of and discussion of real world events.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 12, 2016, 02:13:15 PM
yeah, greenwald's liberal masochism is often anti-west enough for the conspiracy crowd. that's not new.

There's no conspiracy in the actual reporting of and discussion of real world events.   
yeah, he just often presents it in a way that is anti-west and right wing nutjobs like to point to him as a liberal for credibility.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2016, 02:15:09 PM
yeah, greenwald's liberal masochism is often anti-west enough for the conspiracy crowd. that's not new.

There's no conspiracy in the actual reporting of and discussion of real world events.   
yeah, he just often presents it in a way that is anti-west and right wing nutjobs like to point to him as a liberal for credibility.

So the only people who agree with what Greenwald says are "right wing nut jobs"?   I hadn't realized that being against the propagation of war, and being against U.S. hegemony was a "right wing nut job" ideal.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 12, 2016, 02:22:51 PM
yeah, greenwald's liberal masochism is often anti-west enough for the conspiracy crowd. that's not new.
There's no conspiracy in the actual reporting of and discussion of real world events.   
yeah, he just often presents it in a way that is anti-west and right wing nutjobs like to point to him as a liberal for credibility.

So the only people who agree with what Greenwald says are "right wing nut jobs"?   I hadn't realized that being against the propagation of war, and being against U.S. hegemony was a "right wing nut job" ideal.
No, I clearly did not say or imply that about Greenwald. You are forever generalizing the ideal of "anti-war, anti-US power." Start being honest about that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2016, 02:26:06 PM
yeah, greenwald's liberal masochism is often anti-west enough for the conspiracy crowd. that's not new.
There's no conspiracy in the actual reporting of and discussion of real world events.   
yeah, he just often presents it in a way that is anti-west and right wing nutjobs like to point to him as a liberal for credibility.

So the only people who agree with what Greenwald says are "right wing nut jobs"?   I hadn't realized that being against the propagation of war, and being against U.S. hegemony was a "right wing nut job" ideal.
No, I clearly did not say or imply that about Greenwald. You are forever generalizing the ideal of "anti-war, anti-US power." Start being honest about that.

Generalizing?   You're the one attempting a google search of 2 MSM websites, and 1 wing nut website for the use of a single word, then trying to use that as a basis for implying the word is not applicable in today's world, and I'm the one "generalizing"??   Hilarious.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 12, 2016, 02:48:30 PM
MG is a.bitter old ripper who only wants to glorify herself.  So doesn't giva a hairball up the ass about America as shown by her flagrantly not following rules and laws of America.  Why are people pissexed at government?  We see it being used enrich.and.empower people and groups.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on June 12, 2016, 05:13:46 PM
Thanks for getting us back on track reno
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2016, 12:32:05 PM
Wiki leaks is releasing more of her emails.

I hadn't read this anywhere before (not surprisingly), but apparently many of the emails in the OIG report were among the "personal" emails this psychopath destoryed.

How can anyone in good conscious vote for this thing?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 13, 2016, 12:36:48 PM
Wiki leaks is releasing more of her emails.

I hadn't read this anywhere before (not surprisingly), but apparently many of the emails in the OIG report were among the "personal" emails this psychopath destoryed.

How can anyone in good conscious conscience vote for this thing?

fyp
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 13, 2016, 01:00:49 PM
I am growing more.and.more resigned to a Prisondent Clinton who is a puppet of the Obamunnists.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 17, 2016, 11:14:53 PM
DAMMIT I WANT TO KNOW!!!  Would.MG have shot the gorilla to save the kid,?  Every politician said they would have blasted the beast to save the kid.  Hillary, not a damn thing said.  I think she would let a gorilla kill a kid. Why?  If she shoots  a gorilla that would offend her nut followers.  Besides a Planned Hamburger maven apostle has no regard for defenseless little ones. If you can't say you would protect a little kid from a gorilla, how in the hell can we trust her to protect America.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 22, 2016, 11:35:42 PM
AP is reporting in 2010 MG's private server was messing up State department computers they had to turn off their safety features.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 22, 2016, 11:56:22 PM
DAMMIT I WANT TO KNOW!!!  Would.MG have shot the gorilla to save the kid,?  Every politician said they would have blasted the beast to save the kid.  Hillary, not a damn thing said.  I think she would let a gorilla kill a kid. Why?  If she shoots  a gorilla that would offend her nut followers.  Besides a Planned Hamburger maven apostle has no regard for defenseless little ones. If you can't say you would protect a little kid from a gorilla, how in the hell can we trust her to protect America.

excellent question posed by renosock here
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bones129 on June 23, 2016, 12:32:00 AM
AP is reporting in 2010 MG's private server was messing up State department computers they had to turn off their safety features.

Link, please.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bones129 on June 23, 2016, 01:53:28 AM
AP is reporting in 2010 MG's private server was messing up State department computers they had to turn off their safety features.

Link, please.

 :impatient:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 23, 2016, 08:13:28 AM
"Hillary did not do anything illegal", said the delusional democat.  "Hark" replied observant republican, "So why did Hillary's technoslave plead the 5th 150 times yesterday?"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 23, 2016, 08:17:37 AM
AP is reporting in 2010 MG's private server was messing up State department computers they had to turn off their safety features.

Link, please.

 :impatient:

I found it.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 24, 2016, 06:43:26 PM
The biggest pay for play racketeers in U.S. history?  Or at least political history?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on June 24, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
The biggest pay for play racketeers in U.S. history?  Or at least political history?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html

I would say no to both.  I mean lots of big city machines during prohibition were really bad and even you think that the New Deal was much more nefarious at least in terms of its scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on June 28, 2016, 11:50:55 AM
The 47 Clinton Friends Who Mysteriously Turned Up Dead (Pt. 1)

http://lidblog.com/47-dead-clinton-friends-pt1/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on June 28, 2016, 12:03:18 PM
The 47 Clinton Friends Who Mysteriously Turned Up Dead (Pt. 1)

http://lidblog.com/47-dead-clinton-friends-pt1/

I think you meant to put this in the Facebook thread
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 30, 2016, 01:28:56 PM
It is being reported Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix Arizona Airport. The meeting was supposed to be private but a local television station found out about it. Supposedly the two met in a private jet on the tarmac for 30 minutes. They supposedly discussed grandkids golf and other good buddies stuff. I think it's more sinister then this. I don't believe Hillary will be indicted because these snake pit Eve's love each other too much.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 30, 2016, 02:41:35 PM
The 47 Clinton Friends Who Mysteriously Turned Up Dead (Pt. 1)

http://lidblog.com/47-dead-clinton-friends-pt1/
Wow! Makes you think.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on June 30, 2016, 08:06:49 PM
Guys. Did Bill Clinton say House of Cards is 99% accurate? Of course politicians are having people killed. I mean I've never doubted it and am not surprised.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on June 30, 2016, 10:13:57 PM
It is being reported Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix Arizona Airport. The meeting was supposed to be private but a local television station found out about it. Supposedly the two met in a private jet on the tarmac for 30 minutes. They supposedly discussed grandkids golf and other good buddies stuff. I think it's more sinister then this. I don't believe Hillary will be indicted because these snake pit Eve's love each other too much.

You're not even trying anymore  :dubious:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on June 30, 2016, 10:16:45 PM
Way too many missed period opportunities
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 01, 2016, 11:13:26 AM
Hallelujah my faith in the judicial system has been restored.  I commented earlier in the week about Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport. This caused a lot of uproar by both Democrats and Republicans. It was billed as just a social visit but everybody assumed it was an attempt by Clinton to grease the skids in favor of Hillary. It created such a firestorm that cause Lynch to publicly say she will follow any recommendation from the FBI regarding indicting Hillary. This would have never happened if the local ABC reporter had not noticed this meeting going on in Phoenix. That reporter needs to be given a medal of honor or something, maybe a tie from from Trump. MG has crapped her drawers I bet.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2016, 12:28:33 PM
Don't worry Reno, the most corrupt political couple in national political history are going to skate again, and the huge Lib partisans in residence are going to rejoice.   Even the Washington Post is throwing the bullshit card at the Clintons on this issue, but she'll skate.   

LOL though at the "purely social" explanation from Lynch, oh my goodness. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 01, 2016, 01:32:09 PM
Way too many missed period opportunities

Reno started posting with better conventions and grammar when SB started posting with more reno-isms :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 04, 2016, 03:24:56 PM
The New York Post is reporting that Huma Abedin admitted Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had her daily schedule burned. This schedule was State Department property and should have been filed for public records. Hillary was destroyed public records. Why I wonder?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 05, 2016, 10:24:31 AM
no charges, sorry ksu-dub  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 05, 2016, 10:25:27 AM
No charges. Was "extremely careless" but evidently setting up a private server to circumvent FOIA requests and likely exposing 1000s of classified and top secret emails on that server to foreign agents is not a crime. That's good to know going forward. I assume the FBI would apply this same level of deference to any American.

Liberals - pleas ensue celebration of yet another ass wipe with the rule of law. All in the name of politics.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 05, 2016, 10:30:03 AM
Quote
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges,” Comey said.

Well that's convincing. Yup - no corruption here. Prosecutors are known for deference to criminals after all.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 05, 2016, 10:34:14 AM
no charges, sorry ksu-dub  :frown:
This is like someone in hell telling it okay to smoke a.gas soaked cigar.  Comey said she violated the law in handling classified information and blatantly tried.to hide public information from the public who was her boss and.had the right to.  This graying of black and white lines about obeying the laws of the land piiiiiiiisses me off.   America will go dumbass and elect her.  We need gorilla killer and leader Trump for prez.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 05, 2016, 10:35:51 AM
reno says what we all think
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on July 05, 2016, 10:36:56 AM
does steve dave even know? :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on July 05, 2016, 10:37:08 AM
Welp.  President Clinton just won.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 05, 2016, 10:39:57 AM
does steve dave even know? :frown:

fill me in   :ohno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 05, 2016, 10:41:01 AM
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation or corruption, guys. There is still hope. Don't let the dream die just yet.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 05, 2016, 10:41:17 AM
If anyone else was running against her, she would have been guilty.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on July 05, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
fill me in   :ohno:

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36074.msg1582133#msg1582133
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 05, 2016, 10:46:18 AM
fill me in   :ohno:

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36074.msg1582133#msg1582133

oh, that's a relief. I thought it was going to be something unforgivably racist or something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 05, 2016, 10:49:03 AM
Kinda sad tho.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2016, 10:49:27 AM
The truly sad part is that there's so many brain washed Libs who believe that at her (their, as in Hil and Bill) core she's an honest person.    Nothing could be further from the truth. 

But, no one should be surprised by this, when Bill is having secret meetings with the AG, you know the fix is in.  Just wonder how many more political favors she had to give away to save her ass. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 05, 2016, 10:52:01 AM
I would want Trump to beat her if we wouldn't have to have Donald Trump as president after that happened. Still, election night just might be great enough for it to be worth it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 05, 2016, 10:54:57 AM
does steve dave even know? :frown:

He's always known.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on July 05, 2016, 10:55:38 AM
Remember when IPA4ME said it was a forgone conclusion the FBI would recommend an indictment and when the justice department failed to act on it there would be mass resignations? :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 05, 2016, 10:57:15 AM
The truly sad part is that there's so many brain washed Libs who believe that at her (their, as in Hil and Bill) core she's an honest person.    Nothing could be further from the truth. 

But, no one should be surprised by this, when Bill is having secret meetings with the AG, you know the fix is in.  Just wonder how many more political favors she had to give away to save her ass.

Supreme court nominee Loretta Lynch, or maybe an ambassadorship to some exotic locale for an 8 year vacation?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on July 05, 2016, 11:00:01 AM
The truly sad part is that there's so many brain washed Libs who believe that at her (their, as in Hil and Bill) core she's an honest person.    Nothing could be further from the truth. 

But, no one should be surprised by this, when Bill is having secret meetings with the AG, you know the fix is in.  Just wonder how many more political favors she had to give away to save her ass.

Supreme court nominee Loretta Lynch, or maybe an ambassadorship to some exotic locale for an 8 year vacation?

Last time I checked Loretta Lynch doesn't work for the FBI
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 05, 2016, 11:00:36 AM
fill me in   :ohno:

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36074.msg1582133#msg1582133

oh, that's a relief. I thought it was going to be something unforgivably racist or something.

also there are not really any socks on here. a couple with a few posts but nothing with any regularity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Wetwillie:  Simpleton
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 05, 2016, 11:01:59 AM
The truly sad part is that there's so many brain washed Libs who believe that at her (their, as in Hil and Bill) core she's an honest person.    Nothing could be further from the truth. 

But, no one should be surprised by this, when Bill is having secret meetings with the AG, you know the fix is in.  Just wonder how many more political favors she had to give away to save her ass.

Supreme court nominee Loretta Lynch, or maybe an ambassadorship to some exotic locale for an 8 year vacation?

Last time I checked Loretta Lynch doesn't work for the FBI

But the entire FBI works for the Justice Dept.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 05, 2016, 11:11:38 AM
The timing of that meeting with the AG followed so closely by this report is a really bad look for the Clintons and the B.O. admin. It is likely to fuel more populist outrage.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 05, 2016, 12:51:47 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/PzaMQIA.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: OK_Cat on July 05, 2016, 12:55:13 PM
fill me in   :ohno:

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36074.msg1582133#msg1582133

oh, that's a relief. I thought it was going to be something unforgivably racist or something.

also there are not really any socks on here. a couple with a few posts but nothing with any regularity.

POST THE EMAILS, STEVEDAVE!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 05, 2016, 05:15:39 PM
I am sitting on the toilet purging myself for a colonoscopy, a fitting tribute to Blackhole Hilliary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on July 05, 2016, 05:41:56 PM
I would want Trump to beat her if we wouldn't have to have Donald Trump as president after that happened. Still, election night just might be great enough for it to be worth it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on July 05, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
Well, this is complete bullshit. What's our next angle to bring her down?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 05, 2016, 06:16:14 PM
Well, this is complete bullshit. What's our next angle to bring her down?
She is guilty of perjury before Congress.  The maximum penalty is 5 years in jail.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 05, 2016, 06:30:47 PM
I am so thrilled about this FBI recommendo today. The butthurt on here and the internet in general is just off the charts. Teflon Hill.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 05, 2016, 06:49:29 PM
Well, this is complete bullshit. What's our next angle to bring her down?

Lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 06, 2016, 06:21:54 AM
So sad that Benny loves corrupt Neo-Cons, apparently he wants to see more Americans and Muslims killed in what will be yet another cycle of perpetual war if Hillary is elected. 

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 06, 2016, 06:40:58 AM
What a scene:  Hillary up on stage in her Mao cut pink pantsuit, Obama stammering and stumbling trying to spit something out remotely coherent  and all the Hilbots in the audience.   

Just looking forward to her next visit to an all black church.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 06, 2016, 12:10:02 PM
You are super weird, fyi
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Brock Landers on July 06, 2016, 12:13:03 PM
He paints a vivid picture tho.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 06, 2016, 12:34:35 PM
I guess you love Trump so much you missed Hil and the pres's NC appearance.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on July 06, 2016, 12:43:40 PM
The funny thing about the non-recommendation to indict is that Hillary really can't flout it. You can't just say "not indicted, eff yea!" when so much else of what the FBI said was pretty critical of her judgment.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 06, 2016, 12:59:58 PM
The funny thing about the non-recommendation to indict is that Hillary really can't flout it. You can't just say "not indicted, eff yea!" when so much else of what the FBI said was pretty critical of her judgment.

Yeah, the whole thing was pretty lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2016, 01:04:49 PM
I don't get it.  They said there were several issues that were confidential, top secret, etc and deemed so at the time of her sending it, and known to her at the time of sending it.  They noted negligence even.  How does she not get charged?  A guy on 98.1, this morning, even noted that there are two statutes dealing with this, one requiring intent and one that specifically doesnt.  WTF? 

I mean, this has to be about not pulling on the thread that could lead to indicting a whole handful of past dumbasses like Colin Powell, etc, who have already said they used a private server, right?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 06, 2016, 01:10:33 PM
I'm reading that the FBI might still remove Hillary's security clearance.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2016, 01:11:11 PM
That's stupid at this point.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 06, 2016, 01:15:40 PM
That's stupid at this point.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Yeah, it's mostly tinfoil-hat types suggesting it. Presidential nominees get security briefings even if they don't have a clearance.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 06, 2016, 01:32:02 PM
Olawbender said yesterday MG is ready and capable to prez -- if she can't follow laws as the SOS what horrors will she.unleash and how messed up will government be.  Mr. Lightshiningfrombutt said he will hand her the baton  -  She is a good liar, cheat, law ignorer like Big Chief OScrewem.  How can anybody believe any campaign promise she makes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 06, 2016, 09:38:35 PM
I'm reading that the FBI might still remove Hillary's security clearance.

that's up to the office of personnel management, not the fbi.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on July 06, 2016, 09:45:25 PM
here's something i didn't understand about the fbi until recently: it's workforce is roughly 100% ex-badasses from the armed forces. this makes total sense when you think about who is selected for the job, but i don't think a lot of people consider it. federal law enforcement is done by former special operations bros/bras and it's that way from the people breaking down doors all the way to the judges.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 06, 2016, 11:29:33 PM
This is hilarious. It's like if Alabama got super busted for cheating and the NCAA was just like "yeah you guys are super duper guilty and this is a public rebuke. You were totally reckless and egregious in your flaunting of the rules. Not gonna do anything about it though, even though we've come down hard on other teams for basically the same thing and we even gave SMU the death penalty for it once upon a time." And Saban's like "kewl thx" and just moonwalks into another natty while dax and FSD and K-S-U sit stewing in their living rooms in Opelika.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on July 07, 2016, 06:40:19 AM
In my mind's eye i can envision the LSUfreek gif of that
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on July 07, 2016, 04:14:25 PM
CNN:

FBI guy says that Hill is a huge simpleton:

Quote
Comey also testified that there were three emails found on Clinton's servers bearing the letter "C" which denotes they were classified, in apparent contradiction of the former secretary of state's statements.
But he said it was not clear whether Clinton knew that such a designation denoted classified material, saying "the secretary may not have been as sophisticated as people assume" when it comes to such issues.

Quote
He explained that under relevant statutes, prosecutors would have to prove Clinton clearly knew she was breaking the law to win a case.
"Should have known, must have known, had to know, does not get you there," he said.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on July 07, 2016, 04:21:43 PM
Michigancat wins this round
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 07, 2016, 09:00:31 PM
Cbs is reporting the State Department is reopening an internal mishandling of emails.  I don't know what this means, but it is an interesting development.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 07, 2016, 09:24:31 PM
Very strange, indeed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 10, 2016, 07:21:42 PM
At the very least we learned from the FBI that MG is too stupid to understand legal documents she signed, doesn't understand rules, does what she dang well pleases, can't hire competent people to run a program right, and that she is.careless and reckless executive.  She wants to run a national tuition program, a national healthcare system, and.a.national police force.  #TRAINWRECKEDAMERICA.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 10, 2016, 07:57:07 PM
Yes, a woman who completed law school, became a successful lawyer, was first lady, was a U.S. senator, and is currently Secretary of State is definitely too stupid to understand things.


Unlike renocat, who is definitely very smart as he sits in his parents' basement like all the other gE'rs
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 10, 2016, 08:04:40 PM
Yes, a woman who completed law school, became a successful lawyer, was first lady, was a U.S. senator, and is currently Secretary of State is definitely too stupid to understand things.


Unlike renocat, who is definitely very smart as he sits in his parents' basement like all the other gE'rs

 :shy:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 10, 2016, 08:10:29 PM
 :Chirp: Lolfart, I am at a level 5 or 6 at the moment and set my time machine for 2013. What I meant to say was "is your next president."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 10, 2016, 08:16:59 PM
To be fair to Reno, he was paraphrasing the FBI's legal conclusion.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 10, 2016, 08:52:39 PM
To be fair to Reno, he was paraphrasing the FBI's legal conclusion.

:cheers:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 11, 2016, 01:30:42 PM
What a scene:  Hillary up on stage in her Mao cut pink pantsuit, Obama stammering and stumbling trying to spit something out remotely coherent  and all the Hilbots in the audience.   

Just looking forward to her next visit to an all black church.

If if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on July 11, 2016, 03:37:44 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741351028273086464

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741311272818475008

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 12, 2016, 11:35:29 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741351028273086464

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741311272818475008

Yard Dog I kinda feel like you should also post those in the Trump thread, because six years from now when I get nostalgic for that weird-ass time in American history when Donald Trump was a major party nominee and was tweeting whatever the eff he wanted, I'm going to read that thread and I want to see those two Hillary #tbt tweets. He is an absolute twitter master.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 13, 2016, 11:49:30 AM
The latest Hillary AD is pure comedy.  I mean sure they made Trump sound dumb, but the whole I stared down Putin, brought peace to Gaza (after Israel did what they wanted) and stopped human trafficking (it's as big a problem as ever).

Is just pure comedy.   The Hilbots  will eat it up, and most Americans aren't informed enough to know its total bullshit.  So I guess it is effective.   Sadly Trump won't spend the money but the rebuttal could be a 2 hour infomercial on how incompetent she was as SOS.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 13, 2016, 12:01:47 PM
Dax is NOT going to let Hillary get away with a damn thing. Stay vigilant friend
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 13, 2016, 01:09:55 PM
Dax is NOT going to let Hillary get away with a damn thing. Stay vigilant friend

Time for some fresh H2016 stickers on the bumper,  lib.   #abt
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 13, 2016, 03:06:35 PM
It is Hillarious that ol MG is spending so much each day on ads and WUD justs chews his cud and he is ahead in polls.  Hilliary is like a oversexed teenager in a whorehouse that dries up fast and withers.  Dax should take his give her hell campaign national.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 13, 2016, 09:35:50 PM
What's WUD?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 14, 2016, 12:29:36 AM
(https://i.redd.it/1x6p2d0m849x.png)

Damn what is Hillary thinking? Basically an ad for Trump
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 14, 2016, 10:14:17 AM
Hilliary wisdom pointer.  You can brush your teeth and you can brush your butt, don't brush your teeth with your butt brush.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 14, 2016, 10:53:19 AM
It's stunning the lengths that the Democratic party is going to in order to maintain power.   They're now willing to set aside everything, even supporting a racist corrupt Neo-Con like Hillary in order to maintain the White House.    Sad.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 14, 2016, 12:20:50 PM
I liked the reference to citizens united. A lawsuit she brought to squelch out free speech. What a psychopath.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 14, 2016, 02:24:31 PM
Next up, what role does Obama continue to play in the campaign.   I know the typical ProgLib type and their selective hearing didn't comprehend that Hillary (and Bernie) by and large totally dogged out the Obama years, particularly in the debates.    Both painting a picture of an America in a terrible state and in dire need of them to lead the country out of the malaise.   

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on July 14, 2016, 02:26:54 PM
Next up, what role does Obama continue to play in the campaign.   I know the typical ProgLib type and their selective hearing didn't comprehend that Hillary (and Bernie) by and large totally dogged out the Obama years, particularly in the debates.    Both painting a picture of an America in a terrible state and in dire need of them to lead the country out of the malaise.

Hillary certainly had a strange way of expressing her extreme displeasure and disgust with the Obama era by serving in the highest profile cabinet position.  False flag?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 14, 2016, 04:13:17 PM
Next up, what role does Obama continue to play in the campaign.   I know the typical ProgLib type and their selective hearing didn't comprehend that Hillary (and Bernie) by and large totally dogged out the Obama years, particularly in the debates.    Both painting a picture of an America in a terrible state and in dire need of them to lead the country out of the malaise.

Hillary certainly had a strange way of expressing her extreme displeasure and disgust with the Obama era by serving in the highest profile cabinet position.  False flag?

She hasn't been SOS for 3 years KK.   :facepalm:   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 14, 2016, 04:15:54 PM
Plus, pretty much everyone know b.o. didn't let hill rod do anything when she was stooge of state. Maybe she's butthurt?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 14, 2016, 06:35:47 PM
It's stunning the lengths that the Democratic party is going to in order to maintain power.   They're now willing to set aside everything, even supporting a racist corrupt Neo-Con like Hillary in order to maintain the White House.    Sad.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/

FYI to all pit'rs, this is dax's new "KU pressbox is an old German pillbox."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 14, 2016, 06:45:29 PM
It's stunning the lengths that the Democratic party is going to in order to maintain power.   They're now willing to set aside everything, even supporting a racist corrupt Neo-Con like Hillary in order to maintain the White House.    Sad.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/

FYI to all pit'rs, this is dax's new "KU pressbox is an old German pillbox."

I just like to remind the sell out party of their sell out, early and often. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 14, 2016, 07:28:27 PM
It's stunning the lengths that the Democratic party is going to in order to maintain power.   They're now willing to set aside everything, even supporting a racist corrupt Neo-Con like Hillary in order to maintain the White House.    Sad.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/

FYI to all pit'rs, this is dax's new "KU pressbox is an old German pillbox."

I just like to overexplain, early and often.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 14, 2016, 08:10:59 PM
It's stunning the lengths that the Democratic party is going to in order to maintain power.   They're now willing to set aside everything, even supporting a racist corrupt Neo-Con like Hillary in order to maintain the White House.    Sad.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/

FYI to all pit'rs, this is dax's new "KU pressbox is an old German pillbox."

I just like to overexplain, early and often.

You continue to embarrass yourself in this forum.   Sad   

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 17, 2016, 12:56:45 AM
(https://i.sli.mg/O5Qmps.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on July 17, 2016, 01:04:53 AM
What am i looking at here stunzy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 17, 2016, 09:00:55 AM
What am i looking at here stunzy

The next president
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on July 17, 2016, 09:26:24 AM
Granted my apartment is cleaner and nicer, I can only imagine her facial expression would be much the same.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on July 17, 2016, 09:26:53 AM
And I'd love it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 17, 2016, 12:22:02 PM
Kind of reminds me of pulp fiction
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 17, 2016, 08:26:17 PM
Donald and Obarak fairly soon after the baton rouge shooting.  seven hours later after consulting a focus group she responded.  I want to know would.she have shot the gorilla or dithered while the kid died.  She can't make smart quick decision.  She has no feeling in her gut.  Just a dried whithered cold turd.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 20, 2016, 09:01:54 PM
Kentucky Congressman Clete Wilson today at the RNC accused Hilliary Clinton of crapping on an American flag at a Mexican Muslim Black Lives Matters gay parade, and he said they should put her in a orange.pantsuit and throw her in jail.  Commentors on CNN, MSNBC, and ABC were livid.  They commented the meaness of the Congressman was unfathomable.  They retorted everyone knows HIllary does not wear orange.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 21, 2016, 09:40:38 AM
Is his name really Clete?!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on July 21, 2016, 09:41:45 AM
Renosock should get with Hemmy, print out his entire gE catalog, and send it in to a few media outlets.  I am sure he would be hired as content director, editor, or something like that quickly. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 21, 2016, 09:49:25 AM
Renosock should get with Hemmy, print out his entire gE catalog, and send it in to a few media outlets.  I am sure he would be hired as content director, editor, or something like that quickly.

He should send them to the Kansas Republican party headquarters. He'd be a big step up from Clay Barker.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 21, 2016, 10:45:13 AM
Renocat wouldn't survive the vetting process
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on July 21, 2016, 10:47:00 AM
Renocat wouldn't survive the vetting process

He would turn it on it's ear.  Not only would he be hired, but anyone with dissenting opinions during the hiring process would quickly be purged and replaced with other SB socks.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 21, 2016, 11:14:02 AM
Renocat wouldn't survive the vetting process

If Cruz's speech could survive the vetting process, I think Reno will be just fine.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 21, 2016, 09:46:34 PM
Tim Kaine? as VP?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on July 21, 2016, 11:17:19 PM
Tim Kaine? as VP?

It will be stupid and bad, no doubt.  But it won't matter, just like no one will talk about Mike Pence again until the VP debate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 21, 2016, 11:25:17 PM
It will be stupid and bad, no doubt.

why?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on July 21, 2016, 11:38:07 PM
It will be stupid and bad, no doubt.

why?

why will Hillary's pick be stupid and bad?  Because the short list I've seen:

Vilsack- been passed over for VP by every democrat since Clinton in 92?
Booker- takes a democratic Senator and lets Christie pick replacement
Kaine- passed over by Obama, not good on stump or debates

Again, it doesn't matter much.  But at the same time, Biden laughing and belittling Paul Ryan came after Romney mopped the floor with Obama in the first debate.  The Candy Crowley thing still would've been disastrous, but the momentum shifted and I think that lead to Romney feeling he needed to push himself which may well have turned the tide.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on July 21, 2016, 11:49:56 PM
I think the tide turned in the last election as soon as Republicans picked the most boring, white, uninteresting person they possibly could.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 21, 2016, 11:54:20 PM
why will Hillary's pick be stupid and bad?  Because the short list I've seen...

oh, i thought you meant that kaine was a stupid and bad choice, not that all her options were stupid and bad.


i think kaine is fine.  not inspired, but a good solid candidate (my exposure is that i vaguely know his resume and reputation and once heard a short local radio interview w. him when he was running for senate).  definitely better than many of her other mentioned possibilities.

plus he's sort of from kc.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on July 22, 2016, 12:09:03 AM
plus he's sort of from kc.

is that good?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 22, 2016, 12:40:35 AM
it's where the state of kansas is sort of from too, if that answers your question.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on July 22, 2016, 12:43:27 AM
hmm.  think I'll pass
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 22, 2016, 08:00:28 AM
I don't get the Kaine choice. You pick a boring VP when you don't want them to overshadow you in the campaign. Like Trump picking Pence. You also pick a VP to try to reach out to a voting bloc you're weak in. Like Trump picking Pence.

Hillary could do with an enthusiasm boost. She's a terrible, charmless, grating candidate. She could also do with reaching out to her socialist base who is still feeling the Bern. That's why I was expecting it to be Warren. Seems like she needs to focus on whipping up the women/socialist vote as much as possible in order to win this thing. It's almost as if she's subliminally saying "vote for me because I'm a woman, but don't worry - I've also got this boring white guy over here just in case this goes off the rails."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 22, 2016, 09:03:50 AM
No one gives a crap about the vp unless it's amazingly bad like sarah palin
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 22, 2016, 09:12:37 AM
Kaine brings the Hillary corruption factor down from 11 to 10.5.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on July 22, 2016, 09:45:17 AM
Kaine brings the Hillary corruption factor down from 11 to 10.5.

well except for the part where Terry McCauliffe is picking Kaine's replacement and is even odds to get in a Blago like scandal surrounding that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 22, 2016, 09:48:46 AM
Kaine brings the Hillary corruption factor down from 11 to 10.5.

well except for the part where Terry McCauliffe is picking Kaine's replacement and is even odds to get in a Blago like scandal surrounding that.

True.  Wow thanks for reminding me about more Dem corruption.   Sad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on July 22, 2016, 09:51:27 AM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 22, 2016, 10:11:12 AM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.

Yes, what a world.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 22, 2016, 10:14:02 AM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.

quite the pickle for single issue voters
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 22, 2016, 10:19:44 AM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.

quite the pickle for single issue voters

Maybe it will cause them to finally understand that issue will never have anything done about it and voting on abortion alone is a waste of time
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on July 22, 2016, 11:55:17 AM
Tim Kaine is RockState1976  :surprised:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on July 22, 2016, 12:53:22 PM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.

quite the pickle for single issue voters

Maybe it will cause them to finally understand that issue will never have anything done about it and voting on abortion alone is a waste of time

The president actually has a greater ability to change abortion laws than most other things on their platform. The controversy is not over legislation but SCOTUS interpretation, which numerous times has been a vote away from swinging the opposite way (i.e., abortion is not a constitutional right).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 22, 2016, 01:08:09 PM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.

quite the pickle for single issue voters

Maybe it will cause them to finally understand that issue will never have anything done about it and voting on abortion alone is a waste of time

The president actually has a greater ability to change abortion laws than most other things on their platform. The controversy is not over legislation but SCOTUS interpretation, which numerous times has been a vote away from swinging the opposite way (i.e., abortion is not a constitutional right).

Quite a bit has been "done" on abortion, and there is quite a bit still to do. This isn't saying much, but pro life folks have a better chance of advancing their agenda under Trump than Clinton - especially if they bring some kids to the White House who weren't aborted and Trump is "super impressed" by them. I'm pretty sure that mandatory abortion is now a plank of the Dem party. Look every party needs things to rally around - for the Dems, one of those thing is killing babies. It is extremely important.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 22, 2016, 01:11:00 PM
It realize is crazy that people take issue with others killing their unborn children, or police killing violent criminals.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 22, 2016, 01:14:05 PM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.

quite the pickle for single issue voters

Maybe it will cause them to finally understand that issue will never have anything done about it and voting on abortion alone is a waste of time

The president actually has a greater ability to change abortion laws than most other things on their platform. The controversy is not over legislation but SCOTUS interpretation, which numerous times has been a vote away from swinging the opposite way (i.e., abortion is not a constitutional right).

Quite a bit has been "done" on abortion, and there is quite a bit still to do. This isn't saying much, but pro life folks have a better chance of advancing their agenda under Trump than Clinton - especially if they bring some kids to the White House who weren't aborted and Trump is "super impressed" by them. I'm pretty sure that mandatory abortion is now a plank of the Dem party. Look every party needs things to rally around - for the Dems, one of those thing is killing babies. It is extremely important.

Sounds rational  :Ugh:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 22, 2016, 08:10:57 PM
The Butcher.Bitch of Planned Hamburger wants unfettered groundbaby packets for all.  If you don't care about the unborn, then you have no moral integrity and honesty to say you care about anyone and.the.will.take.care of them.  The snuff.queen has to be.stopped.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 22, 2016, 08:23:22 PM
i'm pretty impressed with clinton's vp choice.  i'm still ruminating, but there's a good chance i will vote clinton-kaine in 2016.  i hope gary will understand.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 22, 2016, 08:32:53 PM
i'm pretty impressed with clinton's vp choice.  i'm still ruminating, but there's a good chance i will vote clinton-kaine in 2016.  i hope gary will understand.

A vote for war and corruption: Not surprised
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Canary on July 22, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
What a world if the Republican candidate goes out of his way to mention his respect of LGBTQ rights in his acceptance speech and does not mention abortion once and the Democratic ticket has a pro-life VP.

quite the pickle for single issue voters

Maybe it will cause them to finally understand that issue will never have anything done about it and voting on abortion alone is a waste of time
I would love to have that conversation with my right-wing siblings.  I don't think some of them could stomach voting for a Democrat. But they jump all over the "abortion is the only issue" stance. Could pose quite the conundrum for a few.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 22, 2016, 09:08:19 PM
NBC is.reporting Mean Grandma is peeved that WUD spoke mean things about America.  But.when asked if she denied.his.claims, she said.he.is mean and.she hates orange.  Still no answer on the gorilla question.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 22, 2016, 09:53:20 PM
Kaine is awful, stop acting like he isn't
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiet on July 22, 2016, 10:05:38 PM
Hill must be feeling pretty confident to select a racist white dude for VP.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on July 23, 2016, 09:30:15 AM
i'm pretty impressed with clinton's vp choice.  i'm still ruminating, but there's a good chance i will vote clinton-kaine in 2016.  i hope gary will understand.

Gary just wants you to consider him. If you decide he's not for you then he's probably cool with it.

And if you live in Kansas, then I'm sure a vote for Clinton REALLY wouldn't bother him.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2016, 01:47:46 PM
With the Kaine pick Hillary just reaffirmed that the (D)'s are still a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the big banks.

Too big to fail's rejoice!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 23, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
Kaine is awful, stop acting like he isn't

it shows that clinton isn't going to let the inchoate progressive wing of her party fold her over and rape her senseless, which is very important.  something the 'pubs should have done while the nationalist wing of their party was still inchoate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on July 23, 2016, 01:53:28 PM
......and he speaks fluent Spanish  :Woot:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 23, 2016, 02:20:35 PM
Kaine is awful, stop acting like he isn't

it shows that clinton isn't going to let the inchoate progressive wing of her party fold her over and rape her senseless, which is very important.  something the 'pubs should have done while the nationalist wing of their party was still inchoate.

I guess thats a nice silver lining.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2016, 02:28:04 PM
Leaked emails reaffirm DNC elite racism, particularly towards Jews.   Hillary hates Israel. 

#newhitler
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 23, 2016, 02:33:19 PM
enormous tsc stud.

Quote
The Virginia governor grew up in Overland Park, Kan., and is an avowed Jayhawks fan. Back in 2005, he called them his favorite team. But not, as it turns out, on the gridiron.

“I root for the Jayhawks in basketball,” Kaine told us yesterday. “I’ve never been a KU football fan.”

Parsing the nuances of team loyalty, Kaine explained that his parents were “K-Staters” (Kansas State U) and he graduated from the University of Missouri, which meant he was usually rooting against rival KU.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 23, 2016, 03:37:40 PM
!!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on July 23, 2016, 04:14:55 PM
Hillary just locked up both Virginia and Kansas.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 23, 2016, 05:02:20 PM
By dangy Hilliary and Timmiewhite said.today they are optimistic, they are optimists unlike bad news Trump.  Neither denied we are sinking in a quicksand pit of horse manure they and.Obama created.  Do they say we will swim out of this?  No they propose dumping more liquid horsecrap in the pit.  Are Americans stupid enough to believe the people who caused the problems of trumps angst can solve.the.problems?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 23, 2016, 05:38:14 PM
He was already a sellout but if Bernie keeps endorsing the party thats been proven to have betrayed him, he's the definition of a cuck. EMBARRASSING
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2016, 09:59:50 PM
The Clinton Foundation rabbit hole is astounding.  Even more impressive is how the Clinton's grew their personal wealth at an unbelievable rate while she was SOS.   Bill and Hill peddled influence the world over to the tune of millions in personal earnings. 

Diabolical, props to them for taking political corruption to truly amazing levels.

Also props to their accountants who co-mingled the largess between the Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative and personnel accounts in such a way that it will take teams of forensic accountants to unravel it all. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on July 23, 2016, 10:12:35 PM
House of Cards is actually the true story of the Clintons
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 24, 2016, 03:22:01 AM
Dax, I think you need to become one of those 60 year-olds who starts smoking weed finally because they're too old to care anymore so w/e. Would def. help mellow you out a little bit.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 24, 2016, 03:31:08 AM
Dax, I think you need to become one of those 60 year-olds who starts smoking weed finally because they're too old to care anymore so w/e. Would def. help mellow you out a little bit.

Trump or Clitler, who ya got?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on July 24, 2016, 09:47:41 AM
Kaine is awful, stop acting like he isn't

it shows that clinton isn't going to let the inchoate progressive wing of her party fold her over and rape her senseless, which is very important.  something the 'pubs should have done while the nationalist wing of their party was still inchoate.

Thanks for reminding me that I need to change my registration back to Green before the election starts
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 24, 2016, 01:31:04 PM
Why is Skinny Benny so latently/passive aggressively Butthurt?  Is the steady drone of the goose stepping and the Swastika banners at DNC hdqtrs starting to wear him down? 

I wonder if the DNC gets Stormfront delivered by email or if they have an online subscription.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 24, 2016, 01:36:14 PM
Email is online dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 24, 2016, 01:41:50 PM
it's because he mumped up with his sock posting.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 24, 2016, 01:46:31 PM
Thanks for reminding me that I need to change my registration back to Green before the election starts

i don't think you want to risk waking up in twenty years knowing you voted to make some obscure point in an election instead of voting to deny fascism a toehold in our federal government.  god willing, you'll have plenty of other elections to send your message.


i don't even live in a swing state, and i've pretty much decided that i'm going to want to know that i cast my vote as strongly anti-trump as was possible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 24, 2016, 02:06:24 PM
i'm not going to go around talking to people, if that's what you mean.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 24, 2016, 02:30:32 PM
i can always just emigrate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 24, 2016, 03:15:06 PM
Email is online dax

Not if it's coming through an exchange server and downloaded into something like outlook.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 24, 2016, 06:10:12 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ca/80/f1/ca80f13f2c77feb944cb76a22aa988ad.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2016, 07:14:06 PM
 :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 24, 2016, 08:32:48 PM
Clinton Cash looks interesting. Bernie ex-supporters are loving it
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on July 24, 2016, 11:51:06 PM
Thanks for reminding me that I need to change my registration back to Green before the election starts

i don't think you want to risk waking up in twenty years knowing you voted to make some obscure point in an election instead of voting to deny fascism a toehold in our federal government.  god willing, you'll have plenty of other elections to send your message.


i don't even live in a swing state, and i've pretty much decided that i'm going to want to know that i cast my vote as strongly anti-trump as was possible.

I'm not making a point. I didn't vote democrat in 2012 either. The leaders in the democratic party made it abundantly clear about how they feel about my ilk, and that's fine, I was good where I was. Neither Trump or Hillary are my responsibility, sorry bout it. I mean I suppose I could support the mainstream candidate that closely matches my ideology, but that hasn't gotten me anywhere.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 24, 2016, 11:54:51 PM
I'm not making a point. I didn't vote democrat in 2012 either. The leaders in the democratic party made it abundantly clear about how they feel about my ilk, and that's fine, I was good where I was. Neither Trump or Hillary are my responsibility, sorry bout it. I mean I suppose I could support the mainstream candidate that closely matches my ideology, but that hasn't gotten me anywhere.

i've voted for the libertarian presidential candidate in most elections since i've been old enough to vote.  this election is different.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2016, 03:40:06 AM
DNC scheduling conference calls with Chuck Todd to get him to stop NBC personalities from attacking DWS?? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 25, 2016, 09:25:30 AM
Good post. Hillary is so mumped

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4ui6xz/im_light_of_the_new_cnn_poll_trump_44_vs_clinton/d5pvz88

Quote
As it stands with all the information we currently know about Hillary:
(1) Hacked emails from the DNC more to be released.
(2) Further probes into her emails/email server whilst SOS from Congress.
(3)The Clinton Foundation investigation(FBI) and or hacks (those pesky Russians and probably anyone with a laptop plus an internet connection) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/clinton-foundation-said-to-be-breached-by-russian-hackers
(4) Speeches.
(5) And Clinton being Clinton. 20th Century politician running in a 21st Century world. One of the most recent examples being picking a boring VP candidate and not shifting to the left to appease the young/progressive side of the Democratic party.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on July 25, 2016, 09:33:45 AM
It is very depressing how terrible the two candidates are.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on July 25, 2016, 09:48:53 AM
It's also very terrible how depressing the two candidates are.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on July 25, 2016, 09:53:08 AM
How very depressing, its also terrible, are the two candidates?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on July 25, 2016, 10:26:26 AM
I'm not making a point. I didn't vote democrat in 2012 either. The leaders in the democratic party made it abundantly clear about how they feel about my ilk, and that's fine, I was good where I was. Neither Trump or Hillary are my responsibility, sorry bout it. I mean I suppose I could support the mainstream candidate that closely matches my ideology, but that hasn't gotten me anywhere.

i've voted for the libertarian presidential candidate in most elections since i've been old enough to vote.  this election is different.

Fear-based campaign works again!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 25, 2016, 10:40:13 AM
I'm not making a point. I didn't vote democrat in 2012 either. The leaders in the democratic party made it abundantly clear about how they feel about my ilk, and that's fine, I was good where I was. Neither Trump or Hillary are my responsibility, sorry bout it. I mean I suppose I could support the mainstream candidate that closely matches my ideology, but that hasn't gotten me anywhere.

i've voted for the libertarian presidential candidate in most elections since i've been old enough to vote.  this election is different.

Fear-based campaign works again!

The things Trump says during his campaign fear me a lot more than anything Clinton has said about him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on July 25, 2016, 11:19:31 AM
The election season is still young. Be prepared to be afraid, we are going to hear a lot of scary things since everyone knows that fear will motivate at least 90% of the votes this cycle.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 25, 2016, 11:56:57 AM
 :surprised: Candidates/media making it sound like the world is doomed if their opponent is elected  :Wha:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 25, 2016, 01:06:02 PM
everyone loves gigantic semi-emaw stud, tim kaine.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/kaine-gop-buds-226071
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 25, 2016, 01:10:37 PM
MG is.going.to.show.the.world.that.trump.is.mean ruthless businessman that hurts people. No denial.of the problems caused by Obama and her leadershit and.policies.  So is Hilliary ruthless?  What.about the Haitians.who were.supposed to get.aid from donation made to the Clinton Foundation?  Do these folks.count.as.people getting stiffed and harmed?  MG sometime must have taken a hypocrite oath.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 25, 2016, 01:40:32 PM
(http://theiowarepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/nazi.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on July 25, 2016, 02:06:23 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on July 25, 2016, 02:24:01 PM
that is very good
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on July 25, 2016, 05:53:59 PM
I'm not making a point. I didn't vote democrat in 2012 either. The leaders in the democratic party made it abundantly clear about how they feel about my ilk, and that's fine, I was good where I was. Neither Trump or Hillary are my responsibility, sorry bout it. I mean I suppose I could support the mainstream candidate that closely matches my ideology, but that hasn't gotten me anywhere.

i've voted for the libertarian presidential candidate in most elections since i've been old enough to vote.  this election is different.

I can't get to the point where I'm convinced a Trump presidency will be much different than what we've had for essentially our entire lifetime.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 25, 2016, 09:20:54 PM
https://twitter.com/regated/status/757690019138117632

Literally Hitler!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2016, 11:13:37 PM
Bernie Sanders campaign sign bonfire after the DNC ends tomorrow, inside the 4 mile security perimeter of course.   Hot dogs and smores provided but bring you're own blow and hookers . . . as long as they can get through the checkpoints.

 . . . and the land of the FREEEEEEE . . . .



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 25, 2016, 11:26:13 PM
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on July 25, 2016, 11:37:39 PM
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time

Media :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 25, 2016, 11:43:00 PM
Come on, it's current month and year.

Media :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2016, 11:43:14 PM
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time

Skinny do you have relatives living in South America who seem, ya know, out of place relative to their surroundings and are a bit reclusive?? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 25, 2016, 11:45:10 PM
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time

Thoughts on pills?

Edit, meant to write polls but was autocorrected. Android trying to censor the word "polls" after Donald's rise.

Google :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 25, 2016, 11:57:35 PM
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time

Skinny do you have relatives living in South America who seem, ya know, out of place relative to their surroundings and are a bit reclusive??

yes on the relatives in South America, no to the out of place/reclusive part
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2016, 12:19:31 AM
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time

Skinny do you have relatives living in South America who seem, ya know, out of place relative to their surroundings and are a bit reclusive??

yes on the relatives in South America, no to the out of place/reclusive part

So they acclimated, good, keeps them out from in front of the firing squad.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on July 26, 2016, 10:47:18 AM
:dunno:
There were visible Bernie signs all night long. I even saw a Jill Stein sign. CBS seemed like they were only showing Bernie signs and Hillary signs that were modified.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 27, 2016, 06:35:21 AM
At.least.her man believes in God, and.asks for his blessings.  Others of her supporters don't.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 30, 2016, 07:56:58 AM
Supposedly Trump accused Hilliar-y of eating dog turd sandwiches.  She replied, "How dare he make such mean unfounded statements.  He knows I don't like bread."  I find it odd Clinton has not yet refuted Trump's charges.  Has she acquiesced?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 09:44:04 AM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on July 30, 2016, 09:46:37 AM
 :jeffy:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 09:50:42 AM
http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/37014-could-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-lead-to-war-with-russia
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 09:56:04 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-calls-no-fly-zones-syria

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-and-nato-are-preparing-for-a-major-war-with-russia/



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 09:58:48 AM
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/russia-nato-us-romania-missile-defense.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 10:00:37 AM
http://theweek.com/articles/614075/how-russia-fortifying-arctic

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 10:02:32 AM
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9157892
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on July 30, 2016, 10:13:20 AM
A war with Russia does not sound sane and competent
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on July 30, 2016, 11:13:49 AM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

I think it is far more likely that they are supporting Trump because he talked of acknowledging Crimea as Russian and pulling support for NATO.  Trump is less likely to have a war with Russia but only because he seems to be willing to let them do whatever they want.  Putin is happy to feed Trump's ego if it gets him what he wants.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 30, 2016, 11:15:24 AM
Also his Russian debt can be forgiven if he let's Russia do whatever they want
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 11:17:44 AM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

I think it is far more likely that they are supporting Trump because he talked of acknowledging Crimea as Russian and pulling support for NATO.  Trump is less likely to have a war with Russia but only because he seems to be willing to let them do whatever they want.  Putin is happy to feed Trump's ego if it gets him what he wants.


Do whatever they want?   Has there be any encroachment on Russia's periphery?   How would the US react if Russian ABM systems were being deployed in Mexico?   How would the US react if Russia was systematically toppling US client states?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 30, 2016, 11:33:49 AM
Trump doesn't know what that means
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 11:38:39 AM
Trump doesn't know what that means

Translation: I love HilforWar2016
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on July 30, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

I think it is far more likely that they are supporting Trump because he talked of acknowledging Crimea as Russian and pulling support for NATO.  Trump is less likely to have a war with Russia but only because he seems to be willing to let them do whatever they want.  Putin is happy to feed Trump's ego if it gets him what he wants.


Do whatever they want?   Has there be any encroachment on Russia's periphery?   How would the US react if Russian ABM systems were being deployed in Mexico?   How would the US react if Russia was systematically toppling US client states?

Russia wants the Baltic states back. Trump will let Putin have them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 11:49:29 AM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

I think it is far more likely that they are supporting Trump because he talked of acknowledging Crimea as Russian and pulling support for NATO.  Trump is less likely to have a war with Russia but only because he seems to be willing to let them do whatever they want.  Putin is happy to feed Trump's ego if it gets him what he wants.


Do whatever they want?   Has there be any encroachment on Russia's periphery?   How would the US react if Russian ABM systems were being deployed in Mexico?   How would the US react if Russia was systematically toppling US client states?

Russia wants the Baltic states back. Trump will let Putin have them.

Yep, absolutely worth starting WWIII over.

#hilforwar2016
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: kim carnes on July 30, 2016, 12:18:55 PM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

I think it is far more likely that they are supporting Trump because he talked of acknowledging Crimea as Russian and pulling support for NATO.  Trump is less likely to have a war with Russia but only because he seems to be willing to let them do whatever they want.  Putin is happy to feed Trump's ego if it gets him what he wants.


Do whatever they want?   Has there be any encroachment on Russia's periphery?   How would the US react if Russian ABM systems were being deployed in Mexico?   How would the US react if Russia was systematically toppling US client states?

Russia wants the Baltic states back. Trump will let Putin have them.

Yeah, I mean so would Hilary. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on July 30, 2016, 12:19:59 PM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

I think it is far more likely that they are supporting Trump because he talked of acknowledging Crimea as Russian and pulling support for NATO.  Trump is less likely to have a war with Russia but only because he seems to be willing to let them do whatever they want.  Putin is happy to feed Trump's ego if it gets him what he wants.


Do whatever they want?   Has there be any encroachment on Russia's periphery?   How would the US react if Russian ABM systems were being deployed in Mexico?   How would the US react if Russia was systematically toppling US client states?

Russia wants the Baltic states back. Trump will let Putin have them.

Yep, absolutely worth starting WWIII over.

#hilforwar2016

wow. just wow. you would have made a great nazi sympathizer back in the 30s and 40s.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 30, 2016, 01:40:32 PM
You dumb maggots.  Putin hates Hillary because she is an atheist who supports the destruction of Christianity and the moral decay of humanity.  Putin is.a.devout member of the Russian Orthodox Church.  He is described as a zealot that favors merging the state and church.  Russian believe Omama is President of Sodom and Gomorrah.  They don't want to be like the Clinton sleazes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 03:22:05 PM
The Russians are engaged because I think they believe that if Hillary is elected, they're going to end up in a war with the United States. 

I think it is far more likely that they are supporting Trump because he talked of acknowledging Crimea as Russian and pulling support for NATO.  Trump is less likely to have a war with Russia but only because he seems to be willing to let them do whatever they want.  Putin is happy to feed Trump's ego if it gets him what he wants.


Do whatever they want?   Has there be any encroachment on Russia's periphery?   How would the US react if Russian ABM systems were being deployed in Mexico?   How would the US react if Russia was systematically toppling US client states?

Russia wants the Baltic states back. Trump will let Putin have them.

Yep, absolutely worth starting WWIII over.

#hilforwar2016

wow. just wow. you would have made a great nazi sympathizer back in the 30s and 40s.

Really Mr. War Monger, you'll take WWIII??

Fascinating

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 03:24:10 PM
Sounds like a place worthy of spilling American blood over.

http://observer.com/2016/02/estonia-wants-more-nato-troops-but-only-if-they-arent-black/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 30, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
You dumb maggots.  Putin hates Hillary because she is an atheist who supports the destruction of Christianity and the moral decay of humanity.  Putin is.a.devout member of the Russian Orthodox Church.  He is described as a zealot that favors merging the state and church.  Russian believe Omama is President of Sodom and Gomorrah.  They don't want to be like the Clinton sleazes.

Putin is a great example of Christians
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on July 30, 2016, 06:01:08 PM

We can avoid WW3 without rendering NATO toothless. We've been doing it for 60 years. On the other hand, allowing oppressive dictators to take over weaker countries while we try to be isolationists sounds exactly like what leads to world wars.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 07:08:27 PM

We can avoid WW3 without rendering NATO toothless. We've been doing it for 60 years. On the other hand, allowing oppressive dictators to take over weaker countries while we try to be isolationists sounds exactly like what leads to world wars.

Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

But really, we've been encircling and poking the hurt bear since the Clinton administration and its quite clear Hillary intends to keep doing it.  Sooner or later they were and are going to do something about it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on July 30, 2016, 07:11:39 PM
dax's grandfather:

"you know, Germany has invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, but are they really worth starting WWII over?"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on July 30, 2016, 07:12:34 PM
here's what's fascinating to me, dax...

where do you draw the line for russian aggression?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on July 30, 2016, 07:15:43 PM

We can avoid WW3 without rendering NATO toothless. We've been doing it for 60 years. On the other hand, allowing oppressive dictators to take over weaker countries while we try to be isolationists sounds exactly like what leads to world wars.

Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

But really, we've been encircling and poking the hurt bear since the Clinton administration and its quite clear Hillary intends to keep doing it.  Sooner or later they were and are going to do something about it.

you realize the middle east didn't start with Bill Clinton, right? it started with your boy GHW Bush.

or is the hurt bear russia? you realize that the cold war started in the 40s, right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 07:18:32 PM

We can avoid WW3 without rendering NATO toothless. We've been doing it for 60 years. On the other hand, allowing oppressive dictators to take over weaker countries while we try to be isolationists sounds exactly like what leads to world wars.

Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

But really, we've been encircling and poking the hurt bear since the Clinton administration and its quite clear Hillary intends to keep doing it.  Sooner or later they were and are going to do something about it.

you realize the middle east didn't start with Bill Clinton, right? it started with your boy GHW Bush.

or is the hurt bear russia? you realize that the cold war started in the 40s, right?


First off GW Bush is not "my boy" but I always remember that Bill Clinton tried to gin up a war with Iraq and that Hillary couldn't wait to vote yes to invade Iraq. 

The encirclement of Russia didn't start 40 years ago.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on July 30, 2016, 07:23:45 PM

We can avoid WW3 without rendering NATO toothless. We've been doing it for 60 years. On the other hand, allowing oppressive dictators to take over weaker countries while we try to be isolationists sounds exactly like what leads to world wars.

Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

But really, we've been encircling and poking the hurt bear since the Clinton administration and its quite clear Hillary intends to keep doing it.  Sooner or later they were and are going to do something about it.

you realize the middle east didn't start with Bill Clinton, right? it started with your boy GHW Bush.

or is the hurt bear russia? you realize that the cold war started in the 40s, right?


First off GW Bush is not "my boy" but I always remember that Bill Clinton tried to gin up a war with Iraq and that Hillary couldn't wait to vote yes to invade Iraq. 

The encirclement of Russia didn't start 40 years ago.

selected memory noted.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 07:25:10 PM

We can avoid WW3 without rendering NATO toothless. We've been doing it for 60 years. On the other hand, allowing oppressive dictators to take over weaker countries while we try to be isolationists sounds exactly like what leads to world wars.

Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

But really, we've been encircling and poking the hurt bear since the Clinton administration and its quite clear Hillary intends to keep doing it.  Sooner or later they were and are going to do something about it.

you realize the middle east didn't start with Bill Clinton, right? it started with your boy GHW Bush.

or is the hurt bear russia? you realize that the cold war started in the 40s, right?


First off GW Bush is not "my boy" but I always remember that Bill Clinton tried to gin up a war with Iraq and that Hillary couldn't wait to vote yes to invade Iraq. 

The encirclement of Russia didn't start 40 years ago.

selected memory noted.

Insightful
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on July 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PM


Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

The only reason Trump hasn't been involved in this is because he has absolutely no political experience. The Middle East is a cluster and that is just as much GOPers as Libs.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2016, 08:37:50 PM


Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

The only reason Trump hasn't been involved in this is because he has absolutely no political experience. The Middle East is a cluster and that is just as much GOPers as Libs.

Libya and Syria is all on the Libs and Clintler.   Two cluster mumps
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on July 30, 2016, 10:10:25 PM


Overthrowing or trying to overthrow  relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way. 

The only reason Trump hasn't been involved in this is because he has absolutely no political experience. The Middle East is a cluster and that is just as much GOPers as Libs.

this line of thought got Obama elected, its just our turn so quit being a baby.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on July 31, 2016, 01:34:07 AM
You boys are silly with your politics. Libs and pubs both blow with the wind and blow also. Let's all come together and admit that politicians suck.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on July 31, 2016, 05:58:45 AM
i also agree that the encirclement of russia didn't start in 1976
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 31, 2016, 08:10:15 AM
How old do you have to be to be legitimately afraid of Russia?  95?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on July 31, 2016, 09:22:09 AM
Not the point I was attempting. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2016, 10:28:04 AM
Who said anything about being afraid of Russia?  :shrug
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on July 31, 2016, 11:23:52 AM
Who said anything about being afraid of Russia?  :shrug

Trump is their puppet and Putin is the puppet master.

(http://temp_thoughts_resize.s3.amazonaws.com/58/5b22e01afb11e697b18f709973aa21/Trump-Marionette-clipped.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on July 31, 2016, 11:31:51 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/trump_putin_2016_rectangular_sticker-r6ed3a88b610b4a8bb7806a81e0ad6d47_v9wxo_8byvr_324.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 31, 2016, 02:30:17 PM
Another warning- Don't cross the Clinton machine.

http://heatst.com/politics/still-no-clues-in-murder-of-dncs-seth-rich-as-conspiracy-theories-thicken/ (http://heatst.com/politics/still-no-clues-in-murder-of-dncs-seth-rich-as-conspiracy-theories-thicken/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on July 31, 2016, 02:54:01 PM
this is an all time low for you john doug :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on July 31, 2016, 03:32:27 PM
this is an all time low for you john doug :frown:

He used to be reasonable. So very sad what he's turned in to
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 31, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
Who said anything about being afraid of Russia?  :shrug

It seems like some people we need some tough President to counter Russia.  US could elect the cast of the big bang theory and russia still isn't doing crap.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2016, 03:54:41 PM
Well, they kind of already have, so . . .
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 31, 2016, 04:00:23 PM
Well, they kind of already have, so . . .

And russia is still a little pissant so my point is really solid.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on July 31, 2016, 04:54:11 PM
Well, they kind of already have, so . . .

And russia is still a little pissant so my point is really solid.

Which is why it's sad we got a guy slobbering all over Putin.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2016, 06:53:18 PM
Yeah, a 5000 nukes pissant.  So if Russia is such a Pissant, why is Hillary calling Putin Hitler? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2016, 07:15:10 PM
I will say this, Clitlers track record is a war lover and military complex dream scenario.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 31, 2016, 07:36:53 PM
Russia hates Hillary.  Russia really hates Hillary.  Russia really hates really hates Hillary.  Russian leaders have airways been paranoid about someone.invading them.  They think she.is going to use nato to kill.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: puniraptor on July 31, 2016, 08:23:52 PM
Mod's Work:



He is legitimately an idiot. lol at all those who have tasked themselves with defending and justifying him.

Yet there's more then enough information to indicate that Hillary is a total idiot, who won't say a thing until it's vetted with her adviser du jour.    She's also reportedly a total idiot when it comes to the economy and is almost wholly reliant on advisers on the subject.   Her stint as SOS only reinforced that she's a war mongering hot head who really doesn't have the first effing clue when it comes to diplomacy. 

For a presidential candidate that's been a Senator and SOS her overall track record of non accomplishment rivals Obama, which is stunning, and the cluster effs left in her wake actually make her far worse then Obama.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 31, 2016, 08:50:00 PM
Yeah, a 5000 nukes pissant.  So if Russia is such a Pissant, why is Hillary calling Putin Hitler?

To mock Putin because he is powerless to stop her. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2016, 08:52:46 PM
Yeah, a 5000 nukes pissant.  So if Russia is such a Pissant, why is Hillary calling Putin Hitler?

To mock Putin because he is powerless to stop her.

He's already moved right into Syria and starting bombing the beejeezus out of "rebels" the U.S. was supporting.   

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 31, 2016, 08:54:44 PM
and withdrew

and is scared to take Ukraine
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 31, 2016, 08:58:15 PM
Russia hates Hillary.  Russia really hates Hillary.  Russia really hates really hates Hillary.  Russian leaders have airways been paranoid about someone.invading them.  They think she.is going to use nato to kill.

They are right to be paranoid, we are their betters and they are acutely aware.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2016, 09:13:07 PM
I think they already got the part of Ukraine that they wanted, and you act like Putin is dumb.  Doesn't change the fact that they went into Syria, we could do nothing to stop them, and started bombing the "rebels" we were supporting. 

Again, why, according to Clitler is Putin, Hitler?  If he and Russia are harmless?

They also got what the wanted in Georgia and got UN peacekeepers removed.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on July 31, 2016, 09:26:45 PM
I think they already got the part of Ukraine that they wanted

Yikes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 31, 2016, 09:28:08 PM
I think they already got the part of Ukraine that they wanted, and you act like Putin is dumb.  Doesn't change the fact that they went into Syria, we could do nothing to stop them, and started bombing the "rebels" we were supporting. 

Again, why, according to Clitler is Putin, Hitler?  If he and Russia are harmless?

They also got what the wanted in Georgia and got UN peacekeepers removed.

I think Hillary just likes making Putin cower like a beat dog if the US even itches its nose, the way Russia has been since 1962

I mean, the US beat Hitler's ass soundly so it is kind of appropriate
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2016, 09:47:52 PM
I think they already got the part of Ukraine that they wanted, and you act like Putin is dumb.  Doesn't change the fact that they went into Syria, we could do nothing to stop them, and started bombing the "rebels" we were supporting. 

Again, why, according to Clitler is Putin, Hitler?  If he and Russia are harmless?

They also got what the wanted in Georgia and got UN peacekeepers removed.

I think Hillary just likes making Putin cower like a beat dog if the US even itches its nose, the way Russia has been since 1962

I mean, the US beat Hitler's ass soundly so it is kind of appropriate

 :lol:

Then why the total meltdown about Putin?

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on July 31, 2016, 10:23:29 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/julian-assange-hacked-emails-include-info-hillarys-arming-jihadists-including-isis-syria/

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/100/dis_gon_be_good.gif)
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 01, 2016, 12:57:15 AM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/julian-assange-hacked-emails-include-info-hillarys-arming-jihadists-including-isis-syria/

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/100/dis_gon_be_good.gif)

Of course she was. That's why they kept finding arms sold to the Libyan army by Yugoslavia in the hands of "rebels" in Syria.  Even the NYT said three or four years ago there were no good guys of any kind in Syria, but the US was pumping weapons in there anyway. 

The MSM doesn't care that she was a woeful SOS and is a mega corrupt war monger

The next question is why?  Who paid her and Bill millions to do that and why?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: puniraptor on August 01, 2016, 01:31:24 AM
Possibly Billionaire Donald Trump? But why?!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 01, 2016, 12:02:47 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/julian-assange-hacked-emails-include-info-hillarys-arming-jihadists-including-isis-syria/

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/100/dis_gon_be_good.gif)

Of course she was. That's why they kept finding arms sold to the Libyan army by Yugoslavia in the hands of "rebels" in Syria.  Even the NYT said three or four years ago there were no good guys of any kind in Syria, but the US was pumping weapons in there anyway. 

The MSM doesn't care that she was a woeful SOS and is a mega corrupt war monger

The next question is why?  Who paid her and Bill millions to do that and why?

Why the meltdown about Syria?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 01, 2016, 12:05:36 PM
Because then he can bitch about Hillary even more.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 01, 2016, 01:26:22 PM
Yeah, why meltdown over one of the worst foreign policy cluster fucks ever, that's creating one of the biggest humanitarian crises in years that's killing and starving thousands and allowing extremists groups to embed bad people and get them across borders. 

Man, what a couple of dumbasses SB and Dug are turning into.  Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 01, 2016, 01:49:24 PM
Dax is going to be downright suicidal when Hillary cruises in November
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 01, 2016, 01:54:42 PM
I guess SB is a fan of this?

(https://www.britainfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SYRIA-BOY-2.jpg)
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/09/03/ap_293434580963_wide-7fec460753eb5d28786bbcb836a5148cf2536d56.jpg?s=1400)
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 01, 2016, 02:53:48 PM
Dax is going to be downright suicidal when Hillary cruises in November

Not really, DemoLemmings love the uber corrupt war mongers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 01, 2016, 08:09:01 PM
You guys need to stop interacting with SkinBen. He's just renocat's moronic liberal parody sock. A real slap in the face to the other libs on here.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 02, 2016, 07:19:18 AM
Maybe Hillary also emailed the video of Michelle Obama saying "whitey", Barack Obama's college transcripts and his "real" birth certificate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 02, 2016, 08:23:16 PM
Mean Grandma is canning DNC staff.  Did Trump fire the lady who stuck a.quote from Mooooochelle in hs wife's speech?  Who is the mean rip?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 03, 2016, 07:07:36 PM
Clitler told the middle class to get ready and take it in the ass dry.   Meanwhile her approving overlord Warren Buffet nodded with approval.

Clitler: Wall Street Whore
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on August 03, 2016, 07:54:35 PM
Clitler told the middle class to get ready and take it in the ass dry.   Meanwhile her approving overlord Warren Buffet nodded with approval.

Clitler: Wall Street Whore

yep, the guy who thinks he should be taxed more and has pledged to give away > 99% of his wealth is teaming up with Hillary so they can stick it to the little guy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 03, 2016, 07:59:16 PM
Clitler told the middle class to get ready and take it in the ass dry.   Meanwhile her approving overlord Warren Buffet nodded with approval.

Clitler: Wall Street Whore

yep, the guy who thinks he should be taxed more and has pledged to give away > 99% of his wealth is teaming up with Hillary so they can stick it to the little guy.

The same guy fighting the IRS every step of the way.  A guy who got his billions with the help of a massively tax averse history. 


Stooge.  Sad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 03, 2016, 10:56:58 PM
Now that Buffet has all his assets in trust he can afford for others to pay more income taxes to subsidize his companies.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 03, 2016, 10:58:06 PM
Well, they kind of already have, so . . .

And russia is still a little pissant so my point is really solid.

Your point is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and you are stupid.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 03, 2016, 11:03:45 PM
Do people really not know russia took crimea (strategic warm water port) from ukraine, occupy Georgia and pull the levers in Syria? That this all happened under b.o. amd hillstooge?

Fucktards
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 04, 2016, 12:51:31 AM
Do people really not know russia took crimea (strategic warm water port) from ukraine, occupy Georgia and pull the levers in Syria? That this all happened under b.o. amd hillstooge?

Fucktards

Of course we do. But your party nominated Donald rough ridin' Trump of all people so there you go.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 04, 2016, 05:49:14 AM
Do people really not know russia took crimea (strategic warm water port) from ukraine, occupy Georgia and pull the levers in Syria? That this all happened under b.o. amd hillstooge?

Fucktards

Of course we do. But your party nominated Donald rough ridin' Trump of all people so there you go.

The DNC had to pull out every dirty trick they could to help Hillary beat Bernie Sanders.    Think about it, she needed every shenanigan they could muster to beat back a 70 ish Socialist from Vermont. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 04, 2016, 05:59:54 AM
The "from Vermont" thing is not really relevant, fyi. Everyone's from somewhere.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 04, 2016, 06:35:42 AM
The "from Vermont" thing is not really relevant, fyi. Everyone's from somewhere.

In national politics it means something. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 04, 2016, 09:58:32 AM
Do people really not know russia took crimea (strategic warm water port) from ukraine, occupy Georgia and pull the levers in Syria? That this all happened under b.o. amd hillstooge?

Fucktards

Of course we do. But your party nominated Donald rough ridin' Trump of all people so there you go.

Then stop acting like you don't, or that putin is the one cowering like a bitch.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 04, 2016, 10:01:25 AM
Do people really not know russia took crimea (strategic warm water port) from ukraine, occupy Georgia and pull the levers in Syria? That this all happened under b.o. amd hillstooge?

Fucktards

Your candidate is the one that didn't know Russia took Crimea.

Behold the real fucktard:

Quote
"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want,"


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 04, 2016, 10:37:43 AM
So, anyone who recognizes hillary is a worthless imbecile is a supporter of trump?  Sounds libtarded, fucktard.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on August 05, 2016, 10:18:20 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/761549461893984256

You make a convincing argument. You have my vote.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2016, 12:20:47 PM
Hillary swinging left to try and pick up Bernie supporters.  Only to get elected and continue to be the corrupt Wall Street stooge and hot headed war monger she's always been.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 12:42:45 PM
Hillary swinging left to try and pick up Bernie supporters.  Only to get elected and continue to be the corrupt Wall Street stooge and hot headed war monger she's always been.

yep the CIA director endorsement and Meg Whitman addition to the campaign fundraising team sure scream "sing left."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2016, 12:43:59 PM
Hillary swinging left to try and pick up Bernie supporters.  Only to get elected and continue to be the corrupt Wall Street stooge and hot headed war monger she's always been.

yep the CIA director endorsement and Meg Whitman addition to the campaign fundraising team sure scream "sing left."

So endorsements are campaign speeches and selected target audiences?   

Fascinating. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Hillary swinging left to try and pick up Bernie supporters.  Only to get elected and continue to be the corrupt Wall Street stooge and hot headed war monger she's always been.

yep the CIA director endorsement and Meg Whitman addition to the campaign fundraising team sure scream "sing left."

So endorsements are campaign speeches and selected target audiences?   

Fascinating.

Yep the convention that invited Michael "stop and frisk" Bloomberg was a real far left fest.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2016, 12:56:29 PM
Hillary swinging left to try and pick up Bernie supporters.  Only to get elected and continue to be the corrupt Wall Street stooge and hot headed war monger she's always been.

yep the CIA director endorsement and Meg Whitman addition to the campaign fundraising team sure scream "sing left."

So endorsements are campaign speeches and selected target audiences?   

Fascinating.

Yep the convention that invited Michael "stop and frisk" Bloomberg was a real far left fest.


I just don't see where one really has anything to do with the other.  I'll dismiss this as summer break malaise and let you reset. 

We clearly know why she's getting these endorsements.   I mean Bloomberg, lol, really KK?? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 05, 2016, 12:57:47 PM
dax does hillary rent or own that space in your head?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2016, 01:00:01 PM
Just read a NYT piece on Syrian refugees in South Korea.  So tragic.

Sorry guys, the Obama administration still rides the coat tails of Hillary War Mongering policies.  So no attempt at peace just war in your homeland. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 01:03:59 PM
Hillary swinging left to try and pick up Bernie supporters.  Only to get elected and continue to be the corrupt Wall Street stooge and hot headed war monger she's always been.

yep the CIA director endorsement and Meg Whitman addition to the campaign fundraising team sure scream "sing left."

So endorsements are campaign speeches and selected target audiences?   

Fascinating.

Yep the convention that invited Michael "stop and frisk" Bloomberg was a real far left fest.


I just don't see where one really has anything to do with the other.  I'll dismiss this as summer break malaise and let you reset. 

We clearly know why she's getting these endorsements.   I mean Bloomberg, lol, really KK??

I would say there is lots and lots of evidence that Hillary Clinton has, as you have repeatedly described, the policy positions of a centrist Republican.  The fact that her campaign has made the most perfunctory attempts to bring in Bernie voters is of little note or consequence, in the context of Donald Trump's hilarious ham-fisted attempts at attracting any voters outside of the 30-40% of die hard Republicans in the national electorate.  Anyone willing to believe that Donald Trump attracts Bernie voters in any numbers or sweeps through the rust belt with disaffected white union workers or any other such nonsense is delusional.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 05, 2016, 01:08:10 PM
Anyone willing to believe that Donald Trump attracts Bernie voters in any numbers or sweeps through the rust belt with disaffected white union workers or any other such nonsense is delusional.

it wasn't delusional two weeks ago, and even after trump has spent two weeks burning his own campaign into the ground, per 538's more conservative model, there's still about a 25% it could be reality in 12 weeks.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on August 05, 2016, 01:09:52 PM
Michael Moore thinks he is going to win the rust belt with disenfranchised white people so you can go eff yourself KatKid
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 01:18:47 PM
Anyone willing to believe that Donald Trump attracts Bernie voters in any numbers or sweeps through the rust belt with disaffected white union workers or any other such nonsense is delusional.

it wasn't delusional two weeks ago, and even after trump has spent two weeks burning his own campaign into the ground, per 538's more conservative model, there's still about a 25% it could be reality in 12 weeks.

Look, I respect Nate Silver.  He does great work.  Ignore the national poll numbers.  Look at the electoral map.  Getting Trump to 270 requires a LOT of things to go right for him.  It is exceedingly difficult.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
I don't even know where this is coming from KK.  So, whatevs
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2016, 01:24:39 PM
dax does hillary rent or own that space in your head?

This is the Hillary Clinton thread.  Weird post SB
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 05, 2016, 01:29:09 PM
dax does hillary rent or own that space in your head?

This is the Hillary Clinton thread.  Weird post SB

might have a point if you weren't so clearly obsessed with her in other threads too :love:
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2016, 01:40:45 PM
dax does hillary rent or own that space in your head?

This is the Hillary Clinton thread.  Weird post SB

might have a point if you weren't so clearly obsessed with her in other threads too :love:

How many times do you have to be told that I enjoy pointing out that real world Hillary policies in action coupled with her and her husbands unparalleled corruption are far, far worse then the campaign trail rhetoric of her opponents.   

But you've shown that you don't give a eff that tens of thousands of people have died, will die, and have been displaced from their homes by Hillary's policies, that the world is far less safe because of her ideas, and that Hillary and husband have sold out to some of the most despicable, misogynistic, theocratic, women beaters/killers and killers of people with alternative lifestyles, thugs on the planet.  Any woman or alternative lifestyle person should be absolutely sickened by who Hillary has sold favors to and who she still owes favors to.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 05, 2016, 01:51:58 PM
:MartaviousDNR:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 05, 2016, 02:25:48 PM
Look, I respect Nate Silver.  He does great work.  Ignore the national poll numbers.  Look at the electoral map.  Getting Trump to 270 requires a LOT of things to go right for him.  It is exceedingly difficult.

it's difficult now, because trump's been rough ridin' himself over.  if he'd spent the last two weeks on vacation, it'd still be a coin flip.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 02:29:43 PM
Look, I respect Nate Silver.  He does great work.  Ignore the national poll numbers.  Look at the electoral map.  Getting Trump to 270 requires a LOT of things to go right for him.  It is exceedingly difficult.

it's difficult now, because trump's been rough ridin' himself over.  if he'd spent the last two weeks on vacation, it'd still be a coin flip.

Considering the timing of the convention and Trump's meltdown, it is impossible to know that, but it is much more likely that Trump getting to ~40% was the highest he was ever conceivably going to climb with his post-convention bump in the entire race anyways.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 05, 2016, 02:38:44 PM
i'm not sure i believe that, but low 40s% could (could have) won this election.  bill clinton won with 43% his first term and original bush was nowhere near the disliked figure that clinton is.  the leaked dnc emails essentially showed nothing other than that the dnc officials preferred clinton to sanders and it was a huge disruption.  imagine if the next round of leaks shows something genuinely problematic?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 02:45:11 PM
you don't have to tell me that Bernie Sanders was the low ceiling, high floor candidate candidate of the 3 legit contenders for the Presidency this election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 05, 2016, 02:52:04 PM
i don't know if i consider sanders to ever have been a legit contender.  at the very least, he never had a chance anywhere close to as good as the chance trump still has of winning on the backs of lower-class white voters, a scenario which i believe you described as delusional.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 04:04:40 PM
i don't know if i consider sanders to ever have been a legit contender.  at the very least, he never had a chance anywhere close to as good as the chance trump still has of winning on the backs of lower-class white voters, a scenario which i believe you described as delusional.

yes, I believe I did say that.

look up the percentages of whites that Romney won and figure out how Trump improves upon it enough to make up for the deficits he will have among women, minorities and college educated white males compared to Romney.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 05, 2016, 04:06:21 PM
you don't have to tell me that Bernie Sanders was the low ceiling, high floor candidate candidate of the 3 legit contenders for the Presidency this election.

I think low ceiling high floor is a perfectly apt description for clinton and trump. Sanders was always more of a delusional ceiling patently insane floor kind of guy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 04:14:45 PM
you don't have to tell me that Bernie Sanders was the low ceiling, high floor candidate candidate of the 3 legit contenders for the Presidency this election.

I think low ceiling high floor is a perfectly apt description for clinton and trump. Sanders was always more of a delusional ceiling patently insane floor kind of guy.

There is still a significant risk or something damaging emerging about Hillary and driving down her numbers.  Throughout most of the race, that risk was significantly higher because she had the potential indictment over her head.

Donald Trump's floor?  Well, we may have hit it, but he is capable of astounding stupidity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: cfbandyman on August 05, 2016, 04:42:39 PM
you don't have to tell me that Bernie Sanders was the low ceiling, high floor candidate candidate of the 3 legit contenders for the Presidency this election.

I think low ceiling high floor is a perfectly apt description for clinton and trump. Sanders was always more of a delusional ceiling patently insane floor kind of guy.

No, Trump is low ceiling low floor. Try again.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 05, 2016, 07:14:36 PM
Look, I respect Nate Silver.  He does great work.  Ignore the national poll numbers.  Look at the electoral map.  Getting Trump to 270 requires a LOT of things to go right for him.  It is exceedingly difficult.

it's difficult now, because trump's been rough ridin' himself over.  if he'd spent the last two weeks on vacation, it'd still be a coin flip.

Considering the timing of the convention and Trump's meltdown, it is impossible to know that, but it is much more likely that Trump getting to ~40% was the highest he was ever conceivably going to climb with his post-convention bump in the entire race anyways.

I assumed by "high floor" you meant the ~30% of people who would vote for a serial killer pedophile rapist so long as they had an (R) or a (D) next to their name.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 07:59:50 PM
Look, I respect Nate Silver.  He does great work.  Ignore the national poll numbers.  Look at the electoral map.  Getting Trump to 270 requires a LOT of things to go right for him.  It is exceedingly difficult.

it's difficult now, because trump's been rough ridin' himself over.  if he'd spent the last two weeks on vacation, it'd still be a coin flip.

Considering the timing of the convention and Trump's meltdown, it is impossible to know that, but it is much more likely that Trump getting to ~40% was the highest he was ever conceivably going to climb with his post-convention bump in the entire race anyways.

I assumed by "high floor" you meant the ~30% of people who would vote for a serial killer pedophile rapist so long as they had an (R) or a (D) next to their name.

Oh I totally did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 05, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
look up the percentages of whites that Romney won and figure out how Trump improves upon it enough to make up for the deficits he will have among women, minorities and college educated white males compared to Romney.

it doesn't take as much as you think (see below).  keep in mind that two weeks ago, 538's polls only model had the race as 50:50.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/


btw, i think the point we are at now is more likely trump's nadir than the beginning of his end.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 05, 2016, 08:22:51 PM
Trump was polling in the in the mid-to-high 40's post convention, and I'd bet he gets there again at some point
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on August 05, 2016, 08:29:10 PM
Trump was polling in the in the mid-to-high 40's post convention, and I'd bet he gets there again at some point

Possible if you follow daily tracking, but really I doubt this race ever gets within real striking distance (+/- 1-2 points) for Trump again.  He's cooked. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 05, 2016, 08:39:39 PM
Whoever wins ohio will win. Nobody gaf about national polls.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 05, 2016, 08:54:01 PM
Whoever wins ohio will win. Nobody gaf about national polls.

hillary will win ohio fyi
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 06, 2016, 08:51:51 AM
Ohio seems tough.  I mean lots of under ed white ppl who obvsly love trump nuking brown ppl, but also lots of minorities who are like 91% in the bag for hill. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 06, 2016, 09:05:03 AM
It's a tie right now

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html#polls
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 06, 2016, 12:07:40 PM
Ohio seems tough.  I mean lots of under ed white ppl who obvsly love trump nuking brown ppl, but also lots of minorities who are like 91% in the bag for hill.

the thing with ohio is that kasich runs that rough ridin' place.  if he turns over his vote-getting-out operation to trump, it should be very competitive.  if he holds back, it should be very challenging for trump.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 06, 2016, 12:48:23 PM
Is Pence enough to get the conservative Christians to turn out when Trump has basically laughed at them?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on August 06, 2016, 01:14:21 PM
Yes, and they're the least of his worries.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
RIP Shahram Amiri :(
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 07, 2016, 05:14:41 PM
RIP Shahram Amiri :(

 :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2016, 05:18:34 PM
Good news

Quote
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has promised to release more damning emails regarding the Clinton Foundation, and many Democrats are fearing it could lead to an "October surprise" for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Assange has been saying for some time that he has more emails that he will release before Election Day, but in a new interview with RT, he gave some hints at what information those emails might contain.

In particular, Assange mentioned the ties between Clinton and Sauda Arabia.

"Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia," Assange said.

He also suggested Clinton had a reason for attacking rival Donald Trump over his ties to Russia: She has her own ties she's trying to conceal.

“There is a much deeper connection on record with Hillary Clinton and Russia than we are presently aware of with Donald Trump," Assange said. "Hillary Clinton did quite well strategically to draw a connection between Trump and Russia because she has so many connections of her own."

Politico reported that top Democratic officials see these emails leaks as one of several curveballs that could swing the election in favor of Trump.

“We may be headed into uncharted waters, and this has the potential to spiral out of control,” longtime Democratic operative Jim Manley said.

Watch more from "Fox and Friends Weekend" above.

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 07, 2016, 05:45:45 PM
Good news

Quote
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has promised to release more damning emails regarding the Clinton Foundation, and many Democrats are fearing it could lead to an "October surprise" for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Assange has been saying for some time that he has more emails that he will release before Election Day, but in a new interview with RT, he gave some hints at what information those emails might contain.

In particular, Assange mentioned the ties between Clinton and Sauda Arabia.

"Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia," Assange said.

He also suggested Clinton had a reason for attacking rival Donald Trump over his ties to Russia: She has her own ties she's trying to conceal.

“There is a much deeper connection on record with Hillary Clinton and Russia than we are presently aware of with Donald Trump," Assange said. "Hillary Clinton did quite well strategically to draw a connection between Trump and Russia because she has so many connections of her own."

Politico reported that top Democratic officials see these emails leaks as one of several curveballs that could swing the election in favor of Trump.

“We may be headed into uncharted waters, and this has the potential to spiral out of control,” longtime Democratic operative Jim Manley said.

Watch more from "Fox and Friends Weekend" above.

:popcorn:


it's just a pity you guys put up donald rough ridin' trump instead of literally anyone else who could've beaten her if these things actually come to light.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2016, 07:13:27 PM
SB's post contains a strong stench of fear.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2016, 08:02:17 PM
Lot more people are gonna have to die to prevent an October surprise.   

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2016, 08:03:38 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSc3XmWEAQR-TA.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2016, 08:51:25 PM
 :sdeek: :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 07, 2016, 09:22:40 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSc3XmWEAQR-TA.jpg)

Wow. My 94 year old great grandmother can climb those stairs on her own.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2016, 09:43:48 PM
Somebody takes those pictures of her when she's pres and another secular Middle Eastern country is going to get destroyed and turned over to ISIS and all the weapons from their army will get shipped someplace else to overthrow another government. Somebody is gonna get Gaddafi'd.

 



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2016, 10:04:22 PM
Yep she's just an economic machine:

The former first lady was unable to pass the big-ticket legislation she introduced to benefit the upstate economy. She turned to smaller-scale projects, but some of those fell flat after initial glowing headlines, a Washington Post review shows. Many promised jobs never materialized and others migrated to other states as she turned to her first presidential run, said former officials who worked with her in New York.

Clinton’s self-styled role as economic promoter also showcases an operating style that has come to define the political and money-making machine known to some critics of the former first couple as Clinton Inc. Some of her pet economic projects involved loyal campaign contributors, who also supported the Clinton Foundation, The Post review shows.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-senator-clinton-promised-200000-jobs-in-upstate-new-york-her-efforts-fell-flat/2016/08/07/339d3384-58d2-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
@wikileaks is a pretty good follow. Everything is kind of tin-foil-hat-y, then all of the sudden one of the theories will be tangentially validated.  Apparently Julian Assange spoke at the green party convention. :ROFL: Probably right after the anti-gmo nut, but before the anti-vax nut. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 08, 2016, 12:01:54 PM
Yep she's just an economic machine:

The former first lady was unable to pass the big-ticket legislation she introduced to benefit the upstate economy. She turned to smaller-scale projects, but some of those fell flat after initial glowing headlines, a Washington Post review shows. Many promised jobs never materialized and others migrated to other states as she turned to her first presidential run, said former officials who worked with her in New York.

Clinton’s self-styled role as economic promoter also showcases an operating style that has come to define the political and money-making machine known to some critics of the former first couple as Clinton Inc. Some of her pet economic projects involved loyal campaign contributors, who also supported the Clinton Foundation, The Post review shows.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-senator-clinton-promised-200000-jobs-in-upstate-new-york-her-efforts-fell-flat/2016/08/07/339d3384-58d2-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html
Heard Trump rubbed her nose in this dung today in a.speech.  Only Fox seems to be carrying the news.though.  Thumbs up for.scoop Dax.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 04:23:52 AM
The health and mental capacity rumors swirl with ever greater zeal. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 09, 2016, 06:16:40 AM
reagan had Alzheimer's while in office, fyi
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 07:31:55 AM
reagan had Alzheimer's while in office, fyi

Possibly the very early stages late in his second term. 

Life expectancy was shorter back then after diagnosis, and he didn't die until he was out of office for six years. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on August 09, 2016, 07:55:58 AM
Dax, when did Reagan die?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on August 09, 2016, 08:08:02 AM
Dax, when did Reagan die?
'95 apparently
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 09:20:59 AM
Sorry,  I should have said sixteen, not six, and it was really more like fifteen.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on August 09, 2016, 10:20:20 AM
Sorry,  I should have said sixteen, not six, and it was really more like fifteen.

i thought maybe you were suggesting the last 10 years was like a weekend at ronnie's type situation
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
The health and mental capacity rumors swirl with ever greater zeal.

Your guy alex jones is really running with this
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 10:27:21 AM
Hey guys lib7 logic dictates that repeated falls, coke bottle thick glasses (double vision), needing to be helped up stairs and personal aides documented in writing going over "confusion" and the need for clarity because of "confusion", and lately tales of mental vapor lock.   Means, nothing to see here, and Alex Jones stuff.    :thumbs:

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on August 09, 2016, 10:39:42 AM
evil genius criminal mastermind and also hapless invalid operating without the use of her mental faculties, all at once
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2016, 10:41:54 AM
Moments of lucidity!

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on August 09, 2016, 10:45:40 AM
to clarify, i'm not really picking on you dax. there were lots of libtards saying the same contradictory things about W, and later pubtards about Obama (HE CAN'T EVEN TALK WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER!)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 10:45:46 AM
evil genius criminal mastermind and also hapless invalid operating without the use of her mental faculties, all at once

Yeah, I mean the corruption just started recently, so, great point, man
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 10:48:06 AM
to clarify, i'm not really picking on you dax. there were lots of libtards saying the same contradictory things about W, and later pubtards about Obama (HE CAN'T EVEN TALK WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER!)

Yeah, when those pics came out of Obama and Bush being helped up the stairs, and when they had the blood clots and concussed themselves I knew there was a cover up going on, dude. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2016, 10:50:11 AM
I don't think anyone has ever accused hillary Clinton of being a genius in any capacity. As far as the public can tell, she's a terrible criminal who seemingly gets caught at every turn, before being exonerated under extremely bizarre pretenses. For example, the DNC emails showing the primaries were a bit one sided aren't her fault because trump is a soviet spy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 11:03:21 AM
I don't think anyone has ever accused hillary Clinton of being a genius in any capacity. As far as the public can tell, she's a terrible criminal who seemingly gets caught at every turn, before being exonerated under extremely bizarre pretenses. For example, the DNC emails showing the primaries were a bit one sided aren't her fault because trump is a soviet spy.

It's like a rolling series of Water Gates (worst break in, ever), everybody else resigns, or goes to jail, or dies.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 09, 2016, 11:09:34 AM
reagan had Alzheimer's while in office, fyi

i don't see the relevance to that. like, since Regs had a hard time remember his grandkids names it would be ok for Hil to do so as well?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 11:14:39 AM
The health and mental capacity rumors swirl with ever greater zeal.

Your guy alex jones is really running with this

Weird meltdown from daxmeldown over this innocent informative post. Mental vapor lock maybe?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 09, 2016, 11:36:32 AM
reagan had Alzheimer's while in office, fyi

i don't see the relevance to that. like, since Regs had a hard time remember his grandkids names it would be ok for Hil to do so as well?
Great point.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 11:43:21 AM
:Reaganforgotto!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 12:09:14 PM
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/07/who-is-hillarys-handler-doctor-stroke-seizure/

daxmeltdown's source for swirling rumors
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 09, 2016, 12:14:54 PM
Is that why Hillary makes those crazy faces? She's having mini seizures?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 12:15:57 PM
Is that why Hillary makes those crazy faces? She's having mini seizures?

According to alex jones and dangerandplay.com
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 09, 2016, 12:22:20 PM
A lot of people are saying it!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 09, 2016, 12:24:18 PM
I honestly hope she's ok. If it is true, this is the last type of job a person with health issues needs. Maybe Trump can come down with something and we can start this thing over again? I won't vote for Hillary, but I want her over Trump at this point.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 12:36:06 PM
Lib really clings to a lot of weird stuff.  Strange, but predictable. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 12:37:05 PM
Lib really clings to a lot of weird stuff.  Strange, but predictable.

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 09, 2016, 12:55:00 PM
if hillary does die in office the worst thing she would have ever done for our country was not force joe biden to be VP
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 09, 2016, 12:57:27 PM
Hillary's VP seems awfully oscar Weberish.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 09, 2016, 01:01:32 PM
Hillary's VP seems awfully oscar Weberish.

yes, both VP candidates are oscar weber clones. while I will cheer for either candidate to die early in office I'm not sure we actually get anything better when they do.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 01:15:54 PM
Rush says Hillary isn't "all there" because she looked at her notes during a speech
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 09, 2016, 01:18:04 PM
Rush says Hillary isn't "all there" because she looked at her notes during a speech
Maybe he was talking about eye sight? I mean, it's all on a teleprompter for them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 09, 2016, 01:19:41 PM
Rush says Hillary isn't "all there" because she looked at her notes during a speech
Maybe he was talking about eye sight? I mean, it's all on a teleprompter for them.

yes, I'm sure that is what Rush Limbaugh was referring too
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 09, 2016, 01:20:23 PM
lib7 you gotta quit listening to rush*


*the dude, not the band
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 01:21:00 PM
Why?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 01:24:18 PM
Blacks are angrier and worse off than any time in history and they don't know why! It's because they vote in democrats!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2016, 01:24:52 PM
Lib7 is in a strange place mentally. He seeks out exagerations of hillary's incompetence to convince himself that her well-documented ordinary incompetence is not disqualifying on its own. That way, he can feel okay about voting for her.

Time to visit the old head shrinker, lib7.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 09, 2016, 01:41:23 PM
because its crap lib7
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 01:42:21 PM
because its crap lib7

You should stop watching the royals then  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on August 09, 2016, 01:42:48 PM
oh man
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 09, 2016, 01:43:57 PM
It is pretty interesting that lib trolls dax into meltdowns, but is getting trolled by dax at the same damn time.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 09, 2016, 01:44:27 PM
Do you need a link?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 09, 2016, 01:46:07 PM
 :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 09, 2016, 01:46:38 PM
if you think Duffy is crap you're dumb
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
I'm just ribbin' ya kid. I like listening to what the dax'lemy's think of things, it gives a rounder world view. If you had stupid, incendiary opinions I'd like listening to you too
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 01:53:35 PM
I'm just ribbin' ya kid. I like listening to what the dax'lemy's think of things, it gives a rounder world view. If you had stupid, incendiary opinions I'd like listening to you too

Also why wackycat08 is one of my favorite people on this here blog.

#zing  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 09, 2016, 01:54:33 PM
 :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 02:48:36 PM
Lib is just really lashing out, maybe we should just quit talking about the day-to-day run of the mill corruption that is the Clintons.  Give lib a chance to retreat to his safe space and regroup.   

Don't let our perceived micro aggressions get you down Lib, hang in there buddy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 02:56:28 PM
Has the Syrian woman displaced by Hillary's policies competed at the Olympics yet?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2016, 05:19:12 PM
Lib7 is still thinks the email crap show was an accident and error in judgment. He's totally rough ridin' delusional.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 09, 2016, 08:48:00 PM
Assange says murdered dnc dude leaked the emails not the Russians  :horrorsurprise:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2016, 09:04:03 PM
Assange says murdered dnc dude leaked the emails not the Russians  :horrorsurprise:

Just the DNC protecting Hillary. House of Cards is reality TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on August 09, 2016, 09:05:31 PM
They could prove she ordered the hit and she would still win
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 09:10:48 PM
that video, lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2016, 09:23:05 PM
that video, lol

But they're European, Dutch, no less!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 09, 2016, 09:24:26 PM
That's enough smoke for me to believe that someone within the dem party was willing to off that kid to silence the truth.  Americans need to really contemplate whether they can support  a party with this level and culture of corruption, I know we tease each other on here but I don't believe anyone on here can support this. :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 09:30:51 PM
Fixed primaries, homophobia, massive corruption, now, murder? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 09, 2016, 09:34:44 PM
It's time America sent a message that we won't accept this corruption anymore, not trolling.  People are legitimately struggling.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 09:35:18 PM
alex jones is going to go ape crap
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 09:35:39 PM
Forgot Hillary's extreme support of misogynistic uber homophobic Islamic figures and her disdain for Israel, the last outpost of secularism in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 09:37:41 PM
don't worry, you can just get some second amendment folks to off her
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 09:41:54 PM
Read a story of another displaced Syrian Olympian, her family had to flee to Malta because of Hillary's policies. 

Tragic
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 09:45:09 PM
Apparently Hillary vapor locked again down in Florida today.

The weight of extreme corruption has gotten to be too much for the woman.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2016, 09:50:55 PM
The new dnc gameplan: anyone outing our corruption is a soviet spy

Libtards [dutifully in concert]: ya'll hillrod haters is a bunch of unedumacated soviet spies, oh, and raaacists
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 09:51:58 PM
Oh derp, just them damn Ruskies again, derp.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 09:59:33 PM
More emails, special favors for convicted Nigerian billionaires and CF donors.  A rabbit hole of corruption.

Sad

:Russians :angry face
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 10:04:13 PM
dax sees his candidate down double digits, projected to have the worst electoral college performance in decades, and just can't process it.  vapor lock'd his damn brain  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2016, 10:06:46 PM
he's live bloggin' his psychotic breakdown  :frown:  it's so. . . sad. . . really
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 10:18:50 PM
My candidate is down more then that.   It's just so sad to see lib continue to lash out.  The idea that he's such a huge supporter of such a despicable person may be getting to him.

Hang in there lib, you'll reconcile selling out to the machine (again) some day like all Hillbots. 

Counseling?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 10:20:20 PM
#russianhackers!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on August 09, 2016, 10:22:25 PM
I wish you could see yourselves the last 6 months :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2016, 10:23:54 PM
FBI confirms that 22 emails were so top secret they couldn't reveal topic to media.   Reconfirmed data breaches by multiple entities. 

#russians #putin :shakesfist
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2016, 11:12:26 PM
Clearly the fbi is part of the kgb, doctored up a bunch of emails that were highly classified, then refused to release them. #dnc #educated
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 09, 2016, 11:14:33 PM
Trump has ties to the Russians , says every pundit on tv for a week and a half.

American voters= :Take the Bait:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 10, 2016, 08:48:52 AM
Welp, unsurprisingly the father of the orlando gay club murderer is a huge clinton supporter. Damning evidence that anyone who supports clinton hates gays and loves the taliban.

http://www.wptv.com/news/state/orlando-shooters-father-attends-hillary-clinton-rally-in-kissimmee

Unless. . .he's a soviet plant...
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 10, 2016, 08:51:03 AM
When is the first debate again?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2016, 08:53:50 AM
Welp, unsurprisingly the father of the orlando gay club murderer is a huge clinton supporter. Damning evidence that anyone who supports clinton hates gays and loves the taliban.

http://www.wptv.com/news/state/orlando-shooters-father-attends-hillary-clinton-rally-in-kissimmee

Unless. . .he's a soviet plant...

Well if you understand that Hil (and husband) love them uber women oppressing, LGBT stoning, wealthy Islamic thugs.   So it makes sense that this guy would immediately gravitate towards Hillary.

Or Russian Photoshopping. 

#putin!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 10, 2016, 09:05:39 AM
FBI confirms that 22 emails were so top secret they couldn't reveal topic to media.   Reconfirmed data breaches by multiple entities. 

#russians #putin :shakesfist

I still don't get how she isn't indicted.  I mean, their leaning on the fact that "she didn't lie to us during her interview", but that has nothing to do with the fact that she still did it. 

I can't kill someone, be honest while interrogated, and expect to walk out. 

So mumped up.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on August 10, 2016, 09:14:16 AM
She wasn't indicted because they don't think they can make the charges stick.  People don't like fighting battles they don't think they can win.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 10, 2016, 09:21:49 AM
She wasn't indicted because they don't think they can make the charges stick.  People don't like fighting battles they don't think they can win.

She for sure had multiple emails that were top secret, or higher classified, on her private server.  She also signed a doc that governs the handling of such info that doesn't allow that. 

I mean, there doesn't seem to be grey area in that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on August 10, 2016, 09:53:01 AM
Clinton emails  :zzz:

Back to the exciting Trump thread!  :buh-bye:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2016, 10:21:44 AM
Clinton emails  :zzz:

Back to the exciting Trump thread!  :buh-bye:

Murder, loved by Sharia law supporters, mega corruption and failing health not enough for you? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 10, 2016, 10:22:36 AM
The clinton excuse for propping the gay murderer taliban dad on the stage behind clinton: anybody could have sat there, it was an open event.  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 10, 2016, 10:23:35 AM
 :impatient: second dump of emails
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 10, 2016, 11:22:09 AM
I was thinking, based on what I know about old people, we should make a law that says you cannot run for president if you are over 65 years old. Seems pretty fair to me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 10, 2016, 11:23:36 AM
Yeah, old people are pretty stupid
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on August 10, 2016, 11:24:56 AM
Your boy Ronny Reags was 69 his first year in office
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 10, 2016, 11:28:50 AM
i'm just saying, most people I know in their 70s struggle to know what to order or work the remote
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on August 10, 2016, 11:43:39 AM
the 50's is the prime decade to be a president imo
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on August 10, 2016, 11:48:12 AM
I may change my answer; these are the last 4 presidents to enter office in their 40's:

Teddy 42
JFK 43
Clinton 46
Obama 47

 :surprised:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on August 10, 2016, 11:49:13 AM
She wasn't indicted because they don't think they can make the charges stick.  People don't like fighting battles they don't think they can win.

She for sure had multiple emails that were top secret, or higher classified, on her private server.  She also signed a doc that governs the handling of such info that doesn't allow that. 

I mean, there doesn't seem to be grey area in that.

I think the bigger crime requires some kind of intent, which they cannot really prove. It is also a crime simply to have the emails like that, but from my understanding they don't consistently enforce that one against other people in similar circumstances so it would basically just be selective in this case.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 10, 2016, 01:30:43 PM
She wasn't indicted because they don't think they can make the charges stick.  People don't like fighting battles they don't think they can win.

She for sure had multiple emails that were top secret, or higher classified, on her private server.  She also signed a doc that governs the handling of such info that doesn't allow that. 

I mean, there doesn't seem to be grey area in that.

I think the bigger crime requires some kind of intent, which they cannot really prove. It is also a crime simply to have the emails like that, but from my understanding they don't consistently enforce that one against other people in similar circumstances so it would basically just be selective in this case.

The everybody is doing it defense.  Taking it old school. 

If that is the case, even more reason to charge.  That crap needs to stop and someone that doesn't recognize that doesn't need the ability to expose us further as president.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on August 10, 2016, 01:33:28 PM
I think if The FBI director was sure he could nail her on it he would.  Most accounts I've read about him suggest he is someone interested in seeing justice served even if it's unpopular.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 10, 2016, 01:34:24 PM
I think if The FBI director was sure he could nail her on it he would.  Most accounts I've read about him suggest he is someone interested in seeing justice served even if it's unpopular.

What about his Bill Clinton friend boss?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on August 10, 2016, 01:38:15 PM
You could be right, I've talked to a buddy who is a US attorney and he said it just wasn't a winnable case.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 10, 2016, 01:46:21 PM
Was chatting with a friend of mine who has been on Tim Kaine's staff for several years now.

1) The friend is pretty pumped because he loves the show Veep.

2) Said that Tim only agreed to be VP if Hillary acknowledged that keeping any of Obama's people around or bringing back any of Bill's would look bad. Therefore encouraging her to take on some of his people.

3) If Tim's current staff don't want to work in the white house, Tim has promised to find them a nice cushy landing spot somewhere else in the government.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 10, 2016, 02:00:09 PM
Assange of Wikileaks said a DNC staffer hack them.  He was murdered recently.  Bill, the Godfarter?
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2016, 02:14:20 PM
FBI blocked twice from investigating Clinton Foundation by DOJ. 

The fear of death was palpable.

#curses #russianhackers
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on August 10, 2016, 02:32:14 PM

The everybody is doing it defense.  Taking it old school. 

If that is the case, even more reason to charge.  That crap needs to stop and someone that doesn't recognize that doesn't need the ability to expose us further as president.

I tend to agree, but it creates a lot of problems if you can show a criminal statute is being selectively enforced. I also doubt the penalty for the weaker offense was substantial enough to derail Hilldawg's presidential campaign (not sure though).

It was going to be a political decision no matter what. In my opinion the FBI dude did as good as he could by publicly chastising Hilldawg but not doing enough to wind up at the bottom of a lake somewhere without any teeth or fingerprints.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2016, 07:28:32 PM
http://youtu.be/BdNHf1g4ivA

Tapatalk, man
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 10, 2016, 08:20:37 PM
Reprehensible  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 10, 2016, 09:31:40 PM
Warning: may contain soviet counterintelligence
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 11, 2016, 06:23:36 AM
But ya see, she's a big advocate for women ya know. 

#soviethackers!

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 11, 2016, 12:17:05 PM
But guys, if you don't vote for this despicable human being the Republicans will put a bunch of Scalias on the Supreme Court. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 11, 2016, 12:27:52 PM
Assange says murdered dnc dude leaked the emails not the Russians  :horrorsurprise:

Just the DNC protecting Hillary. House of Cards is reality TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg)
Yes it is. Did anyone ever thing otherwise?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 11, 2016, 01:20:49 PM
But guys, if you don't vote for this despicable human being the Republicans will put a bunch of Scalias on the Supreme Court.

Would take.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 11, 2016, 01:56:58 PM
Assange says murdered dnc dude leaked the emails not the Russians  :horrorsurprise:

Just the DNC protecting Hillary. House of Cards is reality TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg)
Yes it is. Did anyone ever thing otherwise?

Well, most liberals think the government is a benevolent god.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 11, 2016, 02:07:31 PM
Assange says murdered dnc dude leaked the emails not the Russians  :horrorsurprise:

Just the DNC protecting Hillary. House of Cards is reality TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg)
Yes it is. Did anyone ever thing otherwise?

Well, most liberals think the government is a benevolent god.
My uncle said when asked Bill said the show was 99% accurate. No clue if that was said or not.

I've long assumed most of the stuff in the show is true for most politicians. The killing or having people killed reserved for the politicians with long tenures and high ranking positions.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 11, 2016, 02:20:01 PM
alright! conspiracy theories!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 11, 2016, 03:40:28 PM
media  :curse:

Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 11, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
media  :curse:

Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)

:lol: Man, this is a really low-rent video and a pretty transparent piece of crap. Nice chipmunk voices?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chuckjames on August 11, 2016, 04:17:09 PM
I see the pit has been taken over by a lot /r/TheDonald subscribers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 11, 2016, 04:33:55 PM
media  :curse:

Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)

http://observer.com/2016/08/wikileaks-reveals-mainstream-medias-coziness-with-clinton/ (http://observer.com/2016/08/wikileaks-reveals-mainstream-medias-coziness-with-clinton/)

Quote
Some of the emails released show both CNN and Politico had articles pre-approved by the DNC prior to publication. Politico reporter Ken Vogel had DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda look over an article before he sent it to editors as part of an agreement. Politico has since called Vogel’s actions “a mistake.”

In May 2016, CNN published an anti-Sanders Op-Ed by Maria Cardona, who had had it pre-checked by the DNC before publication. In addition to the emails released by Wikileaks, The Intercept reported in May 2016 that they obtained emails showing CNN published an anti-Sanders Op-Ed ghostwritten by a lobbyist under Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed’s name that they had received from a Clinton SuperPAC.

CNN’s Jake Tapper was also implicated. DNC staff discussed in emails, “if we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us” after Tapper’s producer Jason Seher asked what DNC Hispanic Media Director Pablo Manriquez wanted to talk about on the show. Manriquez eventually resigned over DNC staff pushing him to break impartiality. Tapper insists the emails show no wrongdoing on his part, but the rhetoric among DNC staff makes it seem as though it was a standard procedure to write their own questions for CNN interviews.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 11, 2016, 04:59:42 PM
media  :curse:

Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)

:lol: Man, this is a really low-rent video and a pretty transparent piece of crap. Nice chipmunk voices?

video quality  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on August 11, 2016, 05:06:27 PM
Seeing poor execution of that really makes you appreciate the work that lib and bias do day in day out
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 11, 2016, 05:11:49 PM
poor execution  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 11, 2016, 07:47:33 PM
Nancy Pelosi thinks we should sanction Russia for the DNC hacks. Like, what in the eff three-ways?  :lol:

That's your (libtards) house leader.  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 11, 2016, 08:25:55 PM
media  :curse:

Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)

:lol: Man, this is a really low-rent video and a pretty transparent piece of crap. Nice chipmunk voices?

video quality  :curse:

Yes, it's almost like any dipshit with $5 can go online and buy B-roll footage of analog TV snow, splice it into a bunch of CNN interview videos at really opportune times, and then claim that the feed went out because CNN sabotaged the interview.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 11, 2016, 08:41:50 PM
 :shakesfist: Russian Hackers  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 11, 2016, 08:50:56 PM
Thr DNC is running with some c-list soviet spy james bond movie type narrative, and delusional benny is criticizing cnn criticism on the basis of video quality.  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 11, 2016, 09:43:14 PM
media  :curse:

Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)

:lol: Man, this is a really low-rent video and a pretty transparent piece of crap. Nice chipmunk voices?

video quality  :curse:

Yes, it's almost like any dipshit with $5 can go online and buy B-roll footage of analog TV snow, splice it into a bunch of CNN interview videos at really opportune times, and then claim that the feed went out because CNN sabotaged the interview.


 :lol: the cuts were for dramatic effect, listen to the cnn commentators, reno.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 11, 2016, 09:48:42 PM
Nancy Pelosi thinks we should sanction Russia for the DNC hacks. Like, what in the eff three-ways?  :lol:

That's your (libtards) house leader.  :ROFL:

Or, we could just sanction Russia by laughing at and destroying them at everything non stop while they pray their low grade oil is worth something so they can double their air craft carrier fleet by adding 1 more.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 11, 2016, 10:53:40 PM
media  :curse:

Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)

:lol: Man, this is a really low-rent video and a pretty transparent piece of crap. Nice chipmunk voices?

video quality  :curse:

Yes, it's almost like any dipshit with $5 can go online and buy B-roll footage of analog TV snow, splice it into a bunch of CNN interview videos at really opportune times, and then claim that the feed went out because CNN sabotaged the interview.

It's quite effective in demonstrating how stupid the anchors at cnn are, and what a subhuman piece of fecal matter hillary is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2016, 06:11:24 AM
Multiple FBI field offices called for investigations of the Clinton Foundation but DOJ stopped.   States Chief of Staff possibly also on CF payroll at same time. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 12, 2016, 06:18:25 AM
You guys are so butthurt that she's going to lazily rollerskate into the White House :cool:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2016, 07:48:55 AM
SB we've already established that you love corruption, war, Islamic theocrats, and support the war on women world wide.  No need to keep chiming in because you're mad. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 12, 2016, 07:53:00 AM
whoa, you love all that stuff SB?  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2016, 08:08:01 AM
whoa, you love all that stuff SB?  :frown:

:frown

#russianhackers
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 12, 2016, 08:36:15 AM
Guys, it's totally ok to not want trump and to think that Hillary compromised our country's security and secrets and shouldn't have the oppy to put the country in further harms way by electing her president. 

It's not offering a solution, but recognizing two problems.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 12, 2016, 09:03:19 AM
Guys, it's totally ok to not want trump and to think that Hillary compromised our country's security and secrets and shouldn't have the oppy to put the country in further harms way by electing her president. 

It's not offering a solution, but recognizing two problems.

^This. Those who are defending Hillary as if she is a perfect little angel need to pull their heads out of the sand or their a**es.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 12, 2016, 09:05:33 AM
Guys, it's totally ok to not want trump and to think that Hillary compromised our country's security and secrets and shouldn't have the oppy to put the country in further harms way by electing her president. 

It's not offering a solution, but recognizing two problems.

^This. Those who are defending Hillary as if she is a perfect little angel need to pull their heads out of the sand or their a**es.

I don't know of anyone who thinks Hillary is a perfect little angel
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 12, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Oh come on "chicat", we both know you think Hillary is an innocent angel
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2016, 09:14:37 AM
A decade ago I rolled my eyes at the Clintons and had things stayed the same I'd vote for her, but not now.  It's diabolical to think the Clinton's managed to up their corruption and her love of war by a 1000 fold, but I'll be eff'd they didn't get it accomplished.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 12, 2016, 09:15:38 AM
I mean, Dax aside, I think most ppl view this as a lesser of two stupids rather than evils.  It's a crap position.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2016, 09:45:30 AM
I'm not voting for either one and it's pure idiocy to think she's the lessor in terms of evil.   She's a horrible human being and the world is far worse off because she's a horrible human being.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 12, 2016, 09:46:43 AM
Dax is very confident that trump alone can fix this mess of a country
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2016, 10:12:07 AM
I'm confident that Johnson would be a move in a positive direction.  Lib on the other hand will make and is a great Hilbot.

#hilbotsbooputin
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on August 12, 2016, 10:21:39 AM
Guys, it's totally ok to not want trump and to think that Hillary compromised our country's security and secrets and shouldn't have the oppy to put the country in further harms way by electing her president. 

It's not offering a solution, but recognizing two problems.

^This. Those who are defending Hillary as if she is a perfect little angel need to pull their heads out of the sand or their a**es.

Sheesh, this rough ridin' guy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 12, 2016, 10:29:15 AM
I'm confident that Johnson would be a move in a positive direction.  Lib on the other hand will make and is a great Hilbot.

#hilbotsbooputin

I prefer some of johnson's positions, like the fact that he hasn't mumped up our security yet, and doesn't seem to be pure id like trump.  That said, he seems like a pretty big weirdo on the few interviews I have seen/heard.

For instance, he wants to hold Open Door Friday where anyone can come up to the oval office, stand in line, and complain to him about a problem.  I love the idea, but you have to be a rough ridin' idiot to think that works in a nation of 340+million ppl with the security obsession we have and the fact that a good 20% or so are absolute moron dumbasses.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 12, 2016, 11:34:38 AM
I'm confident that Johnson would be a move in a positive direction.  Lib on the other hand will make and is a great Hilbot.

#hilbotsbooputin

I prefer some of johnson's positions, like the fact that he hasn't mumped up our security yet, and doesn't seem to be pure id like trump.  That said, he seems like a pretty big weirdo on the few interviews I have seen/heard.

For instance, he wants to hold Open Door Friday where anyone can come up to the oval office, stand in line, and complain to him about a problem.  I love the idea, but you have to be a rough ridin' idiot to think that works in a nation of 340+million ppl with the security obsession we have and the fact that a good 20% or so are absolute moron dumbasses.

He did this as governor, and it probably works very well in a state or local office. I'm not sure the president needs to be bothered with the same level of minutia that those offices might deal with though.

Still, not a check against him for wanting to do that, imo.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 12, 2016, 11:37:53 AM
I'm confident that Johnson would be a move in a positive direction.  Lib on the other hand will make and is a great Hilbot.

#hilbotsbooputin

I prefer some of johnson's positions, like the fact that he hasn't mumped up our security yet, and doesn't seem to be pure id like trump.  That said, he seems like a pretty big weirdo on the few interviews I have seen/heard.

For instance, he wants to hold Open Door Friday where anyone can come up to the oval office, stand in line, and complain to him about a problem.  I love the idea, but you have to be a rough ridin' idiot to think that works in a nation of 340+million ppl with the security obsession we have and the fact that a good 20% or so are absolute moron dumbasses.

He did this as governor, and it probably works very well in a state or local office. I'm not sure the president needs to be bothered with the same level of minutia that those offices might deal with though.

Still, not a check against him for wanting to do that, imo.

Agreed, but I am using that as an example that he maybe hasn't thought this all out well.  The interview I heard where he mentioned this, the interviewer brought up the difficulty in doing this as pres and he doubled down. 

I mean, he isn't asking why we can't just nuke ppl, so I am not dismissing him like Trump, but it tells me he doesn't understand everything well.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on August 12, 2016, 11:45:30 AM
yes, gary johnson is super small-time. running a state with ~ 2 million people is not even remotely close.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on August 12, 2016, 11:48:00 AM
also, hillary twisting the knife in trump by releasing her 2015 tax return. donald will never release because he doesn't want everyone to know that 1) he's only worth around ~250 million and 2) that he doesn't give to charity nearly to extent that he brags he does.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 12, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
whoa, you love all that stuff SB?  :frown:

I am a total DemoLemming, so yes. Sucks, huh? :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 12, 2016, 12:20:25 PM
 :curse: :curse:

https://twitter.com/realkingrobbo/status/762775921111826432
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 12, 2016, 12:26:17 PM
:curse: :curse:

https://twitter.com/realkingrobbo/status/762775921111826432

Assuming this is true, it should alone sufficient to obtain every non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) gainfully employed person's vote. So, like 15% of the voters.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 12, 2016, 12:27:11 PM
Guys, it's totally ok to not want trump and to think that Hillary compromised our country's security and secrets and shouldn't have the oppy to put the country in further harms way by electing her president. 

It's not offering a solution, but recognizing two problems.

^This. Those who are defending Hillary as if she is a perfect little angel need to pull their heads out of the sand or their a**es.
Who is doing that?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 12, 2016, 12:43:44 PM
Trump trying to buy votes with promises of free stuff, smdh
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 12, 2016, 02:16:07 PM
Re: DNC email hack by russia(supposedly):

Quote
On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the scope of the attack was wider than believed, with the perpetrators having gained access to the private email accounts of as many as 100 Democratic Party officials and groups, including officials in the Hillary Clinton campaign. Reuters reported that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fundraising arm for House Democrats, was also successfully targeted.

Quote
Yahoo also reported at the time that two sources said that the hack included potentially embarrassing personal information about major donors to the Democratic Party, including “vetting” evaluations of those contributors.
   :impatient:


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 12, 2016, 03:12:19 PM
HILLARY AND BILL.  THEIR FOUNDATION IS BEING INVESTIGATED.  The FBI and the US Attorney office in New York City are investigating the foundation crooked business practices and not money laundering for the Clinton. The US attorney that's going the investigation is one of the meanest roughest SOBs ever. Why would you vote for crooked Hillary. I would vote for a dead possum before I would vote for her.  Source is MSN news.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 12, 2016, 03:16:30 PM
Donald Trump (aka agent 003dChess), bumbling incompetent presidential candidate by day, sophisticated soviet internet spy by night.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 12, 2016, 03:19:30 PM
yes, gary johnson is super small-time. running a state with ~ 2 million people is not even remotely close.

So, Arkansas then.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 12, 2016, 03:23:19 PM
yes, gary johnson is super small-time. running a state with ~ 2 million people is not even remotely close.

So, Arkansas then.

 :horrorsurprise:

OH SNAP!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on August 12, 2016, 04:04:41 PM
Bill Clinton is not of this planet
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 07:36:50 AM
Get out the illegal vote! 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 15, 2016, 08:07:20 AM
Get out the illegal vote!

I heard about this. Mrs. Yard Dog and I were driving to have some beers at a local brewery when NPR was rattling off some news story, "...are in a hurry to try and get citizenship so they can vote democrat. . ." to which we flipped to tunes because we didn't need that bs dragging our day down.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 15, 2016, 08:15:10 AM
Get out the illegal vote!

I heard about this. Mrs. Yard Dog and I were driving to have some beers at a local brewery when NPR was rattling off some news story, "...are in a hurry to try and get citizenship so they can vote democrat. . ." to which we flipped to tunes because we didn't need that bs dragging our day down.

that would be getting out the legal vote brainiac
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on August 15, 2016, 08:16:27 AM
Crooked Hillary is going to have illegal immigrants voting this year. The election is going to be rigged, I'm afraid. Rapists who have come across the border illegally will be voting for President. Believe me. Unless maybe 2nd Amendment people can do something about it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 15, 2016, 10:48:17 AM
Anybody who thinks someone can "Hurry up and get citizenship" doesn't know anybody who has been through immigration
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on August 15, 2016, 11:00:04 AM
^ yep
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 01:34:29 PM
As the story unfolds we now know Huma may go down as one of the all time greats in terms of both understood and clear cut conflict(s) of interest and total corruption.  All under the oversight and knowledge of Hillary. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 15, 2016, 01:55:59 PM
Man. What must it be like to spend a day in the life of dax?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on August 15, 2016, 02:05:25 PM
Man. What must it be like to spend a day in the life of dax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3TeTxgNVo
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 02:16:52 PM
Why do Hillbots get mad about things that are being reported in the MSM?

Weird, but I guess that's just the internal conflict(s) of supporting such immense corruption lashing out.


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 04:24:00 PM
Kaine already taking marching orders from Soros family.

Business as usual.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 07:41:56 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp7wvxqVMAEeSYR.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 07:46:25 PM
Trump wants guests of the country who preach hate (i.e. anti-gay, repression of women, repression of other races and religions) to be removed from the country.

His opponent:  Huge fan and supporter (and politically indebted to)  the most anti-gay misogynistic regimes and individuals in the world. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Asteriskhead on August 15, 2016, 07:57:25 PM
Do another one, dax. I'm bored.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 15, 2016, 07:58:05 PM
Dax is not a fan of the first amendment

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 15, 2016, 08:01:54 PM
Trump will create that safe space for you Dax, don't worry. We can't have you getting triggered from seeing/hearing brown people
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 08:05:08 PM
lib has reading comprehension issues

lib really loves a person who takes millions from the most repressive regimes in the world.   

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2016, 08:06:18 PM
I'm lib7 and I support non-citizen racists and misogynists!!

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 09:03:56 AM
Soros emails translated:  Continue perpetual war, so that there's a perpetual refugee crisis.

What humanitarians. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 16, 2016, 09:05:43 AM
Dax, even you have to admit that most ppl that have money enough to influence war and whatnot want to continue what we have been doing, right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 16, 2016, 09:12:17 AM
I would think they'd want to continue unless they discover an easier way to make money.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 16, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I would think they'd want to continue unless they discover an easier way to make money.

The only easier way would be if they could print it. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 16, 2016, 09:38:57 AM
good lord, you idiots.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 10:49:11 AM
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 16, 2016, 10:53:38 AM
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.

You might be the least self-aware person on the planet  :lol:
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 10:56:03 AM
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.

You might be the least self-aware person on the planet  :lol:

Your shtick is rather old and tired and when are you going to "get it".

Put down the bong!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 16, 2016, 10:56:54 AM
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.

i don't like to put a lot of effort into a post that may or may not get any response.  if someone engages me, i'll usually put in a little effort, but not for an observation just cast into the waters.

at any rate, my comment wasn't directed at you, if you care.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 10:57:51 AM
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.

i don't like to put a lot of effort into a post that may or may not get any response.  if someone engages me, i'll usually put in a little effort, but not for an observation just cast into the waters.

at any rate, my comment wasn't directed at you, if you care.

I know. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 16, 2016, 11:01:39 AM
good lord, you idiots.

I admittedly can be an idiot at times.  I know you have posted two articles on money and it's actual vs perceived effects.  This must be a good example of when I am indeed an idiot because I can't help to wonder why very rich ppl continue to throw money away if it doesn't buy them things such as no bid contracts(haliburton), some sort of favorable benefit as pork in legislation, or possibly a slight policy advantage that benefits their business, etc. 

I mean, if you are a billionaire, you didn't get there by throwing money away for nothing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 16, 2016, 11:02:35 AM
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.

You might be the least self-aware person on the planet  :lol:

Your shtick is rather old and tired and when are you going to "get it".

Put down the bong!

You might be the least self-aware person on the planet  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 16, 2016, 11:03:10 AM
Soros' control (as evidenced by emails) seems to be on par with what the whack-a-doodles claim (unsubstantiated by emails) the Koch Bros. control over the RNC is. Yet, in a completely unsurprising and predictable display of egregious hypocrisy, they maintain Soros' control is no biggie.  :flush:
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 11:03:33 AM
#facepalm

Such flailing, so sad.

Poor lib does try hard, tho

#tennismatchclap
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 11:05:24 AM
Soros' control (as evidenced by emails) seems to be on par with what the whack-a-doodles claim (unsubstantiated by emails) the Koch Bros. control over the RNC is. Yet, in a completely unsurprising and predictable display of egregious hypocrisy, they maintain Soros' control is no biggie.  :flush:

Soro's is an austerity/death ghoul posing as a humanitarian.  A special kind of despicable person who supports despicable people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 16, 2016, 11:05:58 AM
good lord, you idiots.

I admittedly can be an idiot at times.  I know you have posted two articles on money and it's actual vs perceived effects.  This must be a good example of when I am indeed an idiot because I can't help to wonder why very rich ppl continue to throw money away if it doesn't buy them things such as no bid contracts(haliburton), some sort of favorable benefit as pork in legislation, or possibly a slight policy advantage that benefits their business, etc. 

I mean, if you are a billionaire, you didn't get there by throwing money away for nothing.

This one is a couple of years old. Maybe things have drastically changed since.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 16, 2016, 11:22:55 AM
I can't help to wonder why very rich ppl continue to throw money away if it doesn't buy them things.

when a billionaire buys a ferrari, do you have the expectation that the billionaire will make money on the purchase?  what is the point of accumulating money if you do not spend it on things that matter to you?


a ferrari may be a bad example, actually.  sub in almost any other luxury purchase.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 16, 2016, 11:28:11 AM
This one is a couple of years old. Maybe things have drastically changed since.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections/

that's not a study, it's a (really rough) correlation.  incumbents tend to win.  incumbents tend to have more money.  what causes what?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 16, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
I can't help to wonder why very rich ppl continue to throw money away if it doesn't buy them things.

when a billionaire buys a ferrari, do you have the expectation that the billionaire will make money on the purchase?  what is the point of accumulating money if you do not spend it on things that matter to you?


a ferrari may be a bad example, actually.  sub in almost any other luxury purchase.

Any substituted luxury purchase nabs that billionaire a luxury item.  Even high money gambling has a possible reward.  I can't think of one where it results in the person getting absolutely nothing in return.  Even charitable donations give them prominence/reputation.  It just doesn't pass the logic test, imo.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 16, 2016, 11:51:16 AM
This one is a couple of years old. Maybe things have drastically changed since.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections/

that's not a study, it's a (really rough) correlation.  incumbents tend to win.  incumbents tend to have more money.  what causes what?

Why do incumbents have more money?  More time fundraising over the past term?  I haven't looked but I would bet there are a large amt of examples where they earn more money over the exact same time period as challengers.  Ppl betting on the person already in the job, knowing the percentages.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 16, 2016, 11:56:27 AM
Any substituted luxury purchase nabs that billionaire a luxury item.  Even high money gambling has a possible reward.  I can't think of one where it results in the person getting absolutely nothing in return.  Even charitable donations give them prominence/reputation.  It just doesn't pass the logic test, imo.

it doesn't buy them nothing.  it buys them the possibility of influencing policy (and certainly, being a high profile political donor confers more prominence/reputation than being a high profile philanthropist).

it is not that they expect no return, it is that they (the big donors, certainly there are smaller donors, especially at state and local levels that are basically transactional) expect a non-monetary return.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 16, 2016, 11:58:31 AM
More time fundraising over the past term?
Ppl betting on the person already in the job, knowing the percentages.

yes and yes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 16, 2016, 12:04:02 PM
Any substituted luxury purchase nabs that billionaire a luxury item.  Even high money gambling has a possible reward.  I can't think of one where it results in the person getting absolutely nothing in return.  Even charitable donations give them prominence/reputation.  It just doesn't pass the logic test, imo.

it doesn't buy them nothing.  it buys them the possibility of influencing policy (and certainly, being a high profile political donor confers more prominence/reputation than being a high profile philanthropist).

it is not that they expect no return, it is that they (the big donors, certainly there are smaller donors, especially at state and local levels that are basically transactional) expect a non-monetary return.

We may be discussing two different things.  It seems you are agreeing with me. 

I think you are addressing, specifically, the impact money has on getting someone the office, not the effect it has on them once in office.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 16, 2016, 12:13:53 PM
my understanding of what you think is that these mega donors like adelson, the kochs, soros, etc., are donating because they expect/hope to influence policy to ultimately reap some monetary benefit.  i am arguing that they expect/hope to influence policy because they wish to change policy for ideological reasons, with little to no consideration of any monetary benefit.


as a separate argument, i think it is fairly clear that frequently they have been able to achieve very little with their donations.  but that is at least partially because the politicians/donors spend their money poorly.  if you look at the kochs, for example, they seem to be directing their recent money more effectively (local/state elections, provision of legislative templates, etc).  some of that may just be steering clear of trump, but not entirely.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 01:11:53 PM
Start a new thread.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2016, 04:17:16 PM
Central Banks exiting US debt at record pace.  National debt up 118% under Obama.

This is fine, just numbers, stay the course.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 17, 2016, 01:17:55 AM
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.

i don't like to put a lot of effort into a post that may or may not get any response.  if someone engages me, i'll usually put in a little effort, but not for an observation just cast into the waters.

at any rate, my comment wasn't directed at you, if you care.
And sys skyrockets up my charts
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 17, 2016, 06:37:27 AM
President Clinton.  Trump just fired all of his advisors. Very bad.  Kissing my butt good bye.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 17, 2016, 06:44:38 AM
eff yeah!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2016, 07:02:33 AM
Poor Hil having to cling to every railing and table at Biden's house yesterday just to hold herself up.  Stumbled (again) while walking.   

The weight of the corruption??
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 17, 2016, 07:04:55 AM
FDR?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 17, 2016, 07:07:05 AM
man, biden was amaze yesterday  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 17, 2016, 08:22:53 AM
Poor Hil having to cling to every railing and table at Biden's house yesterday just to hold herself up.  Stumbled (again) while walking.   

The weight of the corruption??

Maybe she'll die shortly after winning and we can get President oscar Weber instead.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on August 17, 2016, 10:10:16 AM
Maybe she'll die shortly after winning and we can get President oscar Weber instead.

 :love:
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2016, 10:19:47 AM
Hillary's chief aides hate Israel, no wonder Hillary hasn't met a Muslim theocrat she didn't love or take money from.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2016, 10:24:29 AM
Hey imagine that, illegal picked to run get out the vote by Clinton campaign has direct ties to Soro's
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on August 17, 2016, 10:27:04 AM
Hey imagine that, illegal picked to run get out the vote by Clinton campaign has direct ties to Soro's
this was a confusing post to read
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2016, 10:28:59 AM
Hey imagine that, illegal picked to run get out the vote by Clinton campaign has direct ties to Soro's
this was a confusing post to read

Just think Hillary ='s Corruption and beholden to humanitarian posers who in reality are draconian monetary and financial collapse ghouls.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on August 17, 2016, 10:34:51 AM
Noted.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2016, 06:17:34 AM
You guys Hillary is gonna be so tough on those darn Russians.    Here's a refresher:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2016, 06:22:32 AM
Dadgum Russians!
http://reut.rs/2bfOKfe
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 18, 2016, 05:48:17 PM
Lol at Democrats even bother lying to us about things like Iran ransom deals, health care premiums going down, or Benghazi video protests.  'Pubs don't ever buy their stories and there would be no political consequence for telling us the ugly truth in the first place.   :lol: pathological I guess.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 18, 2016, 06:25:04 PM
I'm seriously not voting, all these people are dirtbags
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2016, 07:43:23 PM
Hillary  :love:  Muslim Brotherhood
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 18, 2016, 07:47:14 PM
We permanately deleted 33000 emails by mistake, hur hur hur
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 18, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
We permanately deleted 33000 emails by mistake, hur hur hur
Our foundation is not for profit.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 19, 2016, 06:49:11 AM
When was Hillary's last.press conference?  Why can't she dialogue with America about issues through the press who love her and ask good substantive questions?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 19, 2016, 07:29:23 AM
Hillary only "dialogues" with her campaign asking canned questions.  It's softball city.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 19, 2016, 09:19:08 AM
Hillary only "dialogues" with her campaign asking canned questions.  It's softball city.
Dax as a wise and enlightened goEMAW master can you explain why it is okay now for the Bill & Hill Foundation to accept money while she is running for President, but it will not be acceptable after she becomes President?   Can't some foreigner buy influence now with a delivery date afer the inauguration?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 20, 2016, 02:48:27 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/more-than-half-of-clinton-foundations-major-donors-would-be-barred-under-new-rule/2016/08/19/f2d21776-6631-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_clintonfoundation-820pm:homepage/story

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 20, 2016, 02:51:10 PM
LA Times gets out the Nerf hammer, with this hard hitting piece. 
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-foreign-policy-20160816-snap-story.html


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 21, 2016, 01:07:59 PM
Radical Islam surrounds Hillary.

http://nyp.st/2bmKxHD

Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 21, 2016, 01:11:49 PM
Jetting in to dine and party with the Rothschild's last night.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on August 21, 2016, 07:30:18 PM
Always a good look to be the only person posting in a thread.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 21, 2016, 08:16:12 PM
Always a good look to be the only person posting in a thread.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 22, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
Liar or dementia. Hillary is playing for the last couple of days that Colin Powell told her to use a private server. He is being reported as telling her to do this after she had been using a private server for one year. General Powell is an honest man. Hillary is either lying or worse can't remember things rightly due to brain failure.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
It's just never their fault.

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 22, 2016, 09:46:05 AM
To be fair, when all this started, I did read an article where Powell basically said that everyone used to do it, including him.  So, I don't think it is too much of a leap to think that an old SOS recommend that to a new SOS. 

I mean, eff them both, but it seems like it could be real.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2016, 10:03:27 AM
Of course it's real.  But she sent both classified and unclassified emails on a private totally unsecured platform
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 11:38:46 AM
And that appears to be a common practice.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 22, 2016, 11:42:55 AM
And that appears to be a common practice.

Colin Powell had a separate email for private emails and classified emails and didn't house his own server. It's quite a bit different than what Hillary was doing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 11:48:12 AM
And that appears to be a common practice.

Colin Powell had a separate email for private emails and classified emails and didn't house his own server. It's quite a bit different than what Hillary was doing.
Ok. I didn't know that. In no way am I attempting to absolve Clinton of anything. I would just be less enraged if it has been the practice of SOS for a while.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 22, 2016, 11:49:30 AM
So whatever conservative group deposed Clinton and her lawyer agreed that she would answer questions in writing.  I don't understand what is going on.  Random groups can just depose people?  Isn't that the job of prosecutors, district attorneys or whoever else?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 22, 2016, 11:50:49 AM
And that appears to be a common practice.

Colin Powell had a separate email for private emails and classified emails and didn't house his own server. It's quite a bit different than what Hillary was doing.
Ok. I didn't know that. In no way am I attempting to absolve Clinton of anything. I would just be less enraged if it has been the practice of SOS for a while.

"everyone's doing it" is not an acceptable defense to breaking the law. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 22, 2016, 11:51:47 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/09/fact-checking-the-hillary-clinton-email-controversy/

Pretty good breakdown of Clinton's lies about her email.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 11:57:02 AM
And that appears to be a common practice.

Colin Powell had a separate email for private emails and classified emails and didn't house his own server. It's quite a bit different than what Hillary was doing.
Ok. I didn't know that. In no way am I attempting to absolve Clinton of anything. I would just be less enraged if it has been the practice of SOS for a while.

"everyone's doing it" is not an acceptable defense to breaking the law.
I agree. But if it had been going for decades (apparently it hasn't), I'd be wanting the heads of the other SOS as well and my anger would be more spread out and less focused on Clinton
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 22, 2016, 11:59:42 AM
SDK, to be fair, you said earlier this year you want Hillary, because she's a chick and it would be making history. Forgive me for not taking your hot political takes seriously.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 22, 2016, 12:00:40 PM
It's easy to forget that the internet is a relatively new thing and standards for net security have changed a lot over the years. There really aren't many other secretaries of state that used email as a major form of communication. Powell might be the only fair comparison.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 12:01:25 PM
SDK, to be fair, you said earlier this year you want Hillary, because she's a chick and it would be making history. Forgive me for not taking your hot political takes seriously.
I've also said I hate them both. I know it will be one or the other. Both suck ass. But if they were equals, I don't think they are, I'd vote Hillary for those reasons. I wish neither one of them were on the ballot. But it is what it is and I vote.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 12:02:52 PM
Also, I forgive you. We are diametrically opposed on a lot of things. I wouldn't know who you were if you gave credence to my posts.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on August 22, 2016, 12:03:07 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/09/fact-checking-the-hillary-clinton-email-controversy/

Pretty good breakdown of Clinton's lies about her email.

I read. Made an honest attempt to give a crap, but failed.  :zzz:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 12:03:46 PM
Wacky, did you see my sweet latitude burn?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 22, 2016, 12:05:11 PM
It's easy to forget that the internet is a relatively new thing and standards for net security have changed a lot over the years. There really aren't many other secretaries of state that used email as a major form of communication. Powell might be the only fair comparison.

Wouldn't be surprised if this is a reason Condi won't run.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 22, 2016, 12:11:08 PM
Wacky, did you see my sweet latitude burn?
I did. It still doesn't make sense to me. University of Miami is south of FIU.  :curse: I wasn't trying to be mean fwiw.  :cheers:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 12:27:33 PM
Wacky, did you see my sweet latitude burn?
I did. It still doesn't make sense to me. University of Miami is south of FIU.  :curse: I wasn't trying to be mean fwiw.  :cheers:
I know you weren't. Latitude is tricky. I always thought Maine was farther north than Montana. But nope.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 22, 2016, 12:44:50 PM
It's easy to forget that the internet is a relatively new thing and standards for net security have changed a lot over the years. There really aren't many other secretaries of state that used email as a major form of communication. Powell might be the only fair comparison.

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 22, 2016, 12:52:50 PM
The use of a seperate email account and server for state business is egregious in its own right, notwithstanding that it was used to transmit confidential information in violation of federal law.

Then, she proceeded to have roughly 2/3 of the emails on that server destroyed prior to turning it over to authorities, claiming they were personal in nature. Not only is that criminal, but we also know it is a lie.

How anyone could bring themself to vote for this person is mind boggling. Her actions and judgment in this single ordeal while SOS (disregarding the train wreck that was her tenure as SOS) render her patently unfit for the  office of president.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2016, 12:55:06 PM
Not that it can't be hacked, it can, but using an email service from a vendor of note is a lot more safe then having an email server tucked away in a toilet closet with no firewall and a domain hosted in New Zealand.

Ignore SDK, the IT illiterate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
200 plus days since Hillary was directly Q&A'd by any reporter(s).

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on August 22, 2016, 01:07:13 PM
Not that it can't be hacked, it can, but using an email service from a vendor of note is a lot more safe then having an email server tucked away in a toilet closet with no firewall and a domain hosted in New Zealand.

Ignore SDK, the IT illiterate.
Oh dax, you are right.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 22, 2016, 01:47:59 PM
Wacky, did you see my sweet latitude burn?
I did. It still doesn't make sense to me. University of Miami is south of FIU.  :curse: I wasn't trying to be mean fwiw.  :cheers:
I know you weren't. Latitude is tricky. I always thought Maine was farther north than Montana. But nope.

Yeah, maps are weird. The ones we are used to seeing distort reality.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on August 22, 2016, 02:29:15 PM
You're still talking about the emails, huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Spracne on August 22, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
So whatever conservative group deposed Clinton and her lawyer agreed that she would answer questions in writing.  I don't understand what is going on.  Random groups can just depose people?  Isn't that the job of prosecutors, district attorneys or whoever else?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but in the case of a civil lawsuit, either party may seek to depose anyone with personal knowledge of the controversy. Depositions are just part of the discovery phase in civil and criminal proceedings.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 22, 2016, 03:11:34 PM
So whatever conservative group deposed Clinton and her lawyer agreed that she would answer questions in writing.  I don't understand what is going on.  Random groups can just depose people?  Isn't that the job of prosecutors, district attorneys or whoever else?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but in the case of a civil lawsuit, either party may seek to depose anyone with personal knowledge of the controversy. Depositions are just part of the discovery phase in civil and criminal proceedings.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/judge-denies-request-to-depose-clinton/

This is what I am talking about.  What proceeding are these people trying to depose her for?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Spracne on August 22, 2016, 03:19:56 PM
So whatever conservative group deposed Clinton and her lawyer agreed that she would answer questions in writing.  I don't understand what is going on.  Random groups can just depose people?  Isn't that the job of prosecutors, district attorneys or whoever else?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but in the case of a civil lawsuit, either party may seek to depose anyone with personal knowledge of the controversy. Depositions are just part of the discovery phase in civil and criminal proceedings.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/judge-denies-request-to-depose-clinton/

This is what I am talking about.  What proceeding are these people trying to depose her for?

Sounds like it's a FOIA lawsuit, presumably against the State Department.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 22, 2016, 03:45:40 PM
She is a liar or truly forgets things do to dementia.  These accounts today of Huma giving special preferential access SOS Hillary for big donors to the Clinton Foundation is damning.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on August 22, 2016, 07:23:09 PM
Spracs is really blossoming into a great internet lawyer :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Spracne on August 22, 2016, 08:14:21 PM
Not too shabby offline, either. Have you even seen my GPA, bro?   :driving:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on August 22, 2016, 09:10:13 PM
is it even better than those pre-mcats scores  :Wha:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 22, 2016, 09:49:09 PM
 :ohno:

https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/767867716157964288
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 22, 2016, 10:04:19 PM
That old lady was an emailing coot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on August 22, 2016, 10:31:18 PM
:ohno:

https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/767867716157964288

So instead of using this as boner pills for a Hillary shaped penis, I choose to be depressed that this is the person who is going to run our country, it's depressing as eff.

Certainly we have a presidential historian on this blog, have we ever had such a flawed candidate seemingly such a lock to become president?

eff it all :flush:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on August 22, 2016, 10:34:15 PM
Wacky, did Fox news hack cbs news' twitter account?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2016, 06:49:23 AM
Speaking of FOIA, the Obama administration will go down in history as the least transparent administration in history.   Fighting FOIA requests on unparalleled levels, and smashing whistle blowers with extreme prejudice.   On the latter it's almost Stalinesque.

 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on August 23, 2016, 08:37:45 AM
Dax is the textbook definition of a dittohead. Has the guy ever had an original thought, something not out of the Rush/Breitbart playbook? Brainless drone being used to make fat rich people fatter and richer.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2016, 09:55:22 AM
Dax is the textbook definition of a dittohead. Has the guy ever had an original thought, something not out of the Rush/Breitbart playbook? Brainless drone being used to make fat rich people fatter and richer.

Yes, calling for immediate cessation of the attempts to overthrow regimes, peace talks to end the conflict in Syria, draw down of US military installations world wide, a true reset with Russia, a massive national infrastructure building program and too many other things to mention of that ilk are absolutely straight out of the hardcore conservative agenda.

LOL x a bajillion

Even hardcore lib outlets are at odds with the current administration over transparency and their attacks on whistle blowers you idiot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on August 23, 2016, 12:58:50 PM
This is EXACTLY what I expected for her (Brooklyn) HQ.

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619355.1469741706!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/landscape_1280/image.JPG)

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619379.1469741995!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_1004/image.JPG)

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619349.1459788869!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_1004/image.JPG)

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619366.1459789808!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_1004/image.JPG)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 23, 2016, 01:04:30 PM
Yup, pretty much spot on
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 23, 2016, 01:13:08 PM
that place has the 5 hour workday vibe the lazy millennials crave
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 23, 2016, 01:15:29 PM
Probably toking dope in the back. Jars of edible weed gummies EVERY-WHERE!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 23, 2016, 01:16:51 PM
Probably smells like one of those hippy stores on Mass St.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 23, 2016, 01:37:49 PM
I'd like to go hang out at a Hillary election HQ for a day. I wouldn't want to do any work or anything. Just hang out.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2016, 02:18:17 PM
Hookah Bar
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 23, 2016, 02:54:36 PM
Neck beards
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on August 23, 2016, 03:00:42 PM
Not enough sleep pods
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
Damn ditto heads at AP say half of Hillary visitors at state gave money to CF. 

#dittoheads :curse
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 23, 2016, 08:04:44 PM
This is EXACTLY what I expected for her (Brooklyn) HQ.

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619355.1469741706!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/landscape_1280/image.JPG)

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619379.1469741995!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_1004/image.JPG)

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619349.1459788869!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_1004/image.JPG)

(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619366.1459789808!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_1004/image.JPG)

Lots of ugly poorly dressed people? The future of "bag ladies" never looked so bright.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on August 23, 2016, 08:25:04 PM
Dax is the textbook definition of a dittohead. Has the guy ever had an original thought, something not out of the Rush/Breitbart playbook? Brainless drone being used to make fat rich people fatter and richer.

Yes, calling for immediate cessation of the attempts to overthrow regimes, peace talks to end the conflict in Syria, draw down of US military installations world wide, a true reset with Russia, a massive national infrastructure building program and too many other things to mention of that ilk are absolutely straight out of the hardcore conservative agenda.

LOL x a bajillion

Even hardcore lib outlets are at odds with the current administration over transparency and their attacks on whistle blowers you idiot.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 24, 2016, 01:01:04 AM
Condi Rice was at the party where supposedly Powell told Hillary to use private email.  Condi said Colon said no such thing.  Liar or dementia?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2016, 05:47:04 AM
For the incredibly stupid resident ProgLibs:

Quote
ACLU legislative counsel Gabe Rottman noted last October:

The Obama administration has secured 526 months of prison time for national security leakers, versus only 24 months total jail time for everyone else since the American Revolution.

(So – as of October – Obama had thrown whistleblowers in jail for 22 times longer than all other presidents.)

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/obama-has-sentenced-whistleblowers-to-31-times-the-jail-time-of-all-prior-u-s-presidents-combined.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests/

What's it like to be so indoctrinated bucket, mir et. al?

Good little goose steppers for the regime.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2016, 06:17:02 AM
(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.11619349.1459788869!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_1004/image.JPG)

That poster, I've seen it before.  This is the best pic I could find, those 70's Chinese cameras just didn't have the best resolution, so look close.   Credit to the HilForPrison2016 for really going vintage with this throwback:

(https://s12.postimg.io/t5iwwozpp/Mao_Hillary.jpg)

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on August 24, 2016, 08:29:43 AM
I was thinking that poster probably didn't send the right message
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 24, 2016, 05:34:38 PM
that place has the 5 hour workday vibe the lazy millennials crave

I bet they have great happy hours and some of them hook up after
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on August 24, 2016, 06:09:02 PM
DURING
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on August 24, 2016, 07:34:22 PM
Brooklyn huh? Yay gentrification!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 24, 2016, 08:00:13 PM
Brooklyn huh? Yay gentrification!

brooklyn heights looks to have gentrified in the 60's
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2016, 09:24:05 PM
Look at the Hillary campaign, pushing out all the poor people so a bunch of 4 hour a day hipsters can come surf the Net and act like they're working.

  SMDH, sad

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 25, 2016, 10:04:44 AM
If Julian Assange is murdered prior to releasing his election "game changer" ..........
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on August 25, 2016, 10:06:17 AM
If Julian Assange is murdered prior to releasing his election "game changer" ..........

There were rumors this week that some guy was caught trying to break into the embassy he is staying at and JA was saying it was a failed assassination attempt.  I haven't seen that on any reputable news sites, though, so it's probably betacrat bullshit.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 25, 2016, 03:08:13 PM
Just read a transcrpt of MG's Trump is a Scum Racist Klan Loving speech.  She.said in 3 sentences that everything is great in black and hispanic communities.  She said she can fix the few problems.  She likes horsecrap.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 25, 2016, 03:09:11 PM
Accepter of millions from horrible racists, talks racism? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on August 25, 2016, 03:49:23 PM
I just read. She picked up the newly crafted "softer" Trump, threw him on the ground, broke him into tiny pieces, and lit him on fire. A week's worth of work on his image is just gone.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 25, 2016, 04:34:06 PM
Accepter of millions from horrible racists, talks racism?

Her constituency is so rough ridin' stupid and/or blindly ignorant they can't even process what's in front of them. It's like watching a drunk chase a baloon near the edge of a cliff.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 25, 2016, 04:59:29 PM
Accepter of millions from horrible racists, talks racism?

Her constituency is so rough ridin' stupid and/or blindly ignorant they can't even process what's in front of them. It's like watching a drunk chase a baloon near the edge of a cliff.


But Trump hur hur hur
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 25, 2016, 05:12:32 PM
Is she equal to the.scum that will vote for her?  She insinuated if you vote for or support Trump you are every vile thing she called him.  She did not call him a money grubbing law breaker that sold out her.country for power and fortune though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 25, 2016, 05:20:16 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/768926854170411010
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 25, 2016, 07:21:06 PM
Breaking.  Daily Caller is saying deleted emails in the last release contains emails about Benghazi.  So much for deletion of just personal emails.  We found the FIRE.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 25, 2016, 07:44:27 PM
Hil unhinged today, now the vast Alt Right Conspiracy!

:curse
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 25, 2016, 07:55:12 PM
Breaking.  Daily Caller is saying deleted emails in the last release contains emails about Benghazi.  So much for deletion of just personal emails.  We found the FIRE.

Was she ever under oath testifying in that long hearing that these emails they just found either weren't about ghazi or did not exist?

In other words did she perjure herself?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 26, 2016, 12:04:20 PM
Nationalist Conservative Fringe!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 26, 2016, 10:23:03 PM
Nuclear Weapons?  The current administration has financed the most expensive refurbishment in US history.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on August 26, 2016, 11:44:05 PM
Why in the hell is the State Department protecting the old mean cow?  They aren't going to release the records of her schedules until after the election.  Why?  They have them.  Barains Otransparent really has an open and above board administration, just like he promised.  Arrogant bunch of smug bastards.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2016, 10:06:12 AM
$200K plus in contributions from KKK members and an endorsement from the KKK California Grand Cleagle.  They know the real Hillary.

Anti Gay Sharia law loving dad at rallies.


SMDH
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 27, 2016, 10:43:09 AM
you guys make a very, very strong case that hillary is in fact a moderate republican disguised as a democrat
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2016, 11:02:00 AM
you guys make a very, very strong case that hillary is in fact a moderate republican disguised as a democrat

No other party has defined an origination in abject racism subsequently melding into stealth racism and pandering for minority votes (only to disappear after election day) like the (D) party. 

SMDH
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 27, 2016, 11:09:35 AM
Wackycat08 needs to lend you a few commas
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2016, 11:10:37 AM
It appears that the so called "Alt Right" has found a friend in Hillary.

Sad

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 27, 2016, 12:24:27 PM
only the 1-2% of blacks who support trump are smart enough to figure out that the dems are using them.

^this is what everyone understands from you when you declare hillary a racist.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on August 27, 2016, 12:44:01 PM
Don't be fooled by his tactics! Dax is covert alt-right!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
only the 1-2% of blacks who support trump are smart enough to figure out that the dems are using them.

^this is what everyone understands from you when you declare hillary a racist.

SMDH Bubbles is such a huge Hillbit, unable to reconcile himself to the uber racism and corruption of Hillary who has sold out to the biggest racists and misogynists on the planet.  Hillary "we will bring them to heel" Clinton is nothing more then pandering Whitey. 

Political indoctrination is not always thwarted by intelligence.  But it's good to see bubbles exposed. 

Still SMDH.   Sad 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 27, 2016, 02:52:32 PM
idk how to respond so that you'll continue saying crazy things  :confused:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 27, 2016, 03:21:21 PM
Wait, there are people who deny hillary is a racist???  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2016, 04:38:02 PM
Millions in donations from men who believe women are property, gay people should be stoned to death, and that non believers should be killed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 27, 2016, 04:48:15 PM
look at the republicans screaming racism for entirely self-serving reasons. look at these rough ridin' out of touch losers.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2016, 05:05:57 PM
There is no greater out of touch losers then Hilbots who won't recognize that Hillary Clinton has immersed herself with the most disgusting racists, women subjugators and homophobes on the planet. Has done their bidding, owes them millions in political favors, and advances their cause(s).

SMDH all bubs is gonna do is try and point fingers and roll with dumbass talking points.

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 27, 2016, 05:14:53 PM
There is no greater out of touch losers then Hilbots who won't recognize that Hillary Clinton has immersed herself with the most disgusting racists, women subjugators and homophobes on the planet. Has done their bidding, owes them millions in political favors, and advances their cause(s).

SMDH all bubs is gonna do is try and point fingers and roll with dumbass talking points.

Sad

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2016, 05:42:00 PM
Shh, watching Hil's "black people time" skit. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on August 28, 2016, 02:57:41 AM
only the 1-2% of blacks who support trump are smart enough to figure out that the dems are using them.

^this is what everyone understands from you when you declare hillary a racist.

Weez a need a white man ta thank fo us cuz weez a not smart enuf to kno da white lady iz racis. Weez a stil gonna pic da white lady so weez can keep oz food stamps and govment cel fon.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 28, 2016, 05:54:45 PM
MIR,

Is that the Democrat mission statement?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 29, 2016, 04:47:42 PM
 :Yuck: :lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrCdZL3UsAEXXb0.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on August 29, 2016, 05:09:24 PM
Omg  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on August 30, 2016, 11:38:45 AM
Quote
Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.


http://conservativetribune.com/state-dept-inspector-general/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TeaParty&utm_content=2016-08-29&utm_campaign=manualpost
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 30, 2016, 11:42:44 AM
I love the conservative tribune
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 31, 2016, 11:19:11 PM
So is it true that Hillary hasn't had a press conference in a year because she may need to invoke the 5th Amendment later for questions the press is likely to ask?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 01, 2016, 05:38:05 PM
The latest on Slimery and the Slimettes.  Huma arranged diplomatic passpots for the head of the Charity for Clinton Foundation, an associate, and unnamed donor.  MG sent secret classified emails on her stealth server 4 months after leaving office.  Bill used his Presidential taxpayer expresident kitty fund to pay for installing the server and to pay big.salaries to top foundation staff.   Of course secret Hillary can't hold a press conference to explain any of this to us peons especially since she is.so busy shaking down rich donors who like her and.want no favors.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on September 01, 2016, 06:53:23 PM
So is it true that Hillary hasn't had a press conference in a year because she may need to invoke the 5th Amendment later for questions the press is likely to ask?
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 02, 2016, 08:55:26 AM
So is it true that Hillary hasn't had a press conference in a year because she may need to invoke the 5th Amendment later for questions the press is likely to ask?

A lot of people are saying it!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 02, 2016, 09:38:42 AM
So is it true that Hillary hasn't had a press conference in a year because she may need to invoke the 5th Amendment later for questions the press is likely to ask?

A lot of people are saying it!

I am haring that
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 02, 2016, 03:48:25 PM
So is it true that Hillary hasn't had a press conference in a year because she may need to invoke the 5th Amendment later for questions the press is likely to ask?

A lot of people are saying it!

Maybe it's just her poll numbers go down when she's questioned by reporters. Probably that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 02, 2016, 03:55:56 PM
She just doesn't have the guts to do stuff that will hurt her chances in the election!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 02, 2016, 04:33:23 PM
She just doesn't have the guts to do stuff that will hurt her chances in the election!

Yes, this.  :lol:  Not just "stuff", but actual talking and answering questions.  That's someone that I want to support! She'll make a fine leader.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 02, 2016, 08:06:27 PM
Hillary's new defense - I was off in head, can't remember a damn thing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 03, 2016, 10:59:10 PM
Supposedly a Clinton slave archivd her emails on a laptop.and.thumb drive and.mailed.them to the.Toilet.Tech Service.Company in Colorado.   Supposedly they were lost.in the.mail.  Off in the head, lost in the mail, I am tech.stupid, someone.else.did.it, Colin Powell made me.do it, Bill had a boner........... On and on.   Meanwhile she too important to have a press conference and give time.to the peons.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 06, 2016, 12:20:46 AM
The ol Rip got indignant today.   She went to the back of her plane and told her cadre of reporters that she is angry at the drooling right handed meat swingers who are attacking the good work of her Foundation does.  She got so mad she had a coughing fit.  Hillary, the work isn't being attacked.  Just the use of the Foundation to leverage pay for access.  They are saying those who got access were friends.   Friends with wallets.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 07, 2016, 09:08:50 AM
Hillary is being propped up by her own versions of Dr. Feelgood. 

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 07, 2016, 09:18:29 AM
Hillary, Kaine and Bill all over NC.  Most events are BIO. 

Sad they're so afraid of real questions.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 07, 2016, 09:42:09 AM
Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy: "trump should show his tax returns"  :zzz:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on September 07, 2016, 06:25:16 PM
Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy: "trump should show his tax returns"  :zzz:

I saw that Trump's comeback was "I'll show my tax returns when you show your emails." < #blessed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 07, 2016, 06:40:24 PM
 :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 02:18:22 AM
Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy: "trump should show his tax returns"  :zzz:

I saw that Trump's comeback was "I'll show my tax returns when you show your emails." < #blessed

Didn't the justice department read the emails?
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 08, 2016, 05:47:15 AM
Secure Fence Act of 2006 aka build a replica of most of the old border between East and Western Germany only this time between the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.  Replete with not one, but multiple installations of military grade Concertina Razor Wire. 

Sen. Hillary Clinton votes a resounding Yes, then hops on board the "Mexico is pushing people into the US on purpose" train.

She then backed off her vote saying the fence wasn't practical in some areas.  So instead of a fence in those areas she wanted more border patrol, more technology and drones.  But she wanted illegals caught and sent back none-the-less.

Pandering hypocrite and quite racist Hillary.  Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 11:27:26 AM
More on the Powell and Clinton email discussion:

 https://news.vice.com/article/colin-powell-told-hillary-clinton-how-he-got-around-email-rules?utm_source=vicenewsfb (https://news.vice.com/article/colin-powell-told-hillary-clinton-how-he-got-around-email-rules?utm_source=vicenewsfb)

It notes that right off the bat, Clinton got with Powell regarding how he handled email as SOS and he told her how he got around security rules. 

I mean, if you need intent, it seems that there it is...
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 12:11:43 PM
Can someone please show support of Hillary so Dax can stop having conversations with himself?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on September 08, 2016, 12:25:01 PM
Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy: "trump should show his tax returns"  :zzz:

I saw that Drumpf's comeback was "I'll show my tax returns when you show your emails." < #blessed

Didn't the justice department read the emails?

The FBI has since said that through other people's emails they have been able to deduce that the "personal emails" Clinton deleted not only included work related emails, but also ones considered classified. So the idea here is that she probably did this many times while deleting emails. Supposedly that Assange guy has all of them, but is waiting to release them since the current administration wouldn't jail Hillary even with the new info.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 12:27:29 PM
I def don't want Trump, getting that out of the way here, but I really hope that if there is anything hidden in the deleted emails, that Wikki Leaks blows her up.  We need an example of corruption with consequences or this thing is going to get even further off the rails than it already is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
Hopefully somebody hacks Trump's emails so we can just burn down this whole election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 08, 2016, 12:30:11 PM
I think trump doesn't use email
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 08, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
I think trump doesn't use email

I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 12:33:49 PM
Nope.  He uses Trump Mail and it's just fantastic.  It's a really really good system, and people seem to really like it.  It's where you tell your assistant to tell someone something and they get on their computer and do it.  Ppl seem to really like computers, and he feels great about that.  He thinks computers are fantastic and likes that ppl are really excited about them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 08, 2016, 12:39:16 PM
CNS obviously didn't read how cyber is a real problem
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 12:44:41 PM
You know, it wasn't a word not too long ago.  Now it's huge.  We are going to increase our spending and our cyber will be the best.  It will be amazing.  It will make your head spin.  People seem to really like it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 08, 2016, 01:20:20 PM
Lol at the resident Hilbots who are denying they're Hilbots
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 02:36:16 PM
Lol at the resident Hilbots who are denying they're Hilbots

Let's see some @'s dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 08, 2016, 02:37:29 PM
LOL at the resident alt-righters LOLing at the Hilbots.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 02:44:39 PM
LOL at the resident alt-righters LOLing at the Hilbots.

Let's see some @'s, chum
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 08, 2016, 02:50:08 PM
LOL at the resident alt-righters LOLing at the Hilbots.

Let's see some @'s, chum

@dax, conspiracy theory alt-right
@stunz, alpha male/anti-PC alt-right
@fsd, racist/sexist alt-right
@ksuw, uneducated alt-right
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 08, 2016, 02:58:38 PM
That's how it's done, nice job :excited:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: cfbandyman on September 08, 2016, 03:04:22 PM
I think trump doesn't use email

I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.

Pretty much, what else could he put in an email that he hasn't been on record saying, "sarcastically" or not, or tweeted. Email hacks would be like burning a house down in the middle of a forest fire.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 08, 2016, 03:13:42 PM
I think trump doesn't use email

I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.

Pretty much, what else could he put in an email that he hasn't been on record saying, "sarcastically" or not, or tweeted. Email hacks would be like burning a house down in the middle of a forest fire.

WikiLeaks guy has said exactly this.  He said they have email stuff on Don too, but it isn't as bad as the crap he says daily.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 08, 2016, 03:24:28 PM
I think trump doesn't use email

I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.

Pretty much, what else could he put in an email that he hasn't been on record saying, "sarcastically" or not, or tweeted. Email hacks would be like burning a house down in the middle of a forest fire.

WikiLeaks guy has said exactly this.  He said they have email stuff on Don too, but it isn't as bad as the crap he says daily.

He can't talk about how he's non-partisan and then allow himself to be the arbiter of what is released.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 08, 2016, 05:02:17 PM
I think trump doesn't use email

I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.

Pretty much, what else could he put in an email that he hasn't been on record saying, "sarcastically" or not, or tweeted. Email hacks would be like burning a house down in the middle of a forest fire.

WikiLeaks guy has said exactly this.  He said they have email stuff on Don too, but it isn't as bad as the crap he says daily.

He can't talk about how he's non-partisan and then allow himself to be the arbiter of what is released.

Why leak something that's already out there? Hillary leaks are great because they are the opposite of what she tells the press and public.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 08, 2016, 08:22:58 PM
was in kc today i guess  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 08, 2016, 08:32:05 PM
Good job, WL.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/774023424498892800

https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/774039745621991424
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on September 08, 2016, 09:57:58 PM
@dax, conspiracy theory alt-right
@stunz, alpha male/anti-PC alt-right
@fsd, racist/sexist alt-right
@ksuw, uneducated alt-right

@emo, his kids are hunters alt-right
@yarddog, ??? alt-right
@27, ??? alt-right
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 08, 2016, 10:02:47 PM
@dax, conspiracy theory alt-right
@stunz, alpha male/anti-PC alt-right
@fsd, racist/sexist alt-right
@ksuw, uneducated alt-right

@emo, his kids are hunters alt-right
@yarddog, hillary kills people alt-right
@27, cuck'd alt-right
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 08, 2016, 10:03:10 PM
shellsquawk is the one i can't figure out
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 08, 2016, 10:18:40 PM
You sharpshootin' me boy?
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 02:11:47 AM
@closeted hilbot

@conflicted posers

@illcheckhilonelectionday
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 02:17:07 AM
Oh gosh, ya know he wasn't authorized to delete those messages, shoot (concerned look), darn it to heck.
http://nyti.ms/2coUd5e
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 09, 2016, 08:15:30 AM
Oh gosh, ya know he wasn't authorized to delete those messages, shoot (concerned look), darn it to heck.
http://nyti.ms/2coUd5e
Well I believe IT guy on his own accord deleted the archived emails and destroyed the 13 blackberries that MG carried for convenience.  But he would never have had to make this choice if Hillary had followed the law.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 09, 2016, 08:31:24 AM
I think trump doesn't use email

I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.

Pretty much, what else could he put in an email that he hasn't been on record saying, "sarcastically" or not, or tweeted. Email hacks would be like burning a house down in the middle of a forest fire.

WikiLeaks guy has said exactly this.  He said they have email stuff on Don too, but it isn't as bad as the crap he says daily.

He can't talk about how he's non-partisan and then allow himself to be the arbiter of what is released.

Why leak something that's already out there? Hillary leaks are great because they are the opposite of what she tells the press and public.

Because he leaks innocent people's personal information and claims that he is just the bringing the information to the public, not deciding where information should be edited.  He shouldn't get to decide if Trump's emails are newsworthy, that's up to the people.  Being for the transparency of your political enemies but not your own party is incredibly hypocritical.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 09, 2016, 08:34:02 AM
It took me an hour to get home last night because she was downtown and she had her mafia shut down all my exits and shut off the streets.  :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 08:53:06 AM
As far as I can tell:

Alt-Right = Western European Socialism = Libtard Fantasy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 08:57:44 AM
LOL at the resident alt-righters LOLing at the Hilbots.

Let's see some @'s, chum

@dax, conspiracy theory alt-right
@stunz, alpha male/anti-PC alt-right
@fsd, racist/sexist alt-right
@ksuw, uneducated alt-right

Obamacare is working, per chum. So, there's some credibility. Also, a hilbot :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 09:01:50 AM
bernie sanders and trump have nearly identical platforms, one is called a "socialist" the other "alt-right", cant we all just agree those are synonyms?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 09, 2016, 09:10:30 AM
Obamacare is working, per chum. So, there's some credibility. Also, a hilbot :lol:

I don't know what it means to say that it is working, but I would say that it is achieving the result desired by those who supported it.

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bNwAvKSOZkBSaVvZ8f_pacR0srU=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7054395/Artboard%204.jpg)

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12815076/america-uninsured-rate-dropped
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 09, 2016, 09:34:09 AM
I think Alt-Right means fear and opinions are always correct and that facts are for muslim loving queers, or something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 09:37:43 AM
Obamacare is working, per chum. So, there's some credibility. Also, a hilbot :lol:

I don't know what it means to say that it is working, but I would say that it is achieving the result desired by those who supported it.

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bNwAvKSOZkBSaVvZ8f_pacR0srU=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7054395/Artboard%204.jpg)

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12815076/america-uninsured-rate-dropped

 :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 09:40:26 AM
I think Alt-Right means fear and opinions are always correct and that facts are for muslim loving queers, or something.

No, it means doing the exact same crap germany and france have been doing for 3 decades. It's an economic isolationist model mixed with neo-nationalism. The latter is characterized as racism when republicans are involved.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 09:47:36 AM
What is it classified as when a presidential candidate panders to minorities and illegal immigrants yet her legislative history is voting for fences with lots of barb wire, railing on neighboring countries for not caring about security, rounding up and sending illegals back across the border . . . And when she was First Lady lobbied hard for draconian sentencing legislation that targeted minorities and filled prisons?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 09, 2016, 09:50:07 AM
What is it classified as when a presidential candidate panders to minorities and illegal immigrants yet her legislative history is voting for fences with lots of barb wire, railing on neighboring countries for not caring about security, rounding up and sending illegals back across the border . . . And when she was First Lady lobbied hard for draconian sentencing legislation that targeted minorities and filled prisons?

Every Presidential campaign ever.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 09:53:16 AM
What is it classified as when a presidential candidate panders to minorities and illegal immigrants yet her legislative history is voting for fences with lots of barb wire, railing on neighboring countries for not caring about security, rounding up and sending illegals back across the border . . . And when she was First Lady lobbied hard for draconian sentencing legislation that targeted minorities and filled prisons?

Every Presidential campaign ever.

Which only points out the hypocrisy and idiocy  of calling non Hillary supporters low educated and misinformed.  Most Hillary supporters have no effing clue what her real track record is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 10:16:54 AM
Dax's obsession with non-trump supporters is very weird and sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 09, 2016, 10:17:05 AM
I think trump doesn't use email

I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.

Pretty much, what else could he put in an email that he hasn't been on record saying, "sarcastically" or not, or tweeted. Email hacks would be like burning a house down in the middle of a forest fire.

WikiLeaks guy has said exactly this.  He said they have email stuff on Don too, but it isn't as bad as the crap he says daily.

He can't talk about how he's non-partisan and then allow himself to be the arbiter of what is released.

Why leak something that's already out there? Hillary leaks are great because they are the opposite of what she tells the press and public.

Because he leaks innocent people's personal information and claims that he is just the bringing the information to the public, not deciding where information should be edited.  He shouldn't get to decide if Trump's emails are newsworthy, that's up to the people.  Being for the transparency of your political enemies but not your own party is incredibly hypocritical.

 :clap:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 10:18:17 AM
Dax's obsession with non-trump supporters is very weird and sad

Your obsession with non Hill supporters is typical lib: Weird, a bit deranged and comical.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 09, 2016, 10:27:08 AM
Your guys obsession with each other is what is weird and sad. #1cat
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 09, 2016, 10:33:14 AM
Wackycat08's obsession with dax and I is so weird and random
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 09, 2016, 10:34:18 AM
 :runaway:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 09, 2016, 11:54:49 AM
Obamacare is working, per chum. So, there's some credibility. Also, a hilbot :lol:

I don't know what it means to say that it is working, but I would say that it is achieving the result desired by those who supported it.

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bNwAvKSOZkBSaVvZ8f_pacR0srU=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7054395/Artboard%204.jpg)

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12815076/america-uninsured-rate-dropped

So obamacare gave hundreds of millions of Americans shittier, more expensive coverage so 7.4 million people could get medicaid. Thanks Obama.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2016, 01:11:23 PM
What is it classified as when a presidential candidate panders to minorities and illegal immigrants yet her legislative history is voting for fences with lots of barb wire, railing on neighboring countries for not caring about security, rounding up and sending illegals back across the border . . . And when she was First Lady lobbied hard for draconian sentencing legislation that targeted minorities and filled prisons?

Every Presidential campaign ever.

Nice mix of delsuion and post-hoc rationalization. Sad, really, but it is the democrat party.
#delusionliveshere #votedonkey
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 05:02:18 PM
@closeted hilbot

@conflicted posers

@illcheckhilonelectionday

You are such a giant pussy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 05:06:17 PM
Obamacare is working, per chum. So, there's some credibility. Also, a hilbot :lol:

I don't know what it means to say that it is working, but I would say that it is achieving the result desired by those who supported it.

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bNwAvKSOZkBSaVvZ8f_pacR0srU=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7054395/Artboard%204.jpg)

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12815076/america-uninsured-rate-dropped

So obamacare gave hundreds of millions of Americans shittier, more expensive coverage so 7.4 million people could get medicaid. Thanks Obama.

Well the point was to ensure more Americans. I hate Obamacare but the shittier insurance is absolutely the fault of the insurance companies. Obama was a fool to not anticipate it though, if he was going to use an executive order to get this through, he shouldn't have half assed what we were going to get.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 07:33:55 PM
@closeted hilbot

@conflicted posers

@illcheckhilonelectionday

You are such a giant pussy


So mean. Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 09:52:01 PM
Pleading, angst, cheerleading, wondering, hoping, begging, propping up.

It's all right here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-wonder-and-worry-why-isnt-clinton-far-ahead-of-trump/2016/09/09/543f3342-7693-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

Why isn't she doing better!  (Stomps off to room, slams door)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 09, 2016, 10:01:53 PM
Forgot.

...throws self on to bed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 09, 2016, 10:28:31 PM
Dax, have your "ensurance" rates become more affordable?  Asking for a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) friend......



                                                               
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 09, 2016, 10:29:51 PM
not a good look for anti-hil people gatguy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 09, 2016, 11:02:59 PM
HILLARY DECIDED ON HER TO HAVE AN ILLEGAL SERVER SET UP.   SHE BROKE THE LAW.  DO WE NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT LAW AND ORDER?  Give the law the finger is the Hillaey Obama mantra.  Impeach the ripper if she is elected.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 09, 2016, 11:13:57 PM
Obama is a law breaker too? Cool!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 10, 2016, 09:04:03 AM
Obama is a vindictive ass clown who uses the term "prosecutorial discretion" with reckless abandon and dispatches his administrative agencies to harass his political opponemts, so calling him a criminal isn't a stretch by any means.

Democrat congressman called W a criminal for far far less.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on September 10, 2016, 02:09:57 PM
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/34970973.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 10, 2016, 05:10:49 PM
Obama economic policies yielded performance weaker than the stream of an old man with postrate  trouble.  Cheerleader Hillary thinks this is keen.  Obamacare, a disaster with a built in nuclear bomb that will explode after the election - Hillary thinks this is great.  Our schools are creating ammoral leftist morons who are ignorant about History.  Hillary says doubldown on the Obama juice.  What she believes to be good policies are the reason I am voting against her, not because I am a deplorable bastard.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 11, 2016, 10:33:06 AM
Hillary just had a "medical episode". What happens if she dies? Will Bernie get to be the democratic nominee?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on September 11, 2016, 10:39:32 AM
It's perfectly normal to pass out from over heating at 10 in the morning on a fall morning in New York. Likely just not enough fluids.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 11, 2016, 11:23:39 AM
https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200

this is a bit sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 11, 2016, 11:25:46 AM
if hillary bows out for medical reasons do the dems get to put in another person or how does that work? what I'm asking is can Joe Biden come in and get like 99% of the vote because he would.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on September 11, 2016, 11:26:49 AM
:sdeek:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 11, 2016, 11:27:52 AM
if hillary bows out for medical reasons do the dems get to put in another person or how does that work? what I'm asking is can Joe Biden come in and get like 99% of the vote because he would.

 :ohno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on September 11, 2016, 11:30:21 AM
I think maybe it's time for the media ask Hilary to come clean about her health.  It seems kind of important.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 11, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
Well forfucks sake
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 11, 2016, 11:40:35 AM
Hillbot 2.0 is all ready to go I bet.  Not sure if Soros will be in it, or just remotely controlling it, though.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 11, 2016, 11:45:47 AM
Dons new style of running for pres not only seems to appeal to this generation of america, but I bet it really takes stress off the campaign for the candidate.  Can you imagine the stress of making sure you sound intelligent, appearing respectable, and making sure your campaign is running as smooth as possible?   I mean, I can understand a traditional candidate, outside of good physical condition, having severe exhaustion during a campaign. 

I bet Don is well rested and will probably make a comment about hill taking better care and getting her sleep, or something.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ShellShock on September 11, 2016, 12:46:47 PM
It's perfectly normal to pass out from over heating at 10 in the morning on a fall morning in New York. Likely just not enough fluids.

Yea, it was like mid 70's low 80's in NYC this morning. No medical condition my ass...maybe stop wearing those velour pantsuits and she'll be able to regulate her body temp better.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 11, 2016, 01:23:41 PM
The stench from deplorable scum standing around her probably overwhelmed her.  She won't quit if she is.breathing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on September 11, 2016, 01:28:49 PM
prediction, tim kaine will go down in history as nearly america's greatest president.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on September 11, 2016, 01:52:23 PM
What's the issue here? Heat exhaustion is no joke.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 11, 2016, 03:36:18 PM
What's the issue here? Heat exhaustion is no joke.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Yeah, 70 degree temps are killer.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 11, 2016, 03:54:28 PM
That video makes me want to vote Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on September 11, 2016, 03:56:55 PM
That video was shocking. It's very clear that she's in terrible health right now. Her campaign needs to come right out with the diagnosis of her short-term illness. If it's a chronic issue she needs to drop out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on September 11, 2016, 04:18:05 PM
That video makes me want to vote Clinton.


this is the best chance we will have to put a kstater in the white house in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 11, 2016, 04:33:38 PM
https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200

this is a bit sad

That crap is hilarious
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 11, 2016, 04:53:38 PM
Drunk

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 11, 2016, 05:31:14 PM
Quote
Many people have speculated that Hillary Clinton’s wardrobe disguises some form of medical device.

If you watch the video, you can clearly see a “tubular shaped” metal object falling from pant leg of Hillary Clinton just before the collapse.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/11/hillary-clinton-collapses-metal-object-falls-from-inside-right-pant-leg/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 11, 2016, 05:50:03 PM
That video was shocking. It's very clear that she's in terrible health right now. Her campaign needs to come right out with the diagnosis of her short-term illness. If it's a chronic issue she needs to drop out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah.  most of the "health issues" crap the right has put out there is pure bullshit, but this is totally wtf
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on September 11, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
no way in hell she allows death to snatch her before she gets sworn into office.  A vote for Hillary might ultimately be a vote for Kane though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 05:56:59 PM
Dr. Feelgood was late with the injection.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 11, 2016, 05:59:33 PM
no way in hell she allows death to snatch her before she gets sworn into office.  A vote for Hillary might ultimately be a vote for Kane though.

this is the best campaign slogan out there imho
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 06:11:28 PM
http://nyp.st/2c78dQ6

Tim Kaine:  A lot like Trump

Tim Kaine:  An even bigger friend to big finance than Hillary
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 11, 2016, 06:35:45 PM
http://nyp.st/2c78dQ6

Tim Kaine:  A lot like Trump

Tim Kaine:  An even bigger friend to big finance than Hillary

Was that link supposed to have anything to do with what you typed? Also did you mean to link an opinion column from a tabloid? :lol: so dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 06:36:29 PM
It doesn't.

crap you're so rough ridin' literal.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 06:39:20 PM
Also, why are you getting upset (and you are) about a guy rightfully pointing out how badly the MSM print media has sold out to Hillary?  To the detriment of your guy back when he was in the race. 

#closetedhilbot

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 06:41:23 PM
Lol, nice edit.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 11, 2016, 06:42:51 PM
dax's cialis boner for trump is one of the greatest things about goEMAW.com
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 06:44:07 PM
Your penile injection boners for me are . . . Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 11, 2016, 06:47:33 PM
Asking questions about a candidate's obvious health issues (mental and physical) is an egregious invasion of personal privacy, abject sexism and abject homophobic racism.
- the NYT editorial board
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 11, 2016, 06:48:59 PM
Also, part of the vast right-winged conspiracy to out the Clinton's as the subhumans they are.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 06:50:16 PM
Alt-Right Conspiracy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 11, 2016, 06:52:45 PM
it's events like this that really solidify how crazy the alt-right is
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 06:54:26 PM
Lib just wants to see the poor woman die and/or proudly endorses the lies. 

So sad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on September 11, 2016, 07:02:38 PM
Also, why are you getting upset (and you are) about a guy rightfully pointing out how badly the MSM print media has sold out to Hillary?  To the detriment of your guy back when he was in the race. 

#closetedhilbot

Sad

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I would have copied and pasted parts from this article, but for some reason it won't let me. Essentially, legitimate concerns about Trump are drawing the same level of criticism and concern as the fictitious claims raised about Clinton. You can throw the liberal media BS out the window. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 11, 2016, 07:06:51 PM
"Fictitious claims" and "right-winged bullshit" in response to video evidence.
#delusion #thinkprogress
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 11, 2016, 07:09:34 PM
see what i mean
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 11, 2016, 07:16:25 PM
Also, why are you getting upset (and you are) about a guy rightfully pointing out how badly the MSM print media has sold out to Hillary?  To the detriment of your guy back when he was in the race. 

#closetedhilbot

Sad

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I would have copied and pasted parts from this article, but for some reason it won't let me. Essentially, legitimate concerns about Trump are drawing the same level of criticism and concern as the fictitious claims raised about Clinton. You can throw the liberal media BS out the window.


Fictitious??  Classic Hilbot.   

The woman needs help going up steps, she keels over on 70 degree days, she has Dr. Feelgood on standby at all times just feet away. 

Her closest personnel advisor has familial  ties to hardcore Theocrats who blame 9-11 on the United States. She's received millions in support from some of the worst people on the planet. 

She only escaped prosecution for the emails because of the usual political insider BS. 

She has never met a war she didn't want.  She's driven some of the worst diplomatic decisions in the last twenty years (which is saying something).   

She has the support of big banks, Wall Street and Big Oil.  All the things prog-libs are supposed to hate.  Why?  Because they own both her and Kaine.

She's flat out pandering to minorities, she's voted to build a wall and championed draconian sentencing laws. 

The NYT's is comically in the tank for Hillary. One of the latest Krugman columns was pure comedy.  She gets a couple of softball questions from Lauer and the MSM wants the dude burned at the stake. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 11, 2016, 07:17:20 PM
Now they're saying pneumonia. Bizarre
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on September 11, 2016, 07:20:16 PM
Her heart is two sizes too small
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 11, 2016, 07:23:37 PM
Doesn't mix well with brain swelling blood clots, or whatever caused her to keel over a few years back.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on September 11, 2016, 08:36:31 PM
no way in hell she allows death to snatch her before she gets sworn into office.  A vote for Hillary might ultimately be a vote for Kane though.

https://twitter.com/Always_Trump/status/775106986480283649
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 11, 2016, 08:40:01 PM
Pff

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 11, 2016, 08:42:42 PM
Asking for someone's health records is a little bit ridiculous. I would never allow the public to see mine, and I'm healthy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on September 11, 2016, 08:46:31 PM
Doesn't mix well with brain swelling blood clots, or whatever caused her to keel over a few years back.

Unfortunately I think it is something more along the lines of Parkinson's.  I wonder if the wikileaks in October is more health related and less classified emails related.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 11, 2016, 08:50:30 PM
Asking for someone's health records is a little bit ridiculous. I would never allow the public to see mine, and I'm healthy.

It's certainly more relevant than tax returns.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on September 11, 2016, 08:53:17 PM
Asking for someone's health records is a little bit ridiculous. I would never allow the public to see mine, and I'm healthy.

It's certainly more relevant than tax returns.

Tax returns are usually more indicative of behavior/choices.  I think both are relevant to make an informed choice.  Hillary and Trump have both set some terrible precedents for future candidates.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 11, 2016, 08:54:13 PM
I think it's perfectly reasonable to require a health exam made public for someone wanting the most powerful job in the nation/world.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 11, 2016, 09:24:03 PM
She's toast
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 12, 2016, 12:16:36 AM
Also, why are you getting upset (and you are) about a guy rightfully pointing out how badly the MSM print media has sold out to Hillary?  To the detriment of your guy back when he was in the race. 

#closetedhilbot

Sad

Uh, I didn't read the article once I saw it was not about Tim Kaine. Why in the hell would I waste my time reading a column in a tabloid about some dude bitching about media bias? Of course hilz is the benefit of a media bias, is this new?

Lol, nice edit.

Who are you talking to, I didn't edit anything, and why is it so hard for you to ever be clear as to who in the hell you are posting at?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 12, 2016, 07:19:58 AM
so can the left get biden in there or nah? I'm less excited about her possibly dying if it has to be bernie or kaine.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 12, 2016, 07:29:40 AM
Nah, think weekend at Hillarys  :Woot:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 12, 2016, 08:22:59 AM
Asking for someone's health records is a little bit ridiculous. I would never allow the public to see mine, and I'm healthy.

It's certainly more relevant than tax returns.

Tax returns are usually more indicative of behavior/choices.  I think both are relevant to make an informed choice.  Hillary and Trump have both set some terrible precedents for future candidates.

I don't think either are relevant. People deserve some amount of privacy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on September 12, 2016, 08:42:08 AM
Asking for someone's health records is a little bit ridiculous. I would never allow the public to see mine, and I'm healthy.

It's certainly more relevant than tax returns.
If you want to run for president you pretty much make your health a national concern.  If you don't want everyone on the planet knowing your medical history, don't run for president.

Same goes for tax returns too.
Tax returns are usually more indicative of behavior/choices.  I think both are relevant to make an informed choice.  Hillary and Trump have both set some terrible precedents for future candidates.

I don't think either are relevant. People deserve some amount of privacy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 12, 2016, 08:47:09 AM
Asking for someone's health records is a little bit ridiculous. I would never allow the public to see mine, and I'm healthy.

It's certainly more relevant than tax returns.

Same goes for tax returns too.
Tax returns are usually more indicative of behavior/choices.  I think both are relevant to make an informed choice.  Hillary and Trump have both set some terrible precedents for future candidates.

I don't think either are relevant. People deserve some amount of privacy.
If you want to run for president you pretty much make your health a national concern.  If you don't want everyone on the planet knowing your medical history, don't run for president.

Would your vote change if you knew Trump or Hillary had some sort of life-threatening disease? We have a system in place to replace the president, and it's not like we've never had one die in office. If you are concerned about the health and mental faculty of your presidential candidate, you really shouldn't nominate somebody who is going to be serving through their 70s.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on September 12, 2016, 08:52:04 AM
Yeah, if I want someone to be president, I think whether or not they're physically able to do the job is relevant information. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 12, 2016, 08:54:36 AM
Yeah, if I want someone to be president, I think whether or not they're physically able to do the job is relevant information.

Well Hillary is not. She can release a clean medical record and that wouldn't change anything. I think making the job less attractive to people when the candidates we are getting are Clinton and Trump probably is not a good idea.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 12, 2016, 09:44:40 AM
I don't want to see her medical records, can you imagine, we are closer to the truth by watching her than seeing some health assessment she cooks up for us.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 12, 2016, 10:50:56 AM
I realize this is sexist - Trump is certainly not attractive - but this doesn't look like someone who will be elected president.

(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/09/11/hillary-clinton-has-medical-episode-at-911-ceremony-source-says/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-1/images/image.img.jpg/880/558/1473606747742.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)

Hillary is looking like late-stage Marlon Brando / Island of Dr Moreau bad.

This charade is just getting revolting at this point. She's like a meat puppet that's falling apart - but her handlers keep stuffing her back together in those pant suits and trotting her out for increasingly shorter appearances because this is their candidate. This is what they've got, and they've got to drag her across the line.

The claims that we should have the same standards for Trump just don't hold up. The guy may be 70, but has no problem in the energy department. I guess hate and bigotry can keep you going a long time.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 12, 2016, 10:52:50 AM
She only has to live 2 more months.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 12, 2016, 10:54:55 AM
Looks like a normal late 60's female to me  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on September 12, 2016, 10:58:56 AM
these debates will be fascinating
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 12, 2016, 11:08:34 AM
You can only kill so many ppl before your conscious takes a toll on you. It's apparent with her living all these lies, it's weakened her. She just needs to feed on more baby fetuses to get her strength back.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 12, 2016, 11:11:27 AM
What happens if the President-elect dies before being sworn in? Just the VP-elect becomes President?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 12, 2016, 11:13:51 AM
Obama will write himself in for 8 more years.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 12, 2016, 11:14:15 AM
Also, why are you getting upset (and you are) about a guy rightfully pointing out how badly the MSM print media has sold out to Hillary?  To the detriment of your guy back when he was in the race. 

#closetedhilbot

Sad

Uh, I didn't read the article once I saw it was not about Tim Kaine. Why in the hell would I waste my time reading a column in a tabloid about some dude bitching about media bias? Of course hilz is the benefit of a media bias, is this new?

Lol, nice edit.

Who are you talking to, I didn't edit anything, and why is it so hard for you to ever be clear as to who in the hell you are posting at?

I guess I need to be extremely clear with you because apparently you think everything is directed at you.

The Post has tabloid sections and sections that are not.  Many papers have areas that are tabloidish.   

If you're bitching about a post with an article posted then I assume you read it. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 12, 2016, 11:16:21 AM
Infowars is a legitimate source - actual thing said by dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ShellShock on September 12, 2016, 11:19:33 AM
MODS: Can we change the title to: Hillary 2016? (Formerly Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch, Now Hillary Clinton Death Watch)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 12, 2016, 11:20:04 AM
Infowars is a legitimate source - actual thing said by dax

I believe I qualified that as saying that Infowars links their commentary to many legitimate news sources.  (With actual links).

But getting the details has never been a lib7 strong point.   Lib7 is walking a fine line between defending Hillary at every turn or hoping for her demise.

The angst and quandaries of a Hillbot.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on September 12, 2016, 11:30:29 AM
these debates will be fascinating

https://twitter.com/Conservative_VW/status/775292757673816064

https://twitter.com/maga_swaga/status/775297416496951296
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 12, 2016, 11:40:20 AM
Man, that video. And this is after Hilldawg avoided press conferences for some time. Could just be a ploy to appear more electable though (vote for me and you won't have to deal with me very long!)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 12, 2016, 11:47:31 AM
Some of you have finally started to achieve 2008 Obama level hysteria. I don't think you'll be able to keep it up, though. You'll always love to hate him most.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 12, 2016, 12:58:42 PM
Some of you have finally started to achieve 2008 Obama level hysteria. I don't think you'll be able to keep it up, though.

This has to be directed at the libtards, right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on September 12, 2016, 01:15:41 PM
You can only kill so many ppl before your conscious takes a toll on you. It's apparent with her living all these lies, it's weakened her. She just needs to feed on more baby fetuses to get her strength back.

you should do more of your pit posts like this wacks :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 12, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
I have no idea whether this will help or hurt Hillary's electability, but "she could die right after the election!" trending to the top of reasons to vote FOR her really says a lot about our choices.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 12, 2016, 01:21:12 PM
You can only kill so many ppl before your conscious takes a toll on you. It's apparent with her living all these lies, it's weakened her. She just needs to feed on more baby fetuses to get her strength back.

you should do more of your pit posts like this wacks :thumbs:
:cheers:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on September 12, 2016, 04:13:09 PM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.nationalenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/old_neq/article_images/cover-_1.jpg?resize=480%2C400)

Mods, change thread title to Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Grim Reaper Watch)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 12, 2016, 04:59:29 PM
Man, she must be tough to last six months with brain cancer, blood clots, MS, strokes AND alcohol abuse.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 12, 2016, 05:35:28 PM
If she has pneumonia why in the hell is she out coughing in the face of the media and shaking people's hands and crap?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on September 12, 2016, 05:38:51 PM
If she has pneumonia why in the hell is she out coughing in the face of the media and shaking people's hands and crap?

(https://i.redditmedia.com/PaVsfyhfACfFOKfmMopqGVgcgt4_qtUA--Wqg4iDhJw.jpg?w=397&s=65f6cdf7b9a7781a80540acdf9a3e639)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 12, 2016, 09:10:19 PM
If she has pneumonia why in the hell is she out coughing in the face of the media and shaking people's hands and crap?

Rhetorical question? It's another lie. The secret service protocol was to take her to an ER, but her handlers insisted she be driven to her daughter's apartment instead. Going to the ER just creates more troubling medical records.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 12, 2016, 09:46:51 PM
Also, they plan to release her medical info in a couple days.  Why not right now?  Because it takes a while to make crap up and find the right guy or gal to stand behind that made up medical report.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on September 12, 2016, 10:15:17 PM
or maybe because our most of our medical record system is undigitized and therefore outdated.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: kim carnes on September 12, 2016, 10:23:47 PM
or maybe because our most of our medical record system is undigitized and therefore outdated.

Yeah, that's it man
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 12, 2016, 10:30:32 PM
or maybe because our most of our medical record system is undigitized and therefore outdated.

That's just the way Hillary and I like it, our medical records are not anybody's  business.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 12, 2016, 10:33:13 PM
Hillary should just tell us all that she won't release the records because they are confidential.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on September 12, 2016, 10:47:18 PM
Welcome back, K-S-U
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on September 12, 2016, 10:50:37 PM
she should get that stud doctor bro with the alkie nose
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 13, 2016, 12:51:06 AM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

This is horrifying.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Spracne on September 13, 2016, 01:10:30 AM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

This is horrifying.

yes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 13, 2016, 06:41:45 AM
If I needed a copy of my med rec's, I could have them by 15 min after 8am this morning and I don't have a staff of assistants nor the status of Hill.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on September 13, 2016, 08:17:43 AM
I don't really get the Pepe thing.  I read the article on Hillary's website, and the comments on Reddit lambasting the story/controversy.  Is all the nazi Pepe stuff just trolling?  I was looking at one guy on Twitter lastnight with a Pepe profile picture and I couldn't tell whether his white supremacist tweets were trolls or not.

I just don't get the joke.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on September 13, 2016, 08:20:33 AM
I don't really get the Pepe thing.  I read the article on Hillary's website, and the comments on Reddit lambasting the story/controversy.  Is all the nazi Pepe stuff just trolling?  I was looking at one guy on Twitter lastnight with a Pepe profile picture and I couldn't tell whether his white supremacist tweets were trolls or not.

I just don't get the joke.

From what I've read, the people who initially started using Pepe got upset when the meme started going mainstream in the last year or so. In order to claim it back as their own they worked tirelessly to change Pepe's image so tweens etc. would stop using it. So at this point, you have the originators as trolls. . .and the idiots out there who think it stands for something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on September 13, 2016, 08:22:06 AM
or maybe because our most of our medical record system is undigitized and therefore outdated.

Yeah, that's it man

I doubt there is a single person over the age of 40 in America who could get access to their full medical record within 24 hrs of making the request.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: DQ12 on September 13, 2016, 08:27:45 AM
man.  4chan is a weird place.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 13, 2016, 08:32:09 AM
So, the Hillary camp is trolling 4chan for material? 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on September 13, 2016, 08:32:26 AM
A secretary of state would have their entire medical history integrated into one place and kept with the physician that travels when they travel.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on September 13, 2016, 08:33:45 AM
Kennedy, Roosevelt, Reagan etc.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 13, 2016, 08:48:06 AM
Hillary should just tell us all that she won't release the records because they are confidential.

:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 13, 2016, 09:02:31 AM
A secretary of state would have their entire medical history integrated into one place and kept with the physician that travels when they travel.


Hasn't been SOS for a while now.  Is that like pres.  once pres, always live like pres, staff wise?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 13, 2016, 09:03:56 AM
She put that on her own webpage?  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on September 13, 2016, 09:15:58 AM
A secretary of state would have their entire medical history integrated into one place and kept with the physician that travels when they travel.


Hasn't been SOS for a while now.  Is that like pres.  once pres, always live like pres, staff wise?

I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that they already integrated all her medical records once, so why trash them because she's no longer SOS?  They have them. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 13, 2016, 09:28:48 AM
Gotcha.  The relevant stuff has probably occurred mostly since she stopped being SOS.  I mean, if she has a chronic issue, the onset of that could even be why she didn't want to serve as SOS further.  Although, its more likely that she saw that we are involved in so many hot messes globally she would do best in this election if she distanced herself as much as possible and stepping down was the best way to do so.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on September 13, 2016, 09:39:46 AM
OT: Is there any consensus on what 3rd party will garner the most votes? I'd like to vote for them. I, now, hate both of the candidates. Thank you.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 13, 2016, 09:41:04 AM
Libertarian will be 3rd by a good margin in either direction
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on September 13, 2016, 09:51:24 AM
Libertarian will be 3rd by a good margin in either direction
Thank you.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 13, 2016, 10:09:20 AM
I'm sort of surprised that many seem to think that disability discrimination is perfectly acceptable here. Like, "Can't vote for him! He's got cancer!" That type of discrimination is illegal for employers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: #LIFE on September 13, 2016, 10:12:24 AM
Breaking Politics ?@breakingpol  17m17 minutes ago
Ex-staffer who set up Clinton's private email server fails to appear before House Oversight Committee - The Hill

He dead  :Ugh:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on September 13, 2016, 10:16:08 AM
I'm sort of surprised that many seem to think that disability discrimination is perfectly acceptable here. Like, "Can't vote for him! He's got cancer!" That type of discrimination is illegal for employers.
This is a good point. Though you get to choose the replacement as an employer. It's not appointed by your employee with cancer.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on September 13, 2016, 10:36:01 AM
man.  4chan is a weird place.

It is weird, but it's also the start of almost every single good meme on the Internet.

I'm not saying this one is good, but almost every category of great meme originates from 4chan.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on September 13, 2016, 10:40:58 AM
Also before anyone says Reddit, the big difference is 4chan isn't archived, whereas Reddit is. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 13, 2016, 10:44:16 AM
You can bet Trumps' folks are looking for anyone who may have  come down with pneumonia anywhere near Hillary during the last week or so.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 13, 2016, 10:46:22 AM
I'm sort of surprised that many seem to think that disability discrimination is perfectly acceptable here. Like, "Can't vote for him! He's got cancer!" That type of discrimination is illegal for employers.
This is a good point. Though you get to choose the replacement as an employer. It's not appointed by your employee with cancer.

You know who the replacement is going to be when you vote, though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 13, 2016, 11:30:04 AM
I'm sort of surprised that many seem to think that disability discrimination is perfectly acceptable here. Like, "Can't vote for him! He's got cancer!" That type of discrimination is illegal for employers.
This is a good point. Though you get to choose the replacement as an employer. It's not appointed by your employee with cancer.

Actually, it isn't a good point at all, and it's quite pathetic and offensive that "disability discrimination" would being raised as a defense.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 13, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
I'm sort of surprised that many seem to think that disability discrimination is perfectly acceptable here. Like, "Can't vote for him! He's got cancer!" That type of discrimination is illegal for employers.
This is a good point. Though you get to choose the replacement as an employer. It's not appointed by your employee with cancer.

You know who the replacement is going to be when you vote, though.

That's the point. People's votes could (and should) be influenced by the health of a presidential candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 13, 2016, 11:50:44 AM
I'm sort of surprised that many seem to think that disability discrimination is perfectly acceptable here. Like, "Can't vote for him! He's got cancer!" That type of discrimination is illegal for employers.
This is a good point. Though you get to choose the replacement as an employer. It's not appointed by your employee with cancer.

You know who the replacement is going to be when you vote, though.

That's the point. People's votes could (and should) be influenced by the health of a presidential candidate.

That's why it's important that presidential candidates have the right to not release their medical history.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on September 13, 2016, 12:20:45 PM
I'm sort of surprised that many seem to think that disability discrimination is perfectly acceptable here. Like, "Can't vote for him! He's got cancer!" That type of discrimination is illegal for employers.
This is a good point. Though you get to choose the replacement as an employer. It's not appointed by your employee with cancer.

You know who the replacement is going to be when you vote, though.
And they usually suck, save for Biden.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 13, 2016, 09:33:30 PM
If I needed a copy of my med rec's, I could have them by 15 min after 8am this morning and I don't have a staff of assistants nor the status of Hill.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

My medical records are accessible through an app on my phone.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 14, 2016, 03:33:55 PM
So Colin Powell's email was hacked, and holy crap is there some damning/hilarious stuff in there about the Clintons. http://www.cbsnews.com/media/5-emails-in-which-colin-powell-slammed-hillary-clinton/2/  (http://www.cbsnews.com/media/5-emails-in-which-colin-powell-slammed-hillary-clinton/2/)

I think my favorite parts were Powell talking about Bill "still dicking bimbos at home" and how Powell "ought to send her a bill" because Hill's speaking fees were so high that Powell "lost a gig" due to Hill sucking up all the funds for her speech to a certain group.

Oh and yeah, he's pretty upset that Hill claimed she didn't do anything different than him with email while SOS. I can understand why he'd be pissed about that bullshit comparison.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 14, 2016, 03:58:47 PM
I'm sure he's never going to use that email again, but kind of dick move by CBS to redact the word "dick" and not his personal email address.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 14, 2016, 04:03:41 PM
I'm sure he's never going to use that email again, but kind of dick move by CBS to redact the word "dick" and not his personal email address.

This information isn't exclusive to CBS so that email is out there in plenty of places regardless of what CBS does.

I guess it's kind of fun to laugh at his dislike for Trump and Hillary but kudos for him for not having skeletons.  The Trump/Hillary stuff is basically what 75% of the electorate is thinking anyways.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 14, 2016, 04:04:58 PM
So Colin Powell's email was hacked, and holy crap is there some damning/hilarious stuff in there about the Clintons. http://www.cbsnews.com/media/5-emails-in-which-colin-powell-slammed-hillary-clinton/2/  (http://www.cbsnews.com/media/5-emails-in-which-colin-powell-slammed-hillary-clinton/2/)

I think my favorite parts were Powell talking about Bill "still dicking bimbos at home" and how Powell "ought to send her a bill" because Hill's speaking fees were so high that Powell "lost a gig" due to Hill sucking up all the funds for her speech to a certain group.

Oh and yeah, he's pretty upset that Hill claimed she didn't do anything different than him with email while SOS. I can understand why he'd be pissed about that bullshit comparison.

 :lol:

bill :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 14, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
Very damning, for sure. Maybe now she will finally be indicted.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 14, 2016, 04:13:14 PM
I get that in principal, but if someone leaked more damaging private information, it's not a defense to say other people did it so you're not responsible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 14, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Very damning, for sure. Maybe now she will finally be indicted.

anything from trump foundation yet?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 14, 2016, 04:25:21 PM
Very damning, for sure. Maybe now she will finally be indicted.

anything from trump foundation yet?

I haven't heard any LOCK HIM UP chants if that's what you're asking.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 14, 2016, 04:43:49 PM
phew, was worried, though it didn't seem like anyone gave a crap anywhere on the internet
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 15, 2016, 04:38:04 AM
Hillary's doctor, everything is fine.  Michael Jackson's doctor, everything is fine.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 06:22:39 AM
Powell emails paint a picture that the Clinton's and Obama's likely hate each other. 

She did pretty much trash Obama at every debate when she was asked why she should be president and in her closing remarks.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 15, 2016, 07:23:28 AM
phew, was worried, though it didn't seem like anyone gave a crap anywhere on the internet

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+foundation&tbm=nws

 :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 15, 2016, 08:36:00 AM
phew, was worried, though it didn't seem like anyone gave a crap anywhere on the internet

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+foundation&tbm=nws

 :dunno:

The racists and xenophobes won't be down with this.  :ohno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: RickRampus on September 15, 2016, 08:41:25 AM
Powell emails paint a picture that the Clinton's and Obama's likely hate each other. 

She did pretty much trash Obama at every debate when she was asked why she should be president and in her closing remarks.

Edward Klein has a couple of books out about this, they rough ridin' hate each other, hardcore, like Mizzou and KU hate
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 08:43:45 AM
Gosh, Trumps Foundation sounds a lot like the CF. 

Charity Navigator for a very long time could not rate the CF because they operated in an extremely abnormal and non-traditional manner.   The CF was on Charity Navigator's watch list (bad) for an extended period.    The CF was also regularly starting up and then disbanding sub organizations, making it difficult for Charity watch dogs to follow what they were doing.   Other organizations in this world do that as well, typically organizations up to no good.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 15, 2016, 08:47:46 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 15, 2016, 08:50:12 AM
looks like the major ones confirm that, including the one you said. I'd pick a different hill to die on dax. there are plenty of legitimate HILLs when it come to HILL!  :D

https://www.charitywatch.org/governance-and-transparency/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 08:50:25 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only took them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 08:53:21 AM
looks like the major ones confirm that, including the one you said. I'd pick a different hill to die on dax. there are plenty of legitimate HILLs when it come to HILL!  :D

https://www.charitywatch.org/governance-and-transparency/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680


Again, it took them a number of years to get there, and if you do a little research one of the major reasons they couldn't be rated, was because of their structure and the fact that they kept starting and then disbanding sub charities, making it hard to rate them in terms of financial responsibility and effectiveness, and another reason to place the CF on the watch list.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 15, 2016, 08:54:39 AM
I'll just trust you on that dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 15, 2016, 08:56:17 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 08:57:10 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 15, 2016, 08:58:49 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 09:00:01 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 15, 2016, 09:01:28 AM
I've always heard the cf has a internal expense ratio that is obscenely out of whack and that actual charity is a tiny percentage of revenue  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 15, 2016, 09:06:39 AM
phew, was worried, though it didn't seem like anyone gave a crap anywhere on the internet

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+foundation&tbm=nws

 :dunno:

 :zzz:

Not even on the first page of r/politics
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 15, 2016, 09:13:44 AM
Transparency only applies to Clinton - Tax returns, charity information, halfway legitimate medical records are irrelevant to Donald supporters
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 15, 2016, 09:23:04 AM
I need to look up where I read it, but this past weekend I read an article about the clinton foundation that basically said that their foundation hasn't been out there helping the sick and the needy, but more of them placing up and coming political ppl in certain countries to help open up new oil,mining,etc oppys for the friends of the foundation. 

I know this sounds like a dax post, so I guess I will go try to find the article....
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on September 15, 2016, 09:25:55 AM
apparently I'm the only one who watched that breitbart or whatever film cat27 posted :don'tcare:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 15, 2016, 09:26:16 AM
I need to look up where I read it, but this past weekend I read an article about the clinton foundation that basically said that their foundation hasn't been out there helping the sick and the needy, but more of them placing up and coming political ppl in certain countries to help open up new oil,mining,etc oppys for the friends of the foundation. 

I know this sounds like a dax post, so I guess I will go try to find the article....

I'd start with infowars and if you don't find it move on to breitbart (sp?)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 15, 2016, 09:27:51 AM
apparently I'm the only one who watched that breitbart or whatever film cat27 posted :don'tcare:

Some lady in my office watched it and said it was eye opening.  She is going to vote for Trump even harder now
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 15, 2016, 09:29:25 AM
phew, was worried, though it didn't seem like anyone gave a crap anywhere on the internet

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+foundation&tbm=nws

 :dunno:

 :zzz:

Not even on the first page of r/politics

Sounds like voter central.

(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/redditsdemographics.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 15, 2016, 09:29:49 AM
I need to look up where I read it, but this past weekend I read an article about the clinton foundation that basically said that their foundation hasn't been out there helping the sick and the needy, but more of them placing up and coming political ppl in certain countries to help open up new oil,mining,etc oppys for the friends of the foundation. 

I know this sounds like a dax post, so I guess I will go try to find the article....

I'd start with infowars and if you don't find it move on to breitbart (sp?)

I know.  Believe it or not, I don't have those kind of crap sites on my Google News feed.   Also, I just went back to my news app, and it has updated out of the scroll, and Googling "Clinton Foundation" stuff just brings up a bunch of Dax sites. 

Nevermind, carry on.   :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 15, 2016, 09:33:11 AM
I know the initial mission for the CF was to take the best and brightest and have them work on world changing projects.  They'll let somebody else build the schools in Africa, but they would focus on curing cancer or clean water for everyone or whatever.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 09:36:23 AM
I need to look up where I read it, but this past weekend I read an article about the clinton foundation that basically said that their foundation hasn't been out there helping the sick and the needy, but more of them placing up and coming political ppl in certain countries to help open up new oil,mining,etc oppys for the friends of the foundation. 

I know this sounds like a dax post, so I guess I will go try to find the article....

I'd start with infowars and if you don't find it move on to breitbart (sp?)

I know.  Believe it or not, I don't have those kind of crap sites on my Google News feed.   Also, I just went back to my news app, and it has updated out of the scroll, and Googling "Clinton Foundation" stuff just brings up a bunch of Dax sites. 

Nevermind, carry on.   :frown:

Charity Navigator equals Infowars?    :dunno:  Fascinating

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 15, 2016, 09:36:39 AM
I believe you cns
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 09:38:31 AM
You Hilbots let us know when the FBI tries to investigate the Trump Foundation 3 times.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 15, 2016, 09:39:35 AM
I read yesterday that Trump hasn't donated to his own foundation since 2008. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 09:41:23 AM
Of course now comes the political targeting.   The FBI field offices try to investigate the CF 3 times, and the highly partisan Justice Department squashes every investigation.   When the FBI or AG investigations come at Trump, they won't be stopped, of course.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 15, 2016, 09:44:34 AM
Speaking of partisan, the Republicans investigated Benghazi 8 times and came up with nothing.  This includes bipartisan groups and Republican groups doing the investigating.  I'm sorry if I don't take these investigations seriously.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 09:53:39 AM
Speaking of partisan, the Republicans investigated Benghazi 8 times and came up with nothing.  This includes bipartisan groups and Republican groups doing the investigating.  I'm sorry if I don't take these investigations seriously.

If there's one thing we've learned about Congressional investigations historically is that hey are great tests of whether any malfeasance, impropriety or negligence took place.   :rolleyes:

Political entities are going to do everything they can to protect themselves when they were engaged in arms smuggling operations, and it's particularly bad when they overthrow a government and then shipped their arms to other bad guys. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 15, 2016, 10:23:53 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 10:29:37 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years). 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 15, 2016, 10:33:51 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.

What does that have to do with anything?  Yet you always say stuff like that.   It's just weird.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 15, 2016, 10:45:24 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.

What does that have to do with anything?  Yet you always say stuff like that.   It's just weird.

Because you're preaching to us about the CF as if someone here is about to turn over our kid's college fund to them. The conversation was about the TF and you started ranting about the Clintons. You always say stuff like that. It's just weird.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 10:46:51 AM
I don't know much about what any of these foundations do but some BBC news guy said the other day that the clinton foundation was ranked like A+ or something by watchdog groups. the trump one probably is too, they didn't say anything about it.

Good for them, it only too them years to produce the documents to get that rating, but golly, they managed to do it.

Well, anytime Trump wants to do the same he should probably get on that. He announced his presidency 15 months ago.

4 + years, 15 months, pretty much the same.



??? Isn't the Trump Foundation older than that

Hillary Clinton has essentially been running for president for 10 years, the CF just produced enough information to be rated in the last year.

Right, I get that. What I'm asking you is why the Trump Foundation hasn't done the same and why don't you seem to care. Unless you think all charities should work in the shadows until their CEO has a decade long presidential campaign, your criticism here seems to be hypocritical.

Trump should, if there's impropriety, bust the guy.   It's also a bit hypocritical to make these demands, when by and large Hilbots either completely ignore or simply don't care that the CF reeks of impropriety.    I'll have to find the article, but they were talking with Charity Navigator about why they hadn't rated CF (until recently) and the reasons given would even have dimwitted Hilbots thinking money laundering and ponzi scheme (and the writer went out of the way to make it clear the Charity Navigator was remaining neutral and passing no judgement on the structure, where Charity Navigator dinged the CF was for lack of full financial disclosure, for years).

I don't think anyone on here is rushing to give cash to the Clinton Foundation. We are having this conversation because it seemed as if you were using past shadiness by the CF to justify current shadiness by the TF.

What does that have to do with anything?  Yet you always say stuff like that.   It's just weird.

Because you're preaching to us about the CF as if someone here is about to turn over our kid's college fund to them. The conversation was about the TF and you started ranting about the Clintons. You always say stuff like that. It's just weird.

Preaching?   :lol:   To you guys?   :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 15, 2016, 02:20:30 PM
(https://i.redditmedia.com/nyqjSCNtQNPNpgX8D0QmFYf6LFH66Kjw9l2PoSHJWBI.jpg?w=750&s=2f7a79a747d2892e54d23cbc8fda90d2)

facts :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 15, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
Quote
Milton R. Wolf (born 1971) is an American physician. He is a Tea Party movement-aligned activist who ran against incumbent Kansas U.S. Senator Pat Roberts for the Republican Party nomination in the 2014 United States Senate election. On August 5, 2014, Wolf was defeated by Roberts, but held him under fifty percent.[1] The final percentages were Roberts 48% and Wolf 41%.[2]

ok dr
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 15, 2016, 02:50:21 PM
But is he wrong??!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 15, 2016, 03:13:01 PM
Quote
Milton R. Wolf (born 1971) is an American physician. He is a Tea Party movement-aligned activist who ran against incumbent Kansas U.S. Senator Pat Roberts for the Republican Party nomination in the 2014 United States Senate election. On August 5, 2014, Wolf was defeated by Roberts, but held him under fifty percent.[1] The final percentages were Roberts 48% and Wolf 41%.[2]

ok dr

 :lol: Nice moral victory there.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 03:14:26 PM
https://www.yelp.com/biz/metrocare-home-services-new-york

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 15, 2016, 07:38:03 PM
Is this parody of real? Says Team Clinton is committing systemic credit card fraud against its donors. http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/ (http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/)

Quote
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1200 per day.

But Trump said mean things about illegal immigrants, so I guess he's just as bad as Clinton deliberately stealing from her supporters.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 15, 2016, 08:01:01 PM
Garbage human being

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 08:18:45 PM
One of the true Despicables.

SMDH


Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on September 15, 2016, 08:53:01 PM
Let's wait for some actual reporting on the Clinton thing instead of a single anonymous source.  If it is true, it will be an enormous scandal, but it is an unsourced allegation.

In the meantime...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-trump-didn-post-9-11-funds-helping-people-article-1.2786879 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-trump-didn-post-9-11-funds-helping-people-article-1.2786879)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2016, 08:56:04 PM
Now a shot of the Haitian protesters at CF HDQTRS.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 15, 2016, 09:52:47 PM
At this point, Camp Clinton's credibility is such crap that she could host a press conference declaring the sky is blue, and public opinion concerning the color of the sky would plummit 60%.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 15, 2016, 10:12:14 PM
Zomg I should have read further into the article. I missed the best part!

Quote
The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people are getting overcharged by Hillary’s campaign and they have no idea.”

Clinton Fundraising = Seedy Porn Company

:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 15, 2016, 10:50:36 PM
http://www.kare11.com/mb/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-unauthorized-charges-by-clinton-campaign/229158541 (http://www.kare11.com/mb/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-unauthorized-charges-by-clinton-campaign/229158541)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 15, 2016, 11:00:38 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/15/clinton_talks_to_press_after_illness_asked_what_she_watched_while_she_was_on_bedrest_for_pneumonia.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/15/clinton_talks_to_press_after_illness_asked_what_she_watched_while_she_was_on_bedrest_for_pneumonia.html)

Talk about a hard-hitting press conference. They're so pathetically sycophantic, we're going to need a new word that hasn't been invented yet to describe the MSM's adoration for Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 15, 2016, 11:13:29 PM
Chill out dude
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 15, 2016, 11:24:45 PM
http://www.kare11.com/mb/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-unauthorized-charges-by-clinton-campaign/229158541 (http://www.kare11.com/mb/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-unauthorized-charges-by-clinton-campaign/229158541)

Bruh, that was three and a half months ago.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 16, 2016, 06:38:26 AM
It was three months ago!  Doesn't matter anymore!

#hilbotlogic
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 16, 2016, 07:06:33 AM
Quite a coincidence.

http://q13fox.com/2012/12/18/grandma-caught-granny-scam-warns-others/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 16, 2016, 08:44:35 AM
It was three months ago!  Doesn't matter anymore!

#hilbotlogic

Not surprised dumbfuck dax missed the point. If this was anything more than an isolated incident or a false claim Hillary would be in a world of crap in the last 1/3 of a year.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 16, 2016, 08:49:47 AM
It was three months ago!  Doesn't matter anymore!

#hilbotlogic

Not surprised dumbfuck dax missed the point. If this was anything more than an isolated incident or a false claim Hillary would be in a world of crap in the last 1/3 of a year.

 :lol: Or on a national level we're just now hearing about it.   Even in today's 24/7/365 news cycle, not every story gets the play it may ultimately deserve right out of the gate.   This isn't real rough ridin' difficult.   But there's still huge stories today, that start out, "When this first happened it didn't get much attention . . . ". 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 16, 2016, 09:15:17 AM
Wasn't there multiple stories about multiple different people trying to cancel reoccurring trump donations? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on September 16, 2016, 09:24:27 AM
Quote
a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department

Wells Fargo eh?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ShellShock on September 16, 2016, 09:26:06 AM
Anyone hear about the Hillary body double conspiracy theory?? Definitely has some legs...
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 16, 2016, 09:26:41 AM
Anyone hear about the Hillary body double conspiracy theory?? Definitely has some legs...

 :drool:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on September 16, 2016, 09:27:12 AM
Maybe the body double is the one committing all the crimes


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 16, 2016, 09:29:01 AM
It was three months ago!  Doesn't matter anymore!

#hilbotlogic

Not surprised dumbfuck dax missed the point. If this was anything more than an isolated incident or a false claim Hillary would be in a world of crap in the last 1/3 of a year.

Amazing that you really believe that. The major media will not cover stories like this until after they gain traction and they are forced to. If this were Trump, WaPo/NYT/CBS/ABC/NBC would leave no stone unturned.

The second story is a few months old because this has been going on for months.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 16, 2016, 09:30:02 AM
how much do you think a hillary body double makes? less likely to get shot than an obama one so probably less than that. I bet it's a "per performance" fee. Probably $20k per? how often are they using this body double?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 16, 2016, 09:32:16 AM
So far just the once, but it was on pretty short notice so maybe they just keep one on retainer
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 16, 2016, 09:33:46 AM
So far just the once, but it was on pretty short notice so maybe they just keep one on retainer

a one off is a $100k job minimum. without being able to rely on a living wage you need to charge these types of fees.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on September 16, 2016, 09:35:58 AM
maybe even more than that. you're paying for their silence as well.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 16, 2016, 09:40:31 AM
Using a double is dangerous because eventually they realize they hold all the power #theprestige 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 16, 2016, 09:45:27 AM
Even more dangerous to be Hills double cause she's killed like over 50 people and guess what she'll do when she's done with you?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 16, 2016, 09:45:45 AM
maybe even more than that. you're paying for their silence as well.

I assume the people that come up with these things just believe the double is murdered after they're used up?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 16, 2016, 09:46:07 AM
Even more dangerous to be Hills double cause she's killed like over 50 people and guess what she'll do when she's done with you?

ha, was just posting
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 16, 2016, 09:49:26 AM
Pump the brakes here, guys.

Quote
Andy Warhol, Miley Cyrus, Jose Canseco, Reba McEntire, Andy Kaufman and others have done it, so why should it come as a surprise when politicians do this?

http://yournewswire.com/pro-clinton-newspaper-says-body-doubles-are-nothing-new/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on September 16, 2016, 09:55:16 AM
there is no way a second human being on planet earth has the same alien mouth shape as reba
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 16, 2016, 10:03:42 AM
100% chance jose canseco's body double was just ozzie canseco pretending to be jose canseco
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 16, 2016, 10:04:35 AM
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/campaign_images/web05/2012/5/29/17/ozzie-canseco-theres-a-conspiracy-against-my-twin-1-20872-1338325285-29_big.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 16, 2016, 04:44:49 PM
there is no way a second human being on planet earth has the same alien mouth shape as reba

Watch your mouth, boy. :curse: I literally have had a crush on Reba for the extent of my life. She was my first celebrity crush, started like second, third grade maybe.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 16, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
MIR has a thing for female singers with weird mouths
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 16, 2016, 04:52:28 PM
MIR has a thing for female singers with weird mouths

Does he like Jewel too?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 16, 2016, 04:54:28 PM
MIR has a thing for female singers with weird mouths

Does he like Jewel too?

I do!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 16, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
Super Moochelle said Hillary is best.  She said trump cant be the president because he disrespects Americans.   Apparently Michelle needs to eat meat instead of vegetables.   Cranky Clinton called 40% of Americans deplorable.  People are tired of the Adorables preaching to us.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 17, 2016, 08:00:46 AM
The dumpster diving is affirming and reaffirming that the Clinton's and Clinton 2008 Campaign are the home of the birther movement.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 19, 2016, 12:24:29 PM
Well elephants do have sex, and that has about as much to do with people disliking.MG as her being a woman.  The itellectual one, Barack Obama said no.one voting for.Hillary because she is a.woman.and America is.sexist.  Well I am a deplorable who would vote for a woman who.believes in conservative principles.  Obama can't admit no one wants 4 more years of his crap.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 19, 2016, 06:26:34 PM
I just read in u.s. News & World Report that Reddit users believe they have found post by the guy that deleted the archives Hillary Clinton asking for advice on how to do so. This was after the house Benghazi committee subpoenaed all of Hillary's emails.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on September 20, 2016, 10:40:11 AM
do you guys think all of the bush's are voting for hillary or just the dad? surprised they aren't voting Johnson tbh.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 20, 2016, 10:41:30 AM
do you guys think all of the bush's are voting for hillary or just the dad? surprised they aren't voting Johnson tbh.

Maybe papa Bush feels like he got burned by Perot and refuses to ever vote 3rd party or something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 20, 2016, 11:07:57 AM
I would write in one of my kids
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 20, 2016, 01:08:12 PM
do you guys think all of the bush's are voting for hillary or just the dad? surprised they aren't voting Johnson tbh.

Isn't GW buds with Bill? Also, I'm not surprised at the Clintons being able to secure pretty much any major politician at this point. It's pretty much their country to run at this point.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 20, 2016, 03:30:56 PM
To be fair, Trumpmsaid some pretty shitty things about Jeb and George. If I was papa Bush I wouldn't vote for him either.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 20, 2016, 03:38:15 PM
There isn't much diff between hill and the Jeb, it seems.  Probably not much diff between W and Hill.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 20, 2016, 08:14:54 PM
how much do you think a hillary body double makes? less likely to get shot than an obama one so probably less than that. I bet it's a "per performance" fee. Probably $20k per? how often are they using this body double?

Bill has absolutely hit the BD right?  just to say he did
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 20, 2016, 08:15:53 PM
No way.  Gotta treat the bd like the real.  Otherwise ppl catch on.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 20, 2016, 08:34:19 PM
No way.  Gotta treat the bd like the real.  Otherwise ppl catch on.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

it's Bill
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Skipper44 on September 20, 2016, 08:35:07 PM
Beware the blown cover
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 22, 2016, 11:22:00 AM
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b2fc974d1d/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-hillary-clinton?_cc=__d___&_ccid=ea2e8b2e-1105-438a-8d67-d07ccbd73189
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 22, 2016, 12:55:39 PM
Obama is so much better at those kind of things
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 22, 2016, 12:57:31 PM
Obama is so much better at those kind of things
Yup. She got pissed.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 22, 2016, 01:01:44 PM
its scripted WC
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 22, 2016, 01:04:18 PM
Meh. Some of it. You think she'd agree to some of those slams?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on September 22, 2016, 01:05:41 PM
Meh. Some of it. You think she'd agree to some of those slams?

Do you think a presidential candidate would sit down with Zach Galifianakis without a hard script?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 22, 2016, 01:07:39 PM
No, but do you think Zach doesn't side step a few of those bull crap hard copy topics?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 22, 2016, 01:20:32 PM
Meh. Some of it. You think she'd agree to some of those slams?

yes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 22, 2016, 05:28:59 PM
Quote
When we do these we prefer to do them with a lot of improvisation, where the interviewee doesn't know what the questions are beforehand, so the campaign was pretty cool about that. In this one, actually, the majority of it was improvised.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/09/story-behind-hillary-clinton-between-two-ferns.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 23, 2016, 10:29:26 AM
Lib seems upset
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 23, 2016, 11:28:51 AM
Lib seems upset

 :lol:  you're such a weirdo
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 23, 2016, 12:08:56 PM
That between two ferns was pretty painful to watch. No idea why she did it. Even in the best case scenario she was going to come off looking stiff and not cool.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on September 23, 2016, 12:39:56 PM
She did it in an attempt to make herself more appealing to younger voters. As far as I know, it will work. All of those shows are kind of painful to watch and kind of unfunny to me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 23, 2016, 12:42:22 PM
The Ben Stiller and Steve Carrell ones were good. Even Obama's was miles better.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 24, 2016, 08:29:16 AM
Oh golly, Obama lied about his knowledge of Hillary's improper email services.   No one is surprised.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on September 24, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
I just watched it and :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 24, 2016, 03:14:51 PM
Oh golly, Obama lied about his knowledge of Hillary's improper email services.   No one is surprised.

I think this particular lie was proven at least six months ago, and latest document dump is just the latest evidence of it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 24, 2016, 04:35:35 PM
White power tie is good
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on September 24, 2016, 08:41:49 PM
Weak coffee.  Lol

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on September 24, 2016, 09:11:19 PM
Between Two Ferns was great. She was stiff on purpose, dummies. That's the gag of the show.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on September 24, 2016, 09:18:31 PM
it really was a great bit.  hopefully gets trump to do one too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on September 24, 2016, 09:22:18 PM
It would be huge if he did
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 24, 2016, 11:22:32 PM
It would be huge if he did
do you mean HUUUGE?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on September 24, 2016, 11:24:31 PM
It would be huge if he did
do you mean HUUUGE?

(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-36421-HUGE-gif-Uma-Thurman-Kill-Bill-3adf.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on September 26, 2016, 11:36:16 AM
johnny o and treysolid putting clownsuits on the uranium conspiracy theorists like dax

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 26, 2016, 12:23:22 PM
I love it when libtards post clips from comedians in support of their position. It's better than when they post clips from uneducated actors.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 26, 2016, 12:24:39 PM
Dax, maybe the Dilbert cartoonist or the Home Improvement guy have a clever retort to the hbo dweeb. :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on September 26, 2016, 12:39:39 PM
I love it when libtards post clips from comedians in support of their position. It's better than when they post clips from uneducated actors.

you must have really hated it when al franken became a senator.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 26, 2016, 12:42:32 PM
What does Paula Poundstone and Carrot Top think about uranium, tre?
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on September 26, 2016, 12:45:04 PM
What about when reality TV show personalities run for president?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on September 26, 2016, 01:01:56 PM
His Jesus president was an uneducated actor so I'm sure he's loving the reality TV star
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 26, 2016, 01:39:02 PM
johnny o and treysolid putting clownsuits on the uranium conspiracy theorists like dax

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI[/youtube]

LOL that you're still butthurt about this.  You're total lack of reading comprehension, putting words in my keyboard, and then hyper embellishing things I never said, are your downfall.

I'll side with the real experts, over the legions of Hillbot apologists and spin doctors.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 26, 2016, 01:42:12 PM
I only want a small portion of what Dr. Feelgood is going to conjure up and pump into Hillary's blood stream before the debate tonight.

It's going to be an amazeballs concoction of drugs.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on September 26, 2016, 01:55:43 PM
One can only imagine who Al Swearengen and Trixie attempting to deliver the dope and puppet master Hillary could be.

Maybe Al Swearengen is Sid Blumenthal and Trixie is Huma Abedin? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on September 26, 2016, 03:05:35 PM
What about when reality TV show personalities run for president?

OH SNAP CATASTROPHE OH SNAP
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 26, 2016, 03:07:06 PM
 
His Jesus president was an uneducated actor so I'm sure he's loving the reality TV star

Hook, line, and sinker for libocrite 

You know stuff can just be funny, you don't have to "but Hillary!" literally everything

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 26, 2016, 03:08:54 PM
One can only imagine who Al Swearengen and Trixie attempting to deliver the dope and puppet master Hillary could be.

Maybe Al Swearengen is Sid Blumenthal and Trixie is Huma Abedin?

Nice Deadwood reference. Is Sid Blumenthal Michael Jackson's doctor?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on September 26, 2016, 03:30:58 PM
johnny o and treysolid putting clownsuits on the uranium conspiracy theorists like dax

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI[/youtube]

LOL that you're still butthurt about this.  You're total lack of reading comprehension, putting words in my keyboard, and then hyper embellishing things I never said, are your downfall.

I'll side with the real experts, over the legions of Hillbot apologists and spin doctors.

Oh dax, I'm not butthurt. This is my victory lap. How you like them raisins?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 26, 2016, 03:35:44 PM
I only want a small portion of what Dr. Feelgood is going to conjure up and pump into Hillary's blood stream before the debate tonight.

It's going to be an amazeballs concoction of drugs.

We should drug test candidates just like Olympic athletes. That would be a nice start.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 28, 2016, 06:46:37 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comeys-clinton-immunity-1475017121

So they granted immunity to Mills (who has been covering up for the Clinton's for years) and then let her be there when they were questioning Hillary?   Just adding more proof that it was just a sham investigation.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 28, 2016, 08:43:25 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comeys-clinton-immunity-1475017121

So they granted immunity to Mills (who has been covering up for the Clinton's for years) and then let her be there when they were questioning Hillary?   Just adding more proof that it was just a sham investigation.
Dax I.wish you were FBI director.  A Fox News article said an IT guy told Pagliano he believed Hillary home brew server was.violating FOIA.  Pags went.to Mills, and.she dismissed.it.saying that.a.former SOS did.it.  This.woman is.a.lawyer.  I flabbergasted she.did say I will look into the legality of the.situation.  Pagliano appears to have done right.  Why is he taking the 5th?  I think he fears for himself and family. Hillary will kill to be President.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 28, 2016, 08:55:24 AM
Numerous people on her staff are taking the 5th, and we have people on this board denying Clinton has engaged in criminal activity. #SMH

I'd imagine these same people deny steroid use in baseball during the late 90's early 00's.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 28, 2016, 09:08:49 AM
Numerous people on her staff are taking the 5th, and we have people on this board denying Clinton has engaged in criminal activity. #SMH

I'd imagine these same people deny steroid use in baseball during the late 90's early 00's.
FSD as one of the pit's most intelligent posters maybe you can give me an answer.  Comey keeps saying that there is no evidence to indict Hillary.  Supposedly the immunity granted to Mills and others extended to their laptops.  Can the information on the laptops be used as.evidence?   My question is, is.there no evidence or no permissible evidence to use?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 28, 2016, 09:45:34 AM
The answer to your question is yes. Common sense would dictate immunity cannot be granted to inanimate objects. Any such agreement would be illusory for want of consideration.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 28, 2016, 09:59:28 PM
Hey Hillary your godsend FBI director Comey said today stop and frisk is a good tool if used right.  Hey Hillary your poster girl for abused women is an accomplice to murder and a porn queen; I think Larry Lightpole is more demeaning to women than Trump.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 29, 2016, 10:26:25 AM
Hey Hillary your poster girl for abused women is an accomplice to murder and a porn queen;

What is this?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on September 29, 2016, 01:14:52 PM
Hey Hillary your poster girl for abused women is an accomplice to murder and a porn queen;

What is this?
At the end of debate Hillary brought up the name of Alicia Machado, a former Miss Universe, HIllary said Trump called her Miss Piggy when she got fat, and violated her contract.  Trump intervened to give her a.chance to lose weight.  Hillary elevated the lady as her postergal to show Trump.hates women.  She was a girlfriend of a drug lord who murdered, and she drove away the car.  If you google her name and porn, you will get an eyeful.  Also she became a citizen of the US the friday before the debate.  Given her background, I suspect strings were pulled to make her a citizen on august 19.  I suspect it is part of her payment to trash Trump.  I doubt the media looks into this.  She was on fox, and did not say Trump called her Miss Piggy and Latina Housekeeper.  This to me is a pitiful contrived Hillary affair.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on September 30, 2016, 08:22:11 PM
https://youtu.be/OJC22dsjkAM

She's doing it again
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on October 03, 2016, 09:11:15 PM
Wikileaks dropping a bomb at 5am  :Wha:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 03, 2016, 09:32:51 PM
i like wikileak's single twitter like :thumbs:

hopefully it brings her down. wth happened after the dnc?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 03, 2016, 10:53:07 PM
They found an email where hilltard rhetorically asked about "droning" assange, and they're all pissy. It would be funny if hilltard wasnt using don's rhetorical nuking the ME and a major campaign platform. What a stupid bitch.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 04, 2016, 07:33:18 AM
Wikileaks dropping a bomb at 5am  :Wha:

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 04, 2016, 07:46:00 AM
Seems like he doesn"t have anything in his hands. Has he been waiting on Russia to deliver it or something?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 04, 2016, 08:50:41 AM
Of course they have nothing. I loved all the speculation about what it could be though, people get super delusional when faced with the possibility of learning secrets about someone they irrationally hate.

Oh oh, I bet they have email evidence of HRC ordering 3 murders!  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 04, 2016, 09:00:02 AM
What's irrational about the hate?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 04, 2016, 09:08:54 AM
I mean, it's not that there are emails and no evidence. There aren't even any emails. He acted like there definitely would be and gave the impression that he had them. Has he been played by Russia?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 04, 2016, 09:17:39 AM
Here's some of the source of the "irrational hate" butthurt.

http://m.torontosun.com/2016/10/03/hillary-clinton-suggested-taking-out-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-with-drone-report

I suppose I don't like poeple who want to kill me. :nono:

If Trump said this there be a week of NYT and WaPo editorials calling him oranhe hitler and unfit to lead based on "temperament".

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 04, 2016, 09:19:00 AM
I think he has some mildly interesting stuff, but right now is trying to raise his profile as much as possible and get some free press for himself knowing how critical the timing is here.

I'm sure it's nothing that would change either side's minds.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 04, 2016, 09:19:20 AM
I mean, it's not that there are emails and no evidence. There aren't even any emails. He acted like there definitely would be and gave the impression that he had them. Has he been played by Russia?

Emails but no evidence? Are emails not evidentiary in the mind of the irrational hillbot supporter?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 04, 2016, 09:25:07 AM
 :)

Quote
“If we are going to make a major publication about the U.S., we wouldn't do it at 3 a.m.," Assange said at one point, referring to the Eastern daylight start time for the event.

That didn’t go over well with Trump backers who had stayed up through the night, thinking they’d be watching live the unveiling of the death blow to the Clinton campaign.
...
Infowars, the pro-Trump and virulently anti-Clinton media vehicle launched by Texas radio host Alex Jones, had touted the WikiLeaks news conference as “historic” and promised that “the Clintons will be devastated.”

Before Assange took the stage, Jones — who broadcast through the wee hours of the American morning — told viewers and listeners he was so excited he was worried his heart couldn't stand it.

But by the end, Jones realized he’d been played — or in his words, “#wikirolled.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/04/trump-backers-feel-played-as-wikileaks-fails-to-come-through-on-october-surprise/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 04, 2016, 09:30:02 AM
I have seen references to alex jones losing his mind last night when nothing happened, I'd like more details
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on October 04, 2016, 09:45:35 AM
The thought of anyone staying up or waking up at an ungodly hour because they thought something was going to get leaked literally blows my mind.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 04, 2016, 09:46:27 AM
https://twitter.com/nick_ramsey/status/783237969285091328
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on October 04, 2016, 09:51:39 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 04, 2016, 10:42:56 AM
10 leaks in 10 weeks, all the election stuff before Nov 8

 :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 04, 2016, 11:17:32 AM
Let's not kid ourselves, if hillcrook and the dnc didn't think WL had anything, they wouldn't be running a 24/7 concerted smear campaign against Assange with the NYT and WaPo. "He's a Putin lapdog, soviet spy, child rapist, and emails aren't evidentiary!!!"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on October 04, 2016, 11:47:40 AM
He doesn't have anything that's going to make her lose.  Sorry FSD.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 04, 2016, 12:07:13 PM
If Clinton could Clinton the world, but for the USA and not just for the Clintons, that would be amaze and would make all this worth it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 04, 2016, 03:09:39 PM
If Clinton could Clinton the world, but for the USA and not just for the Clintons, that would be amaze and would make all this worth it.

here's one.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 04, 2016, 03:16:33 PM
I had you in mind as I typed that.  :takethebait:

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 04, 2016, 03:22:54 PM
i'd told you i'd be looking for bait.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 04, 2016, 03:56:47 PM
https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/clinton-foundation/ interesting if true
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 04, 2016, 04:14:00 PM
Hello. I'm an elite hacker. I use wordpress and have issues with file hosting solutions.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 04, 2016, 04:19:00 PM
Must be tbt
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 04, 2016, 04:23:17 PM
he can use xanga for all i care
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 04, 2016, 05:27:46 PM
Hillbots still pissed that WL exposed the rigged primaries.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 04, 2016, 07:06:43 PM
Even when the reporter tosses the softball "did you ever joke about..." , she bungles it and comes of as a liar.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/783424443070738433
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on October 04, 2016, 07:28:15 PM
Must be tbt

:gocho:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 8manpick on October 05, 2016, 08:58:02 AM
Is this where we post polls?
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161005/ab0253a16e4b13ae8c1b3d229ad0d56e.png)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 05, 2016, 09:30:36 AM
i'll take the crap out of that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 05, 2016, 09:45:32 AM
Assange should be all: "we'll release the emails when Trump releases his tax returns."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 05, 2016, 09:50:00 AM
Hello. I'm an elite hacker. I use wordpress and have issues with file hosting solutions.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 05, 2016, 10:18:58 AM
Guilty as Sin is a book that will be released soon about MG.  The author points out that Comey did not indict  her because he did not have evidence.  Cheryl Mills worked out an immunity deal with Comey so he could look at her personal computer, but the deal said he could not use anything on it that was past a certain date.  It is my understanding after this date all of data Comey was looking for was erased when it was was subpoenaed by Congress.  Mills cannot be charged for this wiping because of the immunity deal and information on the computer can't be.used even if it shows Mills.ordered the destruction of evidence at the behest of Hillary.  So was.Comey stupid or a lackey?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 05, 2016, 10:25:19 AM
i'll take the crap out of that.

Uh....that has him leading in two battleground states, one of which has the same EC votes as Kansas.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 05, 2016, 11:53:40 AM
Silver's odds are mumped up. He's a whore for page views.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 05, 2016, 12:46:48 PM
If he really wanted page views, he would put the odds of Trump winning at 50-60%. Then Trump would guaranteed be mentioning his page during every speech and debate.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 05, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
If Trump loses will he still declare himself the winner?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 05, 2016, 03:31:35 PM
He is going to sue every state that doesn't declare him the winner.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 05, 2016, 08:56:13 PM
Hillary in seclusion getting some good Dr. Feelgood treatment(s) pre debate.

What a cocktail.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 05, 2016, 09:03:01 PM
Good update, thx
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 05, 2016, 09:05:10 PM
Good update, thx

Gotta keep you Hilbots informed, you're obsessed with Trump and don't pay attention to Grandma War Monger as much as you should.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 05, 2016, 09:10:18 PM
So true!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 05, 2016, 09:29:00 PM
Hillary really is mailing it in. The commercial that just aired on the Wild Card game was just clips of her saying "I. BE-LIEVE. IN. OUR. CHILDREN." From different eras. Its starting to feel like when Dad plays the pre schooler in checkers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on October 05, 2016, 10:09:21 PM
Ya, about as bad as the University Phoenix ads by Trump
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 05, 2016, 10:15:30 PM
Hillary loves white kids. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 06, 2016, 12:28:59 AM
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/what-is-the-point-of-tim-kaine-1787460446
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 06, 2016, 06:48:41 AM
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/what-is-the-point-of-tim-kaine-1787460446

I very much appreciate the killer intinct in taking Virginia out of play. She needs to do absolutely everything she can to defeat Trump and nothing less.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 06, 2016, 07:04:15 AM
i can falsify the assertion that kaine does not appeal to prospective johnson voters.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 06, 2016, 07:51:44 AM
I just figured Hillary felt like she had to have an old white guy on the ticket to win. Not because she's sexist or racist obviously, but because America is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 06, 2016, 09:07:09 AM
I just figured Hillary felt like she had to have an old white guy on the ticket to win. Not because she's sexist or racist obviously, but because America is.

That's foolish logic, a bigot isn't going to vote for Hillary because she has a white guy on the bottom of the ticket. Also I don't think the point is that she needed a woman or a minority but that she shouldn't have picked someone so rigidly establishment, because despite the fact she is a woman she has connection issues because she is the poster child for establishment politics and she went with that as her running mate. She could have found a white guy that isn't so establishment.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 06, 2016, 09:54:19 AM
I don't know, it just seems like Trump wants to wrap a few things up and then get out of the perpetual war business.   While Hillary's entire track record is of perpetual war and the propagation of further conflict. 

Even far left publications have been saying for two years that if it's perpetual war you want, then Hillary Clinton is the candidate you need to vote for. 

Not to mention the fact that her most trusted adviser's (and suite mate) family history is that of hardcore conservative (Islamic) theocracy, to the point of blaming America for 9-11, and a firm belief in Sharia Law.   Thus, this drives Hillary's disdain for Israel, and for secular leaning governments (the very few that are left) in the Middle East. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 06, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
Nothing better to end perpetual war than:

Going to war with Iran because some sailors gave a ship of ours the finger
Encouraging China to go to war with n Korea
Using nuclear weapons
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wELLsculptedbrows on October 06, 2016, 10:02:31 AM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34dJ7nheBaw[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 06, 2016, 10:08:51 AM
I just figured Hillary felt like she had to have an old white guy on the ticket to win. Not because she's sexist or racist obviously, but because America is.

That's foolish logic, a bigot isn't going to vote for Hillary because she has a white guy on the bottom of the ticket. Also I don't think the point is that she needed a woman or a minority but that she shouldn't have picked someone so rigidly establishment, because despite the fact she is a woman she has connection issues because she is the poster child for establishment politics and she went with that as her running mate. She could have found a white guy that isn't so establishment.

I didn't say I thought it was a good plan.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 06, 2016, 10:39:25 AM
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34dJ7nheBaw[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/P35KvuVYMEo[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 06, 2016, 12:28:53 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 06, 2016, 01:47:15 PM
Nothing better to end perpetual war than:

Going to war with Iran because some sailors gave a ship of ours the finger
Encouraging China to go to war with n Korea
Using nuclear weapons

Let's see, words vs reality.  Looks like reality wins every time.   

Trump: Words

Hillary: Blood and dead people, lots of them
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 06, 2016, 02:00:03 PM
Yea, I think the point of a lot of the anti Trump sentiment is from folks would would like to keep Trump's rhetoric to just words.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 06, 2016, 02:11:22 PM
Yea, I think the point of a lot of the anti Trump sentiment is from folks would would like to keep Trump's rhetoric to just words.

While the majority turn a blind eye to the vast swath of death and destruction Hillary has already brought to the world.  While ignoring her clear proclivity to choosing the military option early and often. 

#hilbotlogic
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 06, 2016, 07:46:26 PM
I like The Atlantic's title on their endorsement

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 06, 2016, 09:26:36 PM
There's no case to be made for either of them, libtard dave
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 06, 2016, 10:06:47 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-coordinated-on-clinton-email-issues-new-documents-show-1475798310?mod=e2tw
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 07, 2016, 03:05:27 PM
This scary clown thing is getting out of hand.............

















(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuI1AvVUMAEpHjL.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on October 07, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
shopped
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2016, 07:32:28 PM
Am I the only one who sees the irony in Hillary calling out Trump about the way he treats women?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on October 07, 2016, 07:32:59 PM
Double standard
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 07, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
I don't see any irony there, CF3.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2016, 07:49:14 PM
I don't see any irony there, CF3.

really
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 07, 2016, 08:37:45 PM
She was very mean to bill's victims.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 07, 2016, 09:45:37 PM
would you think poorly of a man who didn't support and encourage other men who were rough ridin' his wife?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
would you think poorly of a man who didn't support and encourage other men who were rough ridin' his wife?

i don't know
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 07, 2016, 10:54:08 PM
would you think poorly of a man who didn't support and encourage other men who were rough ridin' his wife?

i don't know

when you decide, you can start puzzling in on how ironic it is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2016, 11:00:46 PM
oh come on sys. you really think there's a big problem out there with women abusing and degrading and assaulting men?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 07, 2016, 11:07:35 PM
i think your idea that a woman should not respond to being cheated on in the same way a man can is pathetic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2016, 11:09:30 PM
you know bill clinton was accussed of a lot more than infidelity right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 07, 2016, 11:12:51 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2016, 11:14:36 PM
ok well google it. and if a woman in power was sexually harrassing/assaulting a man, then yes, I'd expect the husband to not seek to destroy the victims. that's the irony sys.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 07, 2016, 11:21:16 PM
i doubt if i'll google it.  link it up if you have something you want me to read.


unless the other party was a child or there was clear evidence of some sort of violence i would not expect anyone's spouse to search for any mitigating circumstances to excuse the activities of the person with whom their spouse was cheating on them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 10:43:30 AM
The "irrational apologetics" from the hillbots is disturbing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 10:49:11 AM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784524366398758912
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 10:50:54 AM
 :surprised:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784589994614751232
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
This is what "smart" people dream about
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784590390112419844
 :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 10:54:42 AM
She's only lied about about 46,000 times

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784538205156700164
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 10:58:11 AM
This misogynistic assclown is stumping for chief woman hater hillbot

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784529660625453057
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 02:33:25 PM
Placing stories  :facepalm:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784837207110606853
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 08, 2016, 02:51:17 PM
This WL stuff is super underwhelming

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 08, 2016, 02:53:46 PM
Just wait until they release the murder emails
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 08, 2016, 03:05:34 PM
Sys is going to yell at you

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 03:09:41 PM
This WL stuff is super underwhelming

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

It's just more overwhelming evidence that's she a horrible, dishonest, deplorable human, who stands for nothinf other than herself and can't be trusted as president.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/10/07/wikileaks_releases_excerpts_of_hillary_clinton_s_wall_street_speeches.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 08, 2016, 03:18:34 PM
Well, yeah, but yawn.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 03:48:10 PM
There are 6 pages on this blog over donald saying "grabbing pussy"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 08, 2016, 03:51:06 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDunHcRf2qgrs_em2Xcy-9SzmZeUoa6NrNv9psflJwAjUXw1fz)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2016, 03:53:46 PM
There are 6 pages on this blog over donald saying "grabbing pussy"

And you're taking it very well
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CHONGS on October 08, 2016, 04:07:08 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
You need to remember that evangelicals love the crap out of Trump.  More than Romney by far. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 04:26:37 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
You need to remember that evangelicals love the crap out of Trump.  More than Romney by far. 

the "God and Country" duck dynasty, pat robertson crowd sure. However many prominent leaders of faith have been very outspoken against him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 08, 2016, 04:31:34 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
You need to remember that evangelicals love the crap out of Trump.  More than Romney by far. 

the "God and Country" duck dynasty, pat robertson crowd sure. However many prominent leaders of faith have been very outspoken against him.

They're voting for him
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CHONGS on October 08, 2016, 04:32:30 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
You need to remember that evangelicals love the crap out of Trump.  More than Romney by far. 

the "God and Country" duck dynasty, pat robertson crowd sure. However many prominent leaders of faith have been very outspoken against him.

They're voting for him
Of course they are. They nominated him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 08, 2016, 04:45:07 PM
Placing stories  :facepalm:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784837207110606853

Is this part of the October surprise?

:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 04:52:34 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
You need to remember that evangelicals love the crap out of Trump.  More than Romney by far. 

the "God and Country" duck dynasty, pat robertson crowd sure. However many prominent leaders of faith have been very outspoken against him.

They're voting for him
Of course they are. They nominated him.

https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-a-declaration-by-american-evangelicals-concerning-donald-trump (https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-a-declaration-by-american-evangelicals-concerning-donald-trump)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CHONGS on October 08, 2016, 05:00:48 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
You need to remember that evangelicals love the crap out of Trump.  More than Romney by far. 

the "God and Country" duck dynasty, pat robertson crowd sure. However many prominent leaders of faith have been very outspoken against him.

They're voting for him
Of course they are. They nominated him.

https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-a-declaration-by-american-evangelicals-concerning-donald-trump (https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-a-declaration-by-american-evangelicals-concerning-donald-trump)
I bet most are still voting for Trump.

 And 15k is laughable compared to the mainstream evangelicals who are going to vote for him in the millions.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 05:04:20 PM
chings, i'm not defending anyone who is voting for trump, but you're overstating your position.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 05:05:04 PM
i wonder if I'm voting for Trump. Chings, care to weigh in on this?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CHONGS on October 08, 2016, 05:11:16 PM
i wonder if I'm voting for Trump. Chings, care to weigh in on this?
I would imagine so.  You are right in his biggest base of support, and you're a single issue voter.  I would be surprised if you didn't.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 05:12:59 PM
well you'd be wrong
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CHONGS on October 08, 2016, 05:14:48 PM
We'll see.  I don't think I will be.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 05:23:24 PM
I know Chings is trolling and all, but it does kinda bother me people would think I'm in Trump's biggest base of support. I've never owned a gun, I'm not against gun control, I'm for open borders and free trade, I'm for states rights, I'm in favor of letting in Syrian refugees, I'm against unnecessary use of force for regime change in the middle east and other places, I'm in favor of legalizing drugs, I'm in favor of legal marriage equality, I'm against the death penalty, I'm in favor of freedom of speech and press, I'm against mandatory minimum sentences for convicts, I'm against stop and frisk, I'm against the militarization of the police, I don't care if English is the primary language used by people in our country, I'm against expanding military spending, etc. etc. etc.

So I guess Chings thinks because I'm pro-life I'm voting for Trump.

I know its a message board but it does kinda bother me people would think that about me. Anyway guys, I'll be over in the MLB thread if you need me.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 08, 2016, 05:26:03 PM
You said you'd never vote for a pro-choice candidate earlier this year, CF3.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 05:29:26 PM
You said you'd never vote for a pro-choice candidate earlier this year, CF3.

That's true. I did say that. That statement and the response on this blog has caused a lot of self reflection to be honest. I did vote for Bob Barr in 2008 and he was pro-choice so I probably overstated that position.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 08, 2016, 05:35:47 PM
I think cf3 probably tests out of the trump demo by not being an idiot racist moron
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 08, 2016, 05:36:49 PM
You said you'd never vote for a pro-choice candidate earlier this year, CF3.

That's true. I did say that. That statement and the response on this blog has caused a lot of self reflection to be honest. I did vote for Bob Barr in 2008 and he was pro-choice so I probably overstated that position.
Thank you for reading and considering other opinions and challenging your own. I know lots of people say you can't change people's minds with these conversations, but I know I am often swayed by them and I think that's a good thing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 08, 2016, 05:39:02 PM
Also anyone with a brain can see trump is pandering to pro-life vote because he has to. He doesn't care one bit about ending abortion.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on October 08, 2016, 05:41:12 PM
of course not. a man who has been filthy rich his entire life and has never given a single penny to a pregnancy crisis center, or an adoption agency, or worked to improve foster care in his state or city, or supported single mothers in any way is full of crap.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 05:47:08 PM
 :lol:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784881899688828928


Russians!!! :curse: :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 05:49:29 PM
i know that has been claimed.  i'm not familiar with the details.
You need to remember that evangelicals love the crap out of Trump.  More than Romney by far. 

the "God and Country" duck dynasty, pat robertson crowd sure. However many prominent leaders of faith have been very outspoken against him.

They're voting for him
Of course they are. They nominated him.

https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-a-declaration-by-american-evangelicals-concerning-donald-trump (https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-a-declaration-by-american-evangelicals-concerning-donald-trump)
I bet most are still voting for Trump.

 And 15k is laughable compared to the mainstream evangelicals who are going to vote for him in the millions.

So what? Liberals and progressives are voting for neo-con hilltard
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 05:51:19 PM
If you think demonstrating that a demographic is voting hypocritically in this election puts you on the high road, you're rough ridin' delusional*.


*most of you obviously are
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CHONGS on October 08, 2016, 05:58:19 PM
I don't Trump voters are hypocritical.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 06:00:20 PM
Interesting if true
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 08, 2016, 07:03:24 PM
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912

Keep in mind this guy is a serial liar
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 07:53:57 PM
*And a russian spy

#dncpropoganda
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 08, 2016, 10:06:22 PM
Anyone feeling the bern is hopeless and ignorant

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784940702593581056

Most genuine hilltard statement on record?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 09, 2016, 12:16:54 AM
This WL stuff is super underwhelming

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

It's just more overwhelming evidence that's she a horrible, dishonest, deplorable human, who stands for nothinf other than herself and can't be trusted as president.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/10/07/wikileaks_releases_excerpts_of_hillary_clinton_s_wall_street_speeches.html

I think I said this exact thing back in the winter
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 09, 2016, 12:30:05 AM
What's something terrible that she said? I've read a couple articles and didn't think anything was terrible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 09, 2016, 12:58:30 AM
What's something terrible that she said? I've read a couple articles and didn't think anything was terrible.

it makes me a lot happier to be voting for her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 09, 2016, 10:32:47 AM
It's all confirmation that she is the ambitious, insincere, duplicitous, soulless political machine we thought she was. If you couldn't stand her before, this is everything you thought she was, if you were a supporter you can continue to hold your nose knowing you have no idea what she believes in, and she only cares about Hillary but she is a woman and she isn't Trump, so yay!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 09, 2016, 10:39:03 AM
The "you should have private and public policy positions" quote should be sufficient to drown any politician. It's her and her elites, everyone else is to be trick mumped into voting for her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 09, 2016, 10:41:13 AM
I didn't need any new evidence to confirm that she behaves like every major candidate for President ever.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 09, 2016, 10:46:21 AM
Cynical and delusional are a bad combo.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 09, 2016, 12:57:34 PM
Let's see:

-It's well understood that Hillary used her contacts and powers to destroy the women that spoke out about Bill. (Most Dems don't care).

-Hillary (and husband) have had expansive dealings with, owe political favors to, and taken in donations from people who consider women as property (Most Dems don't care).   

-Hillary (and husband) have had expansive dealing with, owe political favors to, and taken in donations from people who who stone LGBT in the town the square (Most Dems don't care).

-Hillary has and likely will continue to prop up hardcore theological dictatorships and oligarchies that practice and espouse hardcore Sharia Law which considers women as property, turns a blind eye to honor killings, and who subject LBGT people to death and/or torture (Most Dems don't care). 

-Hillary seeks advice from people who hate and she constantly shows malice towards the only secular oriented democracy left in the Middle East (Most Dems don't care). 

-Hillary supported building a border fence, advocated for more border patrol and technology on the border and assailed Mexico on their immigration policy as a Senator (Most Dems don't care that's she's now pandering in nearly a total flip-flop). 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 09, 2016, 01:04:56 PM
I didn't need any new evidence to confirm that she behaves like every major candidate for President ever.

Absurd. This is equivalent to everyone's racist.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 09, 2016, 01:08:29 PM
Let's see:

-It's well understood that Hillary used her contacts and powers to destroy the women that spoke out about Bill. (Most Dems don't care).

-Hillary (and husband) have had expansive dealings with, owe political favors to, and taken in donations from people who consider women as property (Most Dems don't care).   

-Hillary (and husband) have had expansive dealing with, owe political favors to, and taken in donations from people who who stone LGBT in the town the square (Most Dems don't care).

-Hillary has and likely will continue to prop up hardcore theological dictatorships and oligarchies that practice and espouse hardcore Sharia Law which considers women as property, turns a blind eye to honor killings, and who subject LBGT people to death and/or torture (Most Dems don't care). 

-Hillary seeks advice from people who hate and she constantly shows malice towards the only secular oriented democracy left in the Middle East (Most Dems don't care). 

-Hillary supported building a border fence, advocated for more border patrol and technology on the border and assailed Mexico on their immigration policy as a Senator (Most Dems don't care that's she's now pandering in nearly a total flip-flop).

Do you have a compulsion to exaggerate to the point where people who should agree with you find you buffoonish?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on October 09, 2016, 01:11:01 PM
Let's see:

-It's well understood that Hillary used her contacts and powers to destroy the women that spoke out about Bill. (Most Dems don't care).

-Hillary (and husband) have had expansive dealings with, owe political favors to, and taken in donations from people who consider women as property (Most Dems don't care).   

-Hillary (and husband) have had expansive dealing with, owe political favors to, and taken in donations from people who who stone LGBT in the town the square (Most Dems don't care).

-Hillary has and likely will continue to prop up hardcore theological dictatorships and oligarchies that practice and espouse hardcore Sharia Law which considers women as property, turns a blind eye to honor killings, and who subject LBGT people to death and/or torture (Most Dems don't care). 

-Hillary seeks advice from people who hate and she constantly shows malice towards the only secular oriented democracy left in the Middle East (Most Dems don't care). 

-Hillary supported building a border fence, advocated for more border patrol and technology on the border and assailed Mexico on their immigration policy as a Senator (Most Dems don't care that's she's now pandering in nearly a total flip-flop).


Link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 09, 2016, 02:49:08 PM
Will Hillary's failed middle east policies cause an islamic sectarian war?  Just read a thought provoking article on MSN.  Apparently Iran want march through Syria to connect to Lebanon to establish a land bridge to the Mediterranean.  The goal being to bring Shiite to all of the arab world.  Sunnis will fight, and there could be big repercussions.  All of this started with the Obama-Hillary happy Arab spring initiative.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 09, 2016, 04:01:07 PM
I didn't need any new evidence to confirm that she behaves like every major candidate for President ever.

Absurd. This is equivalent to everyone's racist.

In my experience, lying is a fundamental aspect of their job. If they didn't lie, they would never have been elected.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 09, 2016, 04:24:10 PM


I didn't need any new evidence to confirm that she behaves like every major candidate for President ever.

Absurd. This is equivalent to everyone's racist.

In my experience, lying is a fundamental aspect of their job. If they didn't lie, they would never have been elected.

Yeah, I don't understand what about those emails was particularly surprising.

To me, the most surprising thing is that someone wouldn't expect elements of a private speech to leak.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 09, 2016, 04:50:17 PM
i don't even know that it is lying.  does everyone not accept that a politician's expressed policy preferences are some amalgam of their own thoughts, party orthodoxy and the expressed will of the electorate?

i'm happy to see that she, at least at times, is willing to articulate thoughts more in line with my own than with her party's orthodoxy and the generally ignorant opinion of the unwashed masses.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on October 09, 2016, 05:26:36 PM
https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/785235640283754496
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 09, 2016, 05:32:29 PM
Link?  LOL, you dumbasses haven't seen the articles on Clinton's biggest contributors?  You been stoned or under a rock.


Meanwhile Hillary "we will bring them to heel" Clinton goes full Harrison, AR

Via WL:

 "The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half of a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between these two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.”
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 09, 2016, 05:34:20 PM
I would like a point by point link as well please
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 09, 2016, 05:35:10 PM
And no infowars sources dax, I know your games
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on October 09, 2016, 06:32:05 PM
Link?  LOL, you dumbasses haven't seen the articles on Clinton's biggest contributors?  You been stoned or under a rock.


Meanwhile Hillary "we will bring them to heel" Clinton goes full Harrison, AR

Via WL:

 "The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half of a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between these two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.”

Who said this highly racist stuff?  Podesta or Hill
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 09, 2016, 09:23:32 PM
https://twitter.com/SurvivinAmerica/status/785302061378334720
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 09, 2016, 10:13:47 PM
Russian Uranium stuff
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785304959122300928
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 09, 2016, 10:38:19 PM
Link?  LOL, you dumbasses haven't seen the articles on Clinton's biggest contributors?  You been stoned or under a rock.


Meanwhile Hillary "we will bring them to heel" Clinton goes full Harrison, AR

Via WL:

 "The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half of a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between these two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.”

Who said this highly racist stuff?  Podesta or Hill
You should read outliers.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 09, 2016, 10:42:16 PM
Russian hackers said all that, truat Her
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: waks on October 10, 2016, 02:54:09 AM
It's like the resident 'pubs are so knee-deep in this crap that they can't see the writing on the wall. It's just rough ridin' insane, really.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2016, 06:50:56 AM
I read Hillary's emails and I see her male doppelgänger



https://youtu.be/XsxwhRiiWtc (https://youtu.be/XsxwhRiiWtc)

Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2016, 06:59:11 AM
Gosh, more proof that Hillary is a pandering fraud, no one but Hilbots are surprised. 

Sadly, Bernie has sold out to the machine. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-emails-clinton-private-speech-trade-2016-10
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 10, 2016, 07:18:39 AM
Does 2+2 still equal 4? Let me get my calculator.

Just checked. 2+2 does still equal 4. Good.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 10, 2016, 08:47:57 AM
Saintly virtue is the standard Hillary is trying to establish to be President. Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Clinton B would not be president if they were held to Hillary's standards.  I hear no apologies from Hillary about the damage Obamahillary policies have hurt millions.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 10, 2016, 02:33:04 PM
 :surprised:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785529594778615813
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 10, 2016, 04:57:10 PM
:surprised:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785529594778615813

If you read through the whole chain, that must have been the time when they were trying to make the foundation a legit looking charity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 10, 2016, 09:57:27 PM
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785313930365263872
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785573385308962818
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785586566710304769

(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/Billy%20popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 10, 2016, 11:12:10 PM
10 internet points for whoever guesses the nefarious foreign government the dnc accuses okeefe of being affiliated with.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 10, 2016, 11:32:53 PM
I have a good feeling about indictment this time around, guys.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 10, 2016, 11:44:27 PM
what are the chances that whoever loses this election is imprisoned within the next year?  it's not zero.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 10, 2016, 11:46:01 PM
what are the chances that whoever loses this election is imprisoned within the next year?  it's not zero.

Trial maybe, but the justice system isn't fast enough for conviction
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 10, 2016, 11:48:43 PM
trial should count, as long as they eventually end up imprisoned.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 11, 2016, 08:02:01 AM
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785313930365263872
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785573385308962818
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785586566710304769

(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/Billy%20popcorn.gif)
Wait is that the hidden camera abortion guy?


Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 11, 2016, 08:06:49 AM
Yes, and the acorn guy. This is going to be underwhelming
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 11, 2016, 08:07:42 AM
what are the chances that whoever loses this election is imprisoned within the next year?  it's not zero.

I think it's pretty close to zero.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 11, 2016, 12:53:22 PM
WL reveals:

-Major COLUSION with multiple MSM outlets at DNC level

-Hillary hates the little people (that includes resident Hillbots and resident closted Hillbots)

-Clinton knew Saudi's and others were funding ISIS while CF was accepting $$ from powerful individuals from within those governments

-COLUSION to back stab Bernie

-State colluded with Clinton campaign on Hillary's (SOS) email releases

SMDH, Sad

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 11, 2016, 12:57:10 PM
Dax I will sign any petiton you start to impeach Premier Clinton.  Hopefully we can hold.Congress so we can impeach.  I could live with Kaine.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 11, 2016, 02:11:09 PM
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785313930365263872
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785573385308962818
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785586566710304769

(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/Billy%20popcorn.gif)
Wait is that the hidden camera abortion guy?



So the "bomb" today is that some election guy thinks there is maybe voter fraud because voters can wear burkas  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 11, 2016, 02:14:10 PM
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785313930365263872
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785573385308962818
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785586566710304769

(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/Billy%20popcorn.gif)
Wait is that the hidden camera abortion guy?



So the "bomb" today is that some election guy thinks there is maybe voter fraud because voters can wear burkas 
:love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on October 11, 2016, 04:32:21 PM
omg  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 11, 2016, 05:00:07 PM
that's the bomb alright
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 11, 2016, 05:48:10 PM
WL exposes more pay-to-play.   Haiti, special access for sale etc. etc., much of which occurred while HRC was SOS.

SMDH (again); really awful corrupt people, but they're (D)'s, so that doesn't matter. 

#hillbotnation

#closetedhillbots

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 11, 2016, 06:23:14 PM
WL reveals:

-Major COLUSION with multiple MSM outlets at DNC level

-Hillary hates the little people (that includes resident Hillbots and resident closted Hillbots)

-Clinton knew Saudi's and others were funding ISIS while CF was accepting $$ from powerful individuals from within those governments

-COLUSION to back stab Bernie

-State colluded with Clinton campaign on Hillary's (SOS) email releases

SMDH, Sad

WL exposes more pay-to-play.   Haiti, special access for sale etc. etc., much of which occurred while HRC was SOS.

SMDH (again); really awful corrupt people, but they're (D)'s, so that doesn't matter. 

#hillbotnation

#closetedhillbots



(http://weneedfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Talking-Parrot-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 12, 2016, 01:02:21 AM
more dishonesty

(http://i.imgur.com/at4Qlrv.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 12, 2016, 06:59:59 AM
3051? How many were hired?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on October 12, 2016, 09:50:13 AM
Quote from: Ed Klein
Bill has a luxurious penthouse on the fifth floor of the William Jefferson Clinton Library in Little Rock. He spends an enormous amount of time down there; the national press corps has never reported on this. He invites 20-year-old interns who work at the library to come up to his penthouse to give him foot massages. All of this is in my book, Guilty as Sin.

dax, i need you to confirm veracity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 12, 2016, 10:18:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Klein
Bill has a luxurious penthouse on the fifth floor of the William Jefferson Clinton Library in Little Rock. He spends an enormous amount of time down there; the national press corps has never reported on this. He invites 20-year-old interns who work at the library to come up to his penthouse to give him foot massages. All of this is in my book, Guilty as Sin.

dax, i need you to confirm veracity.

Why?  Weird post
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 12, 2016, 10:19:53 AM
Quote from: Ed Klein
Bill has a luxurious penthouse on the fifth floor of the William Jefferson Clinton Library in Little Rock. He spends an enormous amount of time down there; the national press corps has never reported on this. He invites 20-year-old interns who work at the library to come up to his penthouse to give him foot massages. All of this is in my book, Guilty as Sin.

dax, i need you to confirm veracity.


Guarantee that Barry comes by all the time
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 12, 2016, 10:24:39 AM
Great parrot MIR.  But as a feel the Bern'er you should be livid with what's being exposed. 

Or, did you sell out like Bernie?

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 12, 2016, 11:40:05 AM
Its all very stale, crap I accused her of in January and February but you're posting this crap on repeat like its breaking news.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 12, 2016, 01:00:28 PM
Because it's affirming what so many Hillbots tried to deny. 

The denial, obfuscation, re-direction machine that is team Clinton which is constantly walking on a razor wire of plausible deniability, banking on national ADHD syndrome and an apologetic/soft ball/cheerleading media is being exposed (again) for their true selves.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 12, 2016, 05:44:21 PM
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/786311585530650624

one time :pray:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 12, 2016, 05:57:22 PM
Keep praying
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 12, 2016, 06:03:58 PM
Bomb #2  :lol:

Quote
(NEW YORK) — In a new video released by Project Veritas Action, James O’Keefe exposes the “misogynistic” nature of the Hillary Clinton campaign and its organizers, who joke about sexually harassing women and committing voter fraud on the campaign.

In the video, Wylie Mao, a field organizer for the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party of Florida in West Palm Beach is caught on camera saying that the Hillary Clinton campaign would excuse his sexual assault of a fellow female campaign worker.

“I think the bar of acceptable conduct in this campaign is pretty low. To be fired I would have to grab Emma’s ass twice and she would have to complain about it, I would have to sexually harass someone,” said Mao.

After saying that he could get away with sexually harassing fellow female Hillary Clinton organizers, several female campaign organizers are seen laughing at his comments.

James O’Keefe makes a cameo in the video where he makes a comparison between Donald Trump’s recent comments regarding grabbing women by the p***y and Mao’s comments about grabbing a Hillary Clinton director’s ass, twice. O’Keefe insists that the comments are similar in nature, which is why the mainstream media must treat both fairly.

Mao also suggested that he could rip up voter registration forms and get away with it too, saying, “If I rip up completed VR forms, like 20 of them, I think I’ll just get reprimanded. I don’t think I would get fired.”

Project Veritas wanted to see how the Hillary Clinton staffers would react to ripped up VR forms, so a PV journalist said he ripped up three Republican registration forms.

Upon hearing this, Trevor Lafauci a Clinton campaign staffer said, “Yeah that should be fine,” and he said he would not report it.

Project Veritas journalists confronted both Mao and Lafauci about the comments they made on camera. They both refused to answer and walked away.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 12, 2016, 06:22:29 PM
At this point, it's probably too late for any Clinton scandal that could actually happen to change the outcome of the election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 12, 2016, 06:51:04 PM
At this point, it's probably too late for any Clinton scandal that could actually happen to change the outcome of the election.
The Teflon Crook.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 12, 2016, 09:41:12 PM
did he give an example of sexual misconduct that wouldn't get him fired or just the one that would?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 12, 2016, 09:42:09 PM
Just the one that would
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 12, 2016, 09:46:14 PM
Bomb #2  :lol:

Quote
(NEW YORK) — In a new video released by Project Veritas Action, James O’Keefe exposes the “misogynistic” nature of the Hillary Clinton campaign and its organizers, who joke about sexually harassing women and committing voter fraud on the campaign.

In the video, Wylie Mao, a field organizer for the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party of Florida in West Palm Beach is caught on camera saying that the Hillary Clinton campaign would excuse his sexual assault of a fellow female campaign worker.

“I think the bar of acceptable conduct in this campaign is pretty low. To be fired I would have to grab Emma’s ass twice and she would have to complain about it, I would have to sexually harass someone,” said Mao.

After saying that he could get away with sexually harassing fellow female Hillary Clinton organizers, several female campaign organizers are seen laughing at his comments.

James O’Keefe makes a cameo in the video where he makes a comparison between Donald Trump’s recent comments regarding grabbing women by the p***y and Mao’s comments about grabbing a Hillary Clinton director’s ass, twice. O’Keefe insists that the comments are similar in nature, which is why the mainstream media must treat both fairly.

Mao also suggested that he could rip up voter registration forms and get away with it too, saying, “If I rip up completed VR forms, like 20 of them, I think I’ll just get reprimanded. I don’t think I would get fired.”

Project Veritas wanted to see how the Hillary Clinton staffers would react to ripped up VR forms, so a PV journalist said he ripped up three Republican registration forms.

Upon hearing this, Trevor Lafauci a Clinton campaign staffer said, “Yeah that should be fine,” and he said he would not report it.

Project Veritas journalists confronted both Mao and Lafauci about the comments they made on camera. They both refused to answer and walked away.

just wait for the atomic one :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 12, 2016, 09:48:20 PM
perhaps he was trying to imply that you wouldn't be fired if you only grabbed ass once and the grabbee didn't complain.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: The Big Train on October 12, 2016, 10:11:10 PM
Idk if this ever got posted 4 months ago, don't care.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/06/12/longtime-mistress-says-bill-clinton-had-2000-sex-partners-hillary-is-a-lesbian-it-was-a-marriage-of-convenience/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on October 13, 2016, 09:34:33 AM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 13, 2016, 11:20:51 AM
I'm rathet troubled by the resident libtard's cavalier attitude about fascism. I can't tell if they support it, or are just too ignorant to recognize it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 13, 2016, 01:27:52 PM
I'm rathet troubled by the resident libtard's cavalier attitude about fascism. I can't tell if they support it, or are just too ignorant to recognize it.


You sound like a whiny Latino.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on October 13, 2016, 01:33:00 PM
The people who need to be mad are ted cruz and marco rubio.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on October 13, 2016, 01:33:23 PM
meanwhile,

Paul Ryan is Partying
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on October 13, 2016, 02:30:33 PM
Team Clinton feared Marco Rubio most of all

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/team-clinton-feared-marco-rubio-most-of-all/article/2604232#.V_0cHWvoTaI.twitter
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 13, 2016, 02:32:32 PM
Poor little Marco got manhandled by trump, he'd never survive the clinton machine
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 13, 2016, 02:42:14 PM
Trump would manhandle Clinton in a republican primary, too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 13, 2016, 02:46:26 PM
When the whole contest is who is the biggest crazy bigot, Trump would trump most.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: cfbandyman on October 13, 2016, 03:01:28 PM
Team Clinton feared Marco Rubio most of all

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/team-clinton-feared-marco-rubio-most-of-all/article/2604232#.V_0cHWvoTaI.twitter

Well yeah, he's one of the few more saner guys that could win over some sane people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on October 13, 2016, 03:18:54 PM
After Obama whipped her, I think she realized how mortal she was in these things.  Bernie giving her a run for her money wasn't a good sign for her either.  A reasonable Republican would wipe the floor with her.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 14, 2016, 06:04:56 AM
She needed the DNC to rig the whole thing so she could get nominated this time around.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 14, 2016, 06:07:40 AM
More WL's and you just have to ask if there was any misogynistic, gay hating Islamic theocrats the Clinton's didn't take money from.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 14, 2016, 01:00:45 PM
Quote
After the Wiki release, however, one had to wonder why the Clinton camp had bothered to keep the papers secret.

The "secret" speeches in some ways showed Hillary Clinton in a more sympathetic light than her public persona usually allows. Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers.

The transcripts read like freewheeling discussions with friends about how to navigate an uncertain future. In one speech, she conceded a sense of disconnect between the wealthy and the middle class to which she used to belong. This, she said, was a feeling she never had growing up, when the country seemed to be more united.

"And now, obviously," she told executives from Goldman, "I'm kind of far removed because of the life I've lived and the economic ... fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy."

This frank, almost regretful admission rendered her more real in a few sentences than those cliché-ridden speeches about her hardscrabble background as the granddaughter of a Scranton lace-factory worker.

In a speech before the Brazilian Banco Itaú, Clinton talked about her vision for the future. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders," she reportedly said. She wanted this economy "as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

In classic Clintonian fashion, her camp refused to confirm the authenticity of the emails, while also not denying them either. But why not just own the e-mails? Why all the cagey non-denial denials?

The themes Clinton discussed with the banks were awesome, sweeping and of paramount importance, especially coming from someone in such a unique position to shape the world's future. They collectively represented exactly the honest discussion about what is ahead for all of us that no one in power has ever really had with the rest of the country.


i'd much rather vote for wikileaks clinton than campaign clinton.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 14, 2016, 01:02:47 PM
campaign clinton is a pandering dumbass. wikileaks clinton knows how to get things done.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 14, 2016, 01:10:40 PM
Dan Carlin always talks about our govts problem of classifying as much as they can just so something that isn't perceived as an issue now doesn't become an issue eventually.  The culture is to hide everything.  He said that he has spoken with govt ppl that have told him something like 90% of stuff that is classified in the last couple decades is completely irrelevant stuff that has no biz being classified.  Clinton is a perfect example of this, it seems.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: cfbandyman on October 14, 2016, 01:11:27 PM
campaign clinton is a pandering dumbass. wikileaks clinton knows how to get things done.

Which is why she will be a pretty decent prez. She's capable of doing it, just so hard to like when she's campaigning.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 14, 2016, 02:22:02 PM
Hard seeing someone with Hillary's track record of loving war, shitty international relations and constant flip-flopping being a good pres.   

But I suppose Dems have to make themselves feel better, so there's that.

I mean, we're in October of 2016, and still no one can really go beyond  :dunno: when discussing her accomplishments in a positive way.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 14, 2016, 03:39:44 PM
Campaign Clinton definitely tries to dumb things down. She's absolutely right to do so. She's not great at it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 15, 2016, 08:25:09 AM
Well, she has to have public policy positions for her Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) neo-fascist constituency, and private policy positions for her corporate and war mongering masters. If her past actions are any indicator, there's a 100% chance her private policies will be implemented.

She is the neo-con the left painted W to be.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 17, 2016, 12:26:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

gross
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 17, 2016, 12:42:11 PM
Bombs!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 17, 2016, 12:50:59 PM
Bombs!

 :Woot:

still waiting for the one where hillary says the n-word
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 17, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
SteveDave, is a candidate for President allowed to accept donations from an agent of a foreign government?  Fox is showing Wikileak emails where Hillary's Campaign gang approved taking such contributions.  Please SteveDave confirm that this ia a conspiracy by western Kansas nimrods to destroy a sweet ol grandma.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 17, 2016, 01:25:16 PM
SD getting called out, you gonna just sit there and take that sd?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 17, 2016, 01:27:08 PM
SteveDave, is a candidate for President allowed to accept donations from an agent of a foreign government?  Fox is showing Wikileak emails where Hillary's Campaign gang approved taking such contributions.  Please SteveDave confirm that this ia a conspiracy by western Kansas nimrods to destroy a sweet ol grandma.

reno, I think the answer is no. she is not (I think, I actually have no idea but it seems like she should not be allowed to).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 17, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
I remember a news radio thing this summer saying that legislation passed this year or last fall does indeed allow foreign donations to PACs. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 17, 2016, 04:11:57 PM
If you need to know what it's like to have your balls cut off, I give you exhibit A:

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bernies-shame-rallies-clinton-amid-humiliating-leaks/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 17, 2016, 05:17:24 PM
he doesn't have a choice. either help clitler or weightlifting accident
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 17, 2016, 05:21:56 PM
Bombs!

 :Woot:

still waiting for the one where hillary says the n-word

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQkm4MtGNAQ

 :Chirp:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 17, 2016, 06:20:07 PM
The wikileaks crap about Hillary and the media is such a stupid and desperate grasp at straws given the total context of this particular ejection.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 17, 2016, 07:03:38 PM
It's an assault against black people, further evidence of hillary's repeated assaults on black people.

If elected president, I'm certain blacks will be in bondage within weeks.

-NYT editorial board if trump was alleged to say n-word
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 17, 2016, 08:32:10 PM
WL really is angering up Hillbots.   Nearly everything thought of Hillary is validated.

Angry pandering manipulating Wall Street shill who got the nomination by a rigged process.   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 17, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
I'm with her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 17, 2016, 08:41:13 PM
This thing went from Don being able to shoot someone and win (primary) to hill being able to shoot someone and win (presidency ).  Don doesn't want it and has zero chance.  She wants the office and he wants his network.  Everyone wins (except america)



@Sys
I think this is another one


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 17, 2016, 08:42:39 PM
I read the transcripts from the GS speeches, and the foreign policy sections are a stunning conglomeration of fantasy, hegemony and they reek of a woman who isn't nearly as smart as she thinks she is.

Then again, she's pretty much a sock puppet.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 18, 2016, 09:56:13 AM
who's her puppet master dax? big war?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on October 18, 2016, 10:18:47 AM
who's her puppet master dax? big war?


 :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 18, 2016, 10:47:12 AM
This thing went from Don being able to shoot someone and win (primary) to hill being able to shoot someone and win (presidency ).  Don doesn't want it and has zero chance.  She wants the office and he wants his network.  Everyone wins (except america)



@Sys
I think this is another one

nope.  i'll let you know.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 18, 2016, 11:37:06 AM
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15616

Quote
Cheryl, Robby, Jake, Huma, Jennifer and I also did a first cut of people to
consider for VP. I have organized names in rough food groups.

Javier Becerra
Julian Castro
Eric Garcetti
Tom Perez
Ken Salazar

Tammy Baldwin
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Claire McKaskill
Jeanne Shaheen
Debbie Stabenow
Elizabeth Warren

Michael Bennet
Sherrod Brown
Martin Heinreich
Tim Kaine
Terry McAuliffe
Chris Murphy
Tom Vilsack

Steve Benjamin
Corey Booker
Andrew Gillum
Eric Holder
Deval Patrick
Kasim Reed
Anthony Foxx

John Allen
Bill McCraven
Mike Mullen

Mary Barra
Michael Bloomberg
Ursula Burns
Tim Cook
Bill Gates
Melinda Gates
Muhtar Kent
Judith Rodin
Howard Schultz

Bernie Sanders

my favorite so far
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 18, 2016, 11:44:15 AM
Haha
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 18, 2016, 12:06:03 PM
that's great
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 18, 2016, 01:30:54 PM
Talk about.Hillary being a low life power hungry whore.  I am St. Louis visiting family and saw real Hillary commercial.  It starts with a picture of a high school flapping his arms, and then his mother saying in a voice over my son has autism and flaps his arms.  Then it shows Trump speaking at a rally flapping his arms gesturing.  Then it shows mom saying (paraphrasing) she can't stand Trump making fun of her son, and she is going to vote for Hillary even though she is a dedicated Republican.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2016, 01:53:43 PM
You're right.  Trump was only making fun of one particular disabled person.  Hillary should not be able to generalize that to all disabled people who happen to appear/act similarly to the single person Trump was mocking.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 18, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
This is just for fun.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/ (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/)

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 18, 2016, 04:08:30 PM
Is that Bernie group supposed to be Jews because Eric Garcetti is Jewish?

Also this group should have just been with the dull white guys no one knows
John Allen
Bill McCraven
Mike Mullen
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 18, 2016, 09:41:46 PM
Seems racist/sexist/bigoted. Way worse than "binders of women" or whatever we heard about ad nauseum from the media as to why Romney hates women

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15616

Quote
Cheryl, Robby, Jake, Huma, Jennifer and I also did a first cut of people to
consider for VP. I have organized names in rough food groups.

Javier Becerra.      - Hispanics
Julian Castro
Eric Garcetti
Tom Perez
Ken Salazar

Tammy Baldwin.  - lunatics (psychopaths?)
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Claire McKaskill
Jeanne Shaheen
Debbie Stabenow
Elizabeth Warren

Michael Bennet.      - criminals/raqueteers
Sherrod Brown
Martin Heinreich
Tim Kaine
Terry McAuliffe
Chris Murphy
Tom Vilsack

Steve Benjamin.      Black dudes
Corey Booker
Andrew Gillum
Eric Holder
Deval Patrick
Kasim Reed
Anthony Foxx

John Allen.             - registered sex offenders
Bill McCraven
Mike Mullen

Mary Barra.                   -corporate masters
Michael Bloomberg
Ursula Burns
Tim Cook
Bill Gates
Melinda Gates
Muhtar Kent
Judith Rodin
Howard Schultz

Bernie Sanders.  - submissive


my favorite so far
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 19, 2016, 06:54:58 AM
Clinton just shy of 50% in RCP poll average.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 19, 2016, 07:00:23 AM
Clinton just shy of 50% in RCP poll average.
I hope she is overconfident tonight.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 19, 2016, 08:42:46 AM
https://archive.fo/VApsq

Just Hillary easily connected to the group that tried to frame one of our heroes as a pedo and Russian spy. Sloppy work!

(http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1476851541036.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 19, 2016, 08:48:31 AM
Possums feed on dead.carcass from the bunghole forward.  President Hillary, the Media Possums will target you next.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 19, 2016, 09:07:55 AM
It's like the more you dig into Trump's scandals, the more bullshit they get (besides pussygate). The more you dig into Hillary's scandals, the more worse and damning they get.

I know everyone is irrational and all this fancy logic psychology stuff I learned from Dilbert guy, but I can't see how anyone can continually support this witch.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 19, 2016, 09:38:37 AM
I feel like my vote is a vote for someone achieving their lifelong goal. I like to help others. Go Hillary. Donald likes attention and money, he's getting and will continue to get plenty. So I can feel good for him too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 19, 2016, 09:39:04 AM
It's a win win for both candidates.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 19, 2016, 09:47:57 AM
I feel like my vote is a vote for someone achieving their lifelong goal. I like to help others. Go Hillary. Donald likes attention and money, he's getting and will continue to get plenty. So I can feel good for him too.

i have thought similar, especially when you know she wants it so bad, and also what if she's not the evil person everyone says she is.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on October 19, 2016, 10:55:18 AM
I feel like my vote is a vote for someone achieving their lifelong goal. I like to help others. Go Hillary. Donald likes attention and money, he's getting and will continue to get plenty. So I can feel good for him too.

i have thought similar, especially when you know she wants it so bad, and also what if she's not the evil person everyone says she is.

What if guys????  :excited:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 19, 2016, 11:13:13 AM
I don't care if she's evil as long as she's evil for my benefit
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 19, 2016, 11:44:16 AM
 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 19, 2016, 11:54:05 AM
if the evil things are true (and "The more you dig into Hillary's scandals, the more worse and damning they get."), she'll be evil for nobody's benefit besides those corrupt at the top.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 19, 2016, 12:14:40 PM
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353#efmACvAD2

Quote
It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment.

hillary's evil is for all of us to benefit from!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 19, 2016, 12:29:34 PM
We should all love each other . . . well unless a president is doing really bad and wrong things to people and I am benefiting from it, then you know, love, it's relative, and, ya know, subjective and crap.      :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 19, 2016, 12:38:08 PM
she'll be evil for nobody's benefit besides those corrupt at the top.

well that covers me #I'mwithherandthereforemyself
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 19, 2016, 12:39:15 PM
Rumors that Hillary totally lost her crap at the C-an-C forum after her stint.   Really pissed about Lauer and had a total eyes rolling into the back of her head meltdown. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 19, 2016, 12:40:23 PM
i love you steve dave but i don't think even super alpha studs like us are included :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 19, 2016, 12:41:31 PM
i love you steve dave but i don't think even super alpha studs like us are included :frown:

  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 19, 2016, 12:43:21 PM
Great scoop dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 20, 2016, 05:06:43 PM
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15560

Quote
"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2008-10-06 20:38 Subject: Diversity

Barack --

Following up on your conversations with John over the weekend, attached are two documents:

-- A list of African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, divided between Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant Sectetary levels, as well as lists of senior Native Americans, Arab/Muslim Americans and Disabled Americans. We have longer lists, but these are candidates whose names have been recommended by a number of sources for senior level jobs in a potential Administration.

-- A list of women, similarly divided between candidates for Cabinet/Deputy and other senior level positions.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

-- Mike Froman"

More food groups :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on October 20, 2016, 06:16:37 PM
Abe, any relation to this Mike guy?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 20, 2016, 07:48:51 PM
https://twitter.com/ObamaMalik/status/788928636996886528

Best Twitter ever
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 20, 2016, 08:36:44 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/789226617495248896

 :excited:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 20, 2016, 09:54:31 PM
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15560

Quote
"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2008-10-06 20:38 Subject: Diversity

Barack --

Following up on your conversations with John over the weekend, attached are two documents:

-- A list of African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, divided between Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant Sectetary levels, as well as lists of senior Native Americans, Arab/Muslim Americans and Disabled Americans. We have longer lists, but these are candidates whose names have been recommended by a number of sources for senior level jobs in a potential Administration.

-- A list of women, similarly divided between candidates for Cabinet/Deputy and other senior level positions.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

-- Mike Froman"

More food groups :lol:

Everyone recognizes this as disgusting, right? 

These are horrible horrible people in the DNC.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 20, 2016, 10:00:23 PM
it's not surprising or interesting to anyone except complete dumbshits. are you a complete dumbshit fsd?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 20, 2016, 10:05:48 PM
Trust me, nobody is surprised by that disgusting behavior.

Where do you fit in Obama's food groups? Perhaps I should be voting for Hillary after all.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 20, 2016, 10:08:06 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 20, 2016, 10:27:29 PM
Let's see, I need a black, a mexercan, a mooslim, and one of those japanese to fill out my gross, disgusting, dnc political hand of cards. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 20, 2016, 10:29:45 PM
Lol, at being "colorblind" or wanting "equality". It's all about slotting. Like a rich dick who collects cars. eff these people.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 20, 2016, 10:39:51 PM
that's a lot of rage about something non-dumbshits have been aware happens everywhere for as long as I've paid attention. Is this a revelation to you FSD?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 20, 2016, 10:50:31 PM
Well, your resume is impressive native american guy, but we're all full of you people. Do you happen to know a cripple or a tan white guy we could pawn off as ethnic? Quotas are a bitch. We have a lot of loyal, delusional, apologetic dumbshits to appease.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 20, 2016, 10:54:55 PM
https://archive.fo/VApsq

Just Hillary easily connected to the group that tried to frame one of our heroes as a pedo and Russian spy. Sloppy work!

(http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1476851541036.jpg)


stunz, explain to me what is going on here in your own words
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 20, 2016, 10:55:40 PM
that's a lot of rage about something non-dumbshits have been aware happens everywhere for as long as I've paid attention. Is this a revelation to you FSD?

I think it's a revelation to him, sd
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 20, 2016, 10:58:55 PM
also, there was a bomb threat right by this Clinton shadow ops organization today. Coincidence? obviously not.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 20, 2016, 11:03:07 PM
The Manhater gals are popping blood vessels because Don called MG a Nasty Woman.  He called Ted Cruz a nasty guy.  He is equal opportunity in action.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 20, 2016, 11:03:22 PM

also, there was a bomb threat right by this Clinton shadow ops organization today. Coincidence? obviously not.

Russians, duh.
#libtards
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 20, 2016, 11:06:42 PM
https://archive.fo/VApsq

Just Hillary easily connected to the group that tried to frame one of our heroes as a pedo and Russian spy. Sloppy work!

(http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1476851541036.jpg)


stunz, explain to me what is going on here in your own words

https://archive.fo/VApsq

Just Hillary easily connected to the group that tried to frame one of our heroes as a pedo and Russian spy. Sloppy work!

(http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1476851541036.jpg)

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 20, 2016, 11:15:09 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 20, 2016, 11:19:00 PM
Itt libs trying to justify racism cause everyone does it. Lots of projection lately, the left blaming their faults on the right. Racism, violent rallies, wars, gun violence, the biggest puppet ever calling the least puppet ever a puppet.

 :clap:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 21, 2016, 01:02:23 AM
Not at all surprising that stunted and fsd have now decided that identifying people by race, gender, sexual preference, or employment is "racist." Hilarious.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 21, 2016, 01:57:45 AM
I don't particularly think that's very racist, but we have different definitions, and going by the left's this is disgusting. It's obvious it was going on, but I would have assumed a list with more minorities and women mixed in by position, but nope, they're separated like farm animals (and none of the white ones).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 21, 2016, 06:32:30 AM
Re: Campaign Clinton

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/wikihillary-for-president.amp.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on October 21, 2016, 08:26:39 AM
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15560

Quote
"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2008-10-06 20:38 Subject: Diversity

Barack --

Following up on your conversations with John over the weekend, attached are two documents:

-- A list of African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, divided between Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant Sectetary levels, as well as lists of senior Native Americans, Arab/Muslim Americans and Disabled Americans. We have longer lists, but these are candidates whose names have been recommended by a number of sources for senior level jobs in a potential Administration.

-- A list of women, similarly divided between candidates for Cabinet/Deputy and other senior level positions.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

-- Mike Froman"

More food groups :lol:

Everyone recognizes this as disgusting, right? 

These are horrible horrible people in the DNC.

Were the women listed in the first group also, according to their ethnicity? Or were they all white women?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 21, 2016, 09:01:41 AM
Remember when Romney said "Binders full of women" when talking about all the women he employs, and we got three weeks of editorials about how he hates women, degrades women, is out of touch with women.

Now we have tangible evidence the dnc herds people into train cars based on ethnicity, some religion, disability, in order to propogate the lie that they care about minorities, and the libtards response is to viciously attack the people who exposed their bullshit.

It doesn't get any more nazi, disingenious and pathetic than that. :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 21, 2016, 09:14:53 AM
The world is a big, confusing place. Be careful out there.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 21, 2016, 09:18:01 AM
Two things you seem to be missing here:

(1) Anyone who is not a dumbass already knew the hierarchy of both major parties talks and thinks this way. Same for really any major business that does marketing ("we need to appeal more to hispanics").

(2) These stories aren't getting any traction because Republicans nominated the most morally deprived person they could find who is a natural media magnet. It's what won him the nomination. Trump can't just flip the switch afterwards and complain about the attention all being on him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 21, 2016, 09:20:50 AM
he's enraged
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on October 21, 2016, 09:22:34 AM
i remember when clinton picked gore in 92 it was a bold move because they were both in the southern white dude about the same age food group
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on October 21, 2016, 09:23:15 AM
and i was like 5 at the time and i realized that
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 21, 2016, 09:42:06 AM
i remember when clinton picked gore in 92 it was a bold move because they were both in the southern white dude about the same age food group
The best.presidents.come.from.either.the.south or.rural.areas.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on October 21, 2016, 09:44:17 AM
"mccain picking Palin in 2008 had nothing to do with mccain getting his ass whipped by obama with women" - fsd
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 21, 2016, 11:16:56 AM
Deflection and vitriol from the dnc shills. How "progessive".
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 22, 2016, 08:02:04 AM
Yesterday's Podesta emails Hillary when Secretary of State had a full court press to shake down the king of Morocco 12 million dollars. The understanding was that he was buying access to Hillary. Of course you don't see any of this in the mainstream media. It is Despicable that she sold our sovereignty to a foreign nation.  She solicited them to get cash.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: michigancat on October 22, 2016, 09:20:54 AM
What's funny about the Obama cabinet list email rage is he still hired mostly white guys.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 23, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
hilarious
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 23, 2016, 02:45:40 PM
http://exopolitics.org/leaked-document-recommends-false-flag-alien-invasion-to-save-clinton-campaign/

Quote
The seven page document is titled “Salvage Program” was written less than a week ago, and was leaked by Anonymous on October 18, in a video, and later made available through the Before Its News website which has a questionable reputation for releasing accurate information. So is the document genuine?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 24, 2016, 05:37:22 PM
 :)

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/790671961844252672
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 24, 2016, 05:38:18 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 24, 2016, 05:51:41 PM
But he has bad words in his songs!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 24, 2016, 06:03:12 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/

Hope his auto tune is working.   :Yuck:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 24, 2016, 06:27:20 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/

Hope his auto tune is working.   :Yuck:

I think you are confused about something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on October 24, 2016, 06:42:41 PM
lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: puniraptor on October 24, 2016, 07:13:23 PM
whats the largest of all time popular vote margin of victory? if you could convince me that hill would score the largest of all time margin of victory, then I would vote for her do to my part to extend the margin.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 24, 2016, 07:15:43 PM
whats the largest of all time popular vote margin of victory? if you could convince me that hill would score the largest of all time margin of victory, then I would vote for her do to my part to extend the margin.

Quote
Incumbent Republican President Ronald Reagan won 58.77 percent of the popular vote in the 1984 Presidential election, with a margin of victory over Democrat Walter Mondale of 18.21 percent

that's not going to be at all attainable, continue with the white horse

well i didn't research far enough cause i guess this isn't even goat (only #7), harding won by 26.17%

john quincy won despite losing the popular vote by 10.44%  :sdeek:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 24, 2016, 07:21:28 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/

Hope his auto tune is working.   :Yuck:

I think you are confused about something.

Haha
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 24, 2016, 07:53:04 PM
 :horrorsurprise:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790384693384474624
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 24, 2016, 08:01:54 PM
Damn

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 24, 2016, 08:06:52 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/

Quote
The event -- which aides expect will draw thousands

thousands! :Wha:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 24, 2016, 08:12:50 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/

Hope his auto tune is working.   :Yuck:

I think you are confused about something.

No, I know he doesn't actually sing for a living, but he really is tone deaf. I have heard him try to sing a melody before.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on October 24, 2016, 08:55:08 PM
lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 24, 2016, 09:19:09 PM
It's so sad  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on October 24, 2016, 09:46:02 PM
john, teach me how to double down
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on October 24, 2016, 09:46:31 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/

Hope his auto tune is working.   :Yuck:

I think you are confused about something.

No, I know he doesn't actually sing for a living, but he really is tone deaf. I have heard him try to sing a melody before.

Um...on what song does Jay-Z sing?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 24, 2016, 10:16:10 PM
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/

Hope his auto tune is working.   :Yuck:

I think you are confused about something.

No, I know he doesn't actually sing for a living, but he really is tone deaf. I have heard him try to sing a melody before.

Um...on what song does Jay-Z sing?

My only point was that he is tone deaf.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJkD2cjQtXs[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 24, 2016, 10:25:10 PM
THOU SHALT NOT DISPARAGE CLITLER OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HER!!!!

#libtardrage
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on October 24, 2016, 10:35:51 PM
is jtmhtd noel gallagher?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: treysolid on October 24, 2016, 10:49:40 PM
has this been mentioned yet? something for all the original bernie supporters to consider...

https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/790612325237534721
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 24, 2016, 11:07:08 PM
Damn

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

here's one.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 25, 2016, 12:49:50 AM
:horrorsurprise:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790384693384474624

The issue here isn't what's being inferred, Clinton buying her way out of an indictment, that's flimsy at best. The bigger issue is that an entity was able to donate $675,000 to influence an election, how incredibly gross and an complete affront to democracy.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 25, 2016, 01:37:55 AM
Your boy Soros has his grubby little hands in every voting machine.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 25, 2016, 04:48:04 AM
The issue here isn't what's being inferred, Clinton buying her way out of an indictment, that's flimsy at best. The bigger issue is that an entity was able to donate $675,000 to influence an election, how incredibly gross and an complete affront to democracy.

it's too bad this wasn't a cns post.  this would be a great one to highlight.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 25, 2016, 06:45:58 AM
Fantastic set of reading this last few pages.

All the Hilbots and closeted Hilbots were fantastic. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 25, 2016, 06:51:02 AM
Closeted trump supporters are pretty cute too dax  :shy:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 25, 2016, 07:09:06 AM
Not really.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 25, 2016, 07:18:06 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/24/from-porkies-to-whoppers-over-time-lies-may-desensitise-brain-to-dishonesty?CMP=share_btn_link

I know a great case study.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 25, 2016, 07:55:58 AM
If you're looking for volume, trump would be great, you're right dax  :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 25, 2016, 09:11:52 AM
The issue here isn't what's being inferred, Clinton buying her way out of an indictment, that's flimsy at best. The bigger issue is that an entity was able to donate $675,000 to influence an election, how incredibly gross and an complete affront to democracy.

it's too bad this wasn't a cns post.  this would be a great one to highlight.

I am out of steam.  This election is wearing me out. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 25, 2016, 09:21:00 AM
Why are CNS and sys so flirty?  What did I miss?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 25, 2016, 09:24:18 AM
He pointed me out as being an angry irrational hill hater a while back, and notes as I post as such.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 25, 2016, 09:24:21 AM
:horrorsurprise:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790384693384474624

The issue here isn't what's being inferred, Clinton buying her way out of an indictment, that's flimsy at best. The bigger issue is that an entity was able to donate $675,000 to influence an election, how incredibly gross and an complete affront to democracy.

MIR obviously trying to pivot and avoid talking about the actual real issue this leak raises: RUSSIA! :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 25, 2016, 09:32:21 AM
Why would someone make the leap to irrationally hating Hillary, when there are so many rational reasons to hate her?  Lazy?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 25, 2016, 09:36:36 AM
Man, that would have been a good one too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 25, 2016, 09:49:05 AM
Why would someone make the leap to irrationally hating Hillary, when there are so many rational reasons to hate her?  Lazy?

The classic Hilbot feels shame for their choices, so they have to lash out and make people feel bad for discussing what a horrible human being their choice for president is . . . it's sad, but true.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 25, 2016, 11:46:27 AM
The most irrational thing about this election is the attempt to discredit copies of original emails on the basis that Russians hacked them, or that the publisher of the emails doesn't like hilltard. Just stupid.

When wikileaks was exposing the Bush2 admin the libtards were all "white knight" and "heros" and  :love:. Now they're trying to reignite a cold war to deflect their malfeasance and corruption. Just pathetic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 25, 2016, 11:54:37 AM
#russians  :curse:

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 25, 2016, 03:47:05 PM
john dougie talking hip hop is wonderful
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 25, 2016, 04:30:36 PM
I know how to Dougie
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 25, 2016, 08:02:02 PM
Colin Powell is voting Chillery Coolton
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 25, 2016, 08:04:02 PM
Even after being tossed under the email bus.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on October 25, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
i have it on good authority that he sucks ass at the piccolo
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on October 25, 2016, 08:14:25 PM
Why would someone make the leap to irrationally hating Hillary, when there are so many rational reasons to hate her?  Lazy?

The classic Hilbot feels shame for their choices, so they have to lash out and make people feel bad for discussing what a horrible human being their choice for president is . . . it's sad, but true.

Dax- many, MANY people on here have plenty of time for the perpetual war machine critique of Hillary.  If you haven't done so, you should listen to Jeremy Scahill on Chapo Trap House podcast this week, he is an incredible resource for charting the disturbing trends that Obama has strengthened of drone warfare.

Glenn Greenwald and the Intercept do incredible work on this issue as well. 

I have plenty of disdain for MSNBC, for the endless stream of reasons why Hillary's candidacy is flawed and disappointing from the secrecy and short-sighted greed, the incestuous DC cess pool to the Henry Kissinger foreign policy.

What everyone on here also understands is that you are over everything else committed to the idea that despite your stated beliefs about foreign policy, you will contort any fact to make the case that the Democrats are worse than Republicans.

Hillary Clinton is basically pursuing the foreign policy of Henry Kissinger and the very first thing you will do is attempt to make the case that Macnamara and LBJ were worse.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 25, 2016, 08:25:50 PM
Impeach Bush! Elect Hillary!

Anyone who votes for either of these clowns should be interned. Anyone who thinks one is a lesser evil is rough ridin' insane.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 26, 2016, 01:03:24 AM
The issue here isn't what's being inferred, Clinton buying her way out of an indictment, that's flimsy at best. The bigger issue is that an entity was able to donate $675,000 to influence an election, how incredibly gross and an complete affront to democracy.

it's too bad this wasn't a cns post.  this would be a great one to highlight.

I didn't see the campaign finance conversation between you to so I'll take your word for it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 26, 2016, 07:46:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsBAmJbjNjk

putin  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 26, 2016, 09:31:18 PM
Putin *ally
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 26, 2016, 09:37:53 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/791366720774606848

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/791462942944399361
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 26, 2016, 09:43:29 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/791366720774606848

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/791462942944399361

Number of people who should be surprised: 0
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 26, 2016, 10:28:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqIdabDWNRs

#hillbullies

(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/10/sad-pepe-640x480.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 27, 2016, 01:31:28 AM
https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/status/790557423220162560

The left is so cucked they hoverhand Chelsea.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 27, 2016, 09:45:16 AM
Anyone who gets that involved in a specific politician, that aren't a paid part of the staff, should be excluded from voting as they obviously have some mental issues.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on October 27, 2016, 10:12:08 AM
How many superheroes does Seattle have???
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Gooch on October 27, 2016, 10:20:37 AM
zero. Lots of dorks in costumes tho.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 27, 2016, 11:12:21 AM
zero. Lots of dorks in costumes tho.

(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/mysterymen/images/1/19/Mystery_men.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140201204307)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 27, 2016, 02:25:29 PM
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/791662143766532096

Herkel's vision of America

(https://media.giphy.com/media/TGr7NlxEVuhi/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 27, 2016, 02:28:51 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/29/trump-and-clinton-both-choose-merkel-as-their-favorite-world-leader/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 27, 2016, 02:35:30 PM
False, Putin is his favorite.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 27, 2016, 07:26:41 PM
Lollz

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/791674039555203072
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 27, 2016, 08:00:19 PM
Police state nazis

http://www.bradenton.com/news/politics-government/election/article110904887.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 27, 2016, 11:11:02 PM
omg

(http://is.4chan.org/pol/1477618903023.png)

(http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1477618300704.png)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 27, 2016, 11:21:34 PM
 :lol:

Hillary Youth
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 27, 2016, 11:25:22 PM
Yea, Hillary is def going to start some wars.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 27, 2016, 11:33:39 PM
maybe. but will your daughters be ready?

#draftourdaughters
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 'taterblast on October 28, 2016, 12:20:16 PM
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/792050888957423616
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 28, 2016, 12:25:11 PM
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/792050888957423616


(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/898/405/053.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 28, 2016, 12:28:10 PM
Oh, thank God. They're finally going to indict her.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 12:37:36 PM
 :excited:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: XocolateThundarr on October 28, 2016, 12:39:28 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ERoBFTM.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on October 28, 2016, 12:45:56 PM
Rush just had an orgasm on the air.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 12:49:57 PM
Going to be so great when she wins and then has to go to prison  :Woot:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on October 28, 2016, 12:51:23 PM
Can you imagine how much tail Bill will be chasing while Hillary is in prison?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2016, 12:52:32 PM
Comey trying to save his reputation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on October 28, 2016, 12:52:43 PM
surely this will get us a ksuw post :drool:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 12:54:30 PM
This just makes voting for Hillary even more important
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 12:56:51 PM
(https://i.sli.mg/FiiDQx.jpg)

my favorite (actually i made this, can we get this viral??? :excited:)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2016, 12:59:14 PM
That one is absolutely fantastic.  Very layered.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2016, 01:00:08 PM
Heard a long Tim Kaine interview this week and I would be fine with him serving out Hill's term.  I mean, out of Don, Pence, Hill, and Kaine, you would have to be a moron to not choose Kaine to be the pres, imo.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 01:00:37 PM
Yup, bitb there stunz. The others you posted were stupid
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2016, 01:03:48 PM
How awesome would it be to have a newly elected president that is criminally pardoned by the outgoing president?  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 01:05:40 PM
 :blush:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on October 28, 2016, 01:07:31 PM
How awesome would it be to have a newly elected president that is criminally pardoned by the outgoing president?  :lol:

Ask someone from a third world country that has experienced it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 28, 2016, 01:12:29 PM
How awesome would it be to have a newly elected president that is criminally pardoned by the outgoing president?  :lol:

Can you pardon an indictment? 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2016, 01:14:51 PM
We'll see I guess.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 28, 2016, 01:17:47 PM
I think you guys are underplaying the entertainment value of Trump putting Hillary in jail.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 01:19:10 PM
Interesting all the email stuff came after Kim Dotcoms tweets.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2016, 01:20:19 PM
Interesting all the email stuff came after Kim Dotcoms tweets.

Post the tweets!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 01:20:44 PM
Trump is great entertainment while campaigning, but I mean... C'mon, I'll take the entertainment hit to not have him be president
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2016, 01:22:08 PM
Primaries are for entertaining wackos.  It's embarrassing that he is where he is. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 01:26:42 PM
Interesting all the email stuff came after Kim Dotcoms tweets.

Post the tweets!

Basically said the emails do exist and NSA has them.

Maybe the FBI felt pressure. From what I've read that sounds like conspiracy theories but now not so much, it seems like Kim sent the emails to wikileaks or had knowledge of their existence. So for the FBI, reopening the case is the best out of their shitty options.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2016, 01:31:54 PM
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 01:37:00 PM
For a moment I thought sos was 3rd in line instead of 5th, and I got very excited at the prospect of prez Biden
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2016, 01:46:08 PM
Hillary was talking about the US rigging foreign elections (http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/) back in 2006. Karma, I guess.

Quote
“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on October 28, 2016, 01:53:02 PM
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.

I think you mean Attorney General
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2016, 01:55:59 PM
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.

I think you mean Attorney General

That was for dropping the case the first time. SOS may be needed for dropping it again.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 01:56:31 PM
So I know everyone has their hopes up but this is really nothing  :frown:

They found more emails while doing a different case and are going to review them but nothing is classified.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 28, 2016, 01:57:02 PM
I'm choosing to get my hopes up lib
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 01:57:54 PM
Eternal optimist
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on October 28, 2016, 02:05:36 PM
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.

I think you mean Attorney General

That was for dropping the case the first time. SOS may be needed for dropping it again.


Loretta got a lifetime appointment as ambassador to a tropical paradise the first time.  Comey slow played until a few weeks before the election to get his job.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 02:14:35 PM
https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/59l65h/everyone_questioning_kimdotcom_i_have_limited/

This guy called it
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on October 28, 2016, 02:19:37 PM
Quote
Clinton could quickly be disqualified from running for president just days before the election

Good thinking.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 02:36:58 PM
Sorry chum1. Hope it turns around and there's a fair race
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 02:40:48 PM
I just don't "get"  /r/the_Donald
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 28, 2016, 02:40:59 PM
Anyone who destroys documents in response to a congressional document subpoena should be automatically disqualified from running for president.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on October 28, 2016, 02:42:38 PM
I just don't "get"  /r/the_Donald
i like the pepe memes a lot but everything else is so politically immature.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 02:43:01 PM
I just don't "get"  /r/the_Donald

W E W L A D
E
W
L
A
D
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 02:44:56 PM
I just don't "get"  /r/the_Donald

W E W L A D
E
W
L
A
D

Exactly
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 28, 2016, 03:09:56 PM
Resident Hilbots not too worried.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on October 28, 2016, 03:10:44 PM
 :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 03:13:41 PM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XfVce4rELAY
 
My head is exploding from the level of chess being played. He knew all along!

Quote
His bed of choice is a remarkable piece of custom Swedish craftsmanship made by a company called Hästens. Each one takes some 160 hours to produce and is signed by a master bed-maker who lays out the most perfect matrix of horsehair, cotton, flax, and wool. Price after custom framing: $103,000. Kim has three such beds in his New Zealand mansion, one of which faces a series of monitors and hard drives and piles of wires and is flanked on either side by lamps that look like, and may well be, chromed AK-47s."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 28, 2016, 03:20:06 PM
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.

this is a really good example.  a 'pub appointed 'pub fbi dude makes a politically damaging announcement ten days ahead of the election over something that seems likely to be insubstantial and instead of conspiracy joking about anti-clinton 'pubs and the 'pub fbi guy conspiring, your conspiracy joke is about clinton and the fbi guy conspiring to arrange the eventual nothing likely to come from the announcement.



incidentally, i think comey is a faithful public servant doing his job as best he can.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 28, 2016, 03:22:23 PM
i heard mention of horsehair being in super expensive mattresses elsewhere just this week.  it is not something i would have associated with a luxury good.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on October 28, 2016, 03:24:11 PM
Of course Weiner is involved  :dubious:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on October 28, 2016, 03:28:07 PM
good luxury horse mattress advice i just found with google.

Quote
Will you feel the difference in comfort between white horsetail from Canada and black horsetail from China?  No, of course, you won’t, but don’t pay white horsetail prices for black horsetail.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 28, 2016, 04:10:26 PM
There's still an inkling of hope that WWIII gets averted, but, doubtful.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 28, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
Dax is such a pessimist  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 28, 2016, 04:31:33 PM
Dax is such a pessimist  :frown:

We are talking HRC War Pig here,  she already prefers a scenario in Syria that likely leads to direct confrontation with Russia.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2016, 04:38:30 PM
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.

this is a really good example.  a 'pub appointed 'pub fbi dude makes a politically damaging announcement ten days ahead of the election over something that seems likely to be insubstantial and instead of conspiracy joking about anti-clinton 'pubs and the 'pub fbi guy conspiring, your conspiracy joke is about clinton and the fbi guy conspiring to arrange the eventual nothing likely to come from the announcement.



incidentally, i think comey is a faithful public servant doing his job as best he can.

IDK, I think it's just an example of my pessimism towards govt in general, in my assumption that most of them are there to make better deals for themselves.   :dunno:

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 04:53:43 PM
my meme didn't go viral  :frown:

i spent an hour making the baby look mixed. i made sure all the font spacing in the box was correct. colors were the correct hex color code.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 28, 2016, 05:31:20 PM
Of course Weiner is involved  :dubious:
So bucket is MG going to drop out?  Done in by a crooked weiner. What part of her anatomy did Hillary sext back to Anthony #hurlyourcookies.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 06:58:26 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/kim-dotcom-julian-assange-will-be-hillary-clinton-s-worst-nightmare-in-2016

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/539567677732171777

what a hero
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on October 28, 2016, 08:03:49 PM
Of course Weiner is involved  :dubious:
So bucket is MG going to drop out?  Done in by a crooked weiner. What part of her anatomy did Hillary sext back to Anthony #hurlyourcookies.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 28, 2016, 08:11:30 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/kim-dotcom-julian-assange-will-be-hillary-clinton-s-worst-nightmare-in-2016

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/539567677732171777

what a hero

holy neckbeard meme
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 09:24:14 PM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=njN75nJdCAk

Hillbullies at it again :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on October 28, 2016, 09:36:06 PM
What is a hullbullie?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2016, 10:45:02 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/RXFyphi.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: IPA4Me on October 28, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
Dickileaks. Heh.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 28, 2016, 11:12:22 PM
Dickileaks.

 :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 28, 2016, 11:56:44 PM
https://twitter.com/regated/status/792210920495845376

she's mumped
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 29, 2016, 12:08:53 AM
ENHANCE

you can really feel the pain in this one. the feeling which, arouses me.

(https://i.sli.mg/Q0oWII.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 29, 2016, 12:42:10 AM
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/792181433255112704

is kim dotcom confirming the theory? :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on October 29, 2016, 12:54:44 AM
Man, this Clinton email news is burning up the media, crap I just can't even get away from it. My phone is blowing up with breaking news alerts about it.

I knew it was big when Relegated got it, wow!

Relegated is one of America's most respected news gathering organizations, right up there with the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. But just in case you've never heard of them, and shame on you if you haven't here's a sample of their groundbreaking journalism.

They have an article on the front page of their site about the following tweet:

https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli/status/791488951781625856

Here is a line written in said article in reference to that tweet
Quote
While this isn’t the first time a celebrity has offered something for their preferred candidate winning the race, this small offering is definitely going to have some sort of impact on the presidential race this year.

Riveting crap. For more Pulitzer winning journalism visit relegated.com and you can read articles like the following

#FREEJAMES: TWITTER SUSPENDS CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST JAMES O’KEEFE

FBI DESTROYED LAPTOPS FOR CLINTON ASSOCIATES

ETHAN PEPPER ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

WIKILEAKS: HILLARY CLINTON IS PRIVATELY AGAINST GAYS & GAY MARRIAGE?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 29, 2016, 01:25:52 AM
It's a picture, not an article you spazz  :lol:

I mean, it's possible the picture is out of context. But very weird spot to attack the source. Plus you spelled regated wrong.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 29, 2016, 07:01:20 AM
Is Huma Abedin weiner's wife and hillcon's alleged lesbo lover?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 29, 2016, 08:44:05 AM
Yes and I hope so.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 29, 2016, 09:37:32 AM
What's it like in conversations with DNC staffers and HRC War Pig:

Okay, well there's a lot of needy latinos over there, and we need to make a stop and talk to the ner do well blacks up here, but we just don't know what to do with the rough ridin' Catholics over here. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on October 29, 2016, 09:38:30 AM
anthony weiner is the hilarious gift that keeps on giving
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 29, 2016, 09:56:37 AM
anthony weiner is the hilarious gift that keeps on giving

I want him on a reality show too.

I am starting a reality show network where sd, kk, rd, pete, clams, trim, fan, 33, tobias and I pick the stars.  FSD provides content
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on October 29, 2016, 11:56:06 AM
Odd couple match up with the YallQaeda guy.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on October 29, 2016, 01:00:08 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918
I remember reading.that people were.perplexed how information sent to Hillary on the secure State Department server to her unsecured server.  I think article said this was a violation of a serous law.  This ignorant.journalist seems to have solved the mystery.  Huma.appears to be in quicksand.  I can't imagine.Hillary didn't approve this.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 29, 2016, 01:32:50 PM
https://twitter.com/WDFx2EU7/status/792384308753211392

And to think people paid 200k to hear them speak
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 29, 2016, 11:13:44 PM
Man, this Clinton email news is burning up the media, crap I just can't even get away from it. My phone is blowing up with breaking news alerts about it.

I knew it was big when Relegated got it, wow!

Relegated is one of America's most respected news gathering organizations, right up there with the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. But just in case you've never heard of them, and shame on you if you haven't here's a sample of their groundbreaking journalism.

They have an article on the front page of their site about the following tweet:

https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli/status/791488951781625856

Here is a line written in said article in reference to that tweet
Quote
While this isn’t the first time a celebrity has offered something for their preferred candidate winning the race, this small offering is definitely going to have some sort of impact on the presidential race this year.

Riveting crap. For more Pulitzer winning journalism visit relegated.com and you can read articles like the following

#FREEJAMES: TWITTER SUSPENDS CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST JAMES O’KEEFE

FBI DESTROYED LAPTOPS FOR CLINTON ASSOCIATES

ETHAN PEPPER ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

WIKILEAKS: HILLARY CLINTON IS PRIVATELY AGAINST GAYS & GAY MARRIAGE?

Great scoop by regated after all. Hillary is throwing her under the bus, Huma appears completely mumped.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 30, 2016, 02:06:48 PM
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 30, 2016, 02:20:11 PM
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?

Yes, it's a docudrama, but hillary is the killer instead of bill.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 30, 2016, 02:36:24 PM
That Jodi Foster. What a dame.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 30, 2016, 02:56:45 PM
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?

huma abedin has a folder on weiner's laptop with 10k+ of clinton's emails in a folder called "life insurance" :sdeek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiBZYccLM2g&feature=youtu.be&t=147
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Canary on October 30, 2016, 03:11:27 PM
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?
I did not.  I haven't finished watching the season I started at the start of spring.  May have to get back to watching some Netflix and HBO.  Don't know why I haven't for awhile.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on October 30, 2016, 04:22:32 PM
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?
I did not.  I haven't finished watching the season I started at the start of spring.  May have to get back to watching some Netflix and HBO.  Don't know why I haven't for awhile.

Get on it, broham.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Canary on October 30, 2016, 04:47:15 PM
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?
I did not.  I haven't finished watching the season I started at the start of spring.  May have to get back to watching some Netflix and HBO.  Don't know why I haven't for awhile.

Get on it, broham.
I will! 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 30, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
https://twitter.com/datrumpnation1/status/792875880800329728

I am enjoying this.  :driving:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 31, 2016, 12:18:09 AM
Lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 31, 2016, 10:24:39 AM
These people can't elp themselves

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793102680096968704
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2016, 12:03:41 PM
SMDH, so Corrupt.

#russianhackers  :curse:

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Panjandrum on October 31, 2016, 12:24:41 PM
I'm not surprised that the Democrats were more aggressive in squashing their populist revolution since they had more (better) levers to do so.

Though with the super-delegates, a lot of the ticky-tack things by Brazille and DW-S seem extremely redundant.  Bernie was always going to be at arm's length.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2016, 01:54:25 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/1daqq7.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 31, 2016, 02:05:18 PM
These people can't elp themselves

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793102680096968704

As robotic as Hillary is and as dishonest as democrats seem to be, why would anyone think she didn't have all of the questions before hand? Why just a couple? And why not during at least 2 of the debates with Trump?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 31, 2016, 03:55:46 PM
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/793144476889866240

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 31, 2016, 07:55:01 PM
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793189117005860864
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 31, 2016, 08:28:34 PM
rofl
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 31, 2016, 08:33:54 PM
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793189117005860864

 :lol: Gabriel Roth looks a lot older than a second grader, WTF?!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 31, 2016, 08:51:31 PM
Uh oh, hilltard and the 1960's era cold war campaign

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793267599664615424
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2016, 09:44:05 PM
Hilbots applaud as Hillary War Pig channels inner Roy Cohn. 

#russians :anger
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 31, 2016, 10:53:22 PM
peter kadzik (in charge of weiner investigation) is friends with podesta. very convenient
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on October 31, 2016, 10:56:16 PM
Uh oh, hilltard and the 1960's era cold war campaign

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793267599664615424

heh
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 01, 2016, 12:39:52 AM
Bill got $500,000 to give a speech for a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: puniraptor on November 01, 2016, 04:36:10 AM
Bill got $500,000 to give a speech for a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin.
I'm sure all Russian Banks have ties to the Kremlin
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 01, 2016, 06:37:11 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-fbi-email-investigation-huma-abedin-responds-james-comey-criticized/
About half through this article Obama is credited as saying Comey's actions to contact Congress about newly found emails.  It is fun to speculate why Huma is playing ignorant.  The why these emails are on this computer may be more important than the emails.  Is Weiner a hacker?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 01, 2016, 03:21:03 PM
The FBI is keeping busy these days!

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/793528539001815045
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 01, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
I have no clue who this 3,00 follower chick is, but  :D

https://twitter.com/RealHeatherRoss/status/793539966039126017
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 01, 2016, 04:49:46 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwJbihiWAAAzSU4.jpg:large)
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 01, 2016, 08:19:46 PM
Cabbage , urine and farts. 

Hoax?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 01, 2016, 09:49:48 PM
HaHa

https://youtu.be/3teYvgMsNXk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on November 01, 2016, 09:54:20 PM
I have no clue who this 3,00 follower chick is, but  :D

https://twitter.com/RealHeatherRoss/status/793539966039126017

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/media/sean-hannity-michelle-obama-hillary-clinton-fake-news/index.html

Quote
Radio host Sean Hannity on Tuesday embraced a piece of fake news about President Obama deleting endorsements of Hillary Clinton from his Twitter account.

Idiots  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 02, 2016, 05:14:05 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3889994/Influence-peddling-acting-Putin-s-ally-hiding-classified-secrets-sexting-FIVE-separate-FBI-cases-probing-virtually-one-Clinton-s-inner-circle-families.html?ito=email_share_mobile-masthead
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 02, 2016, 06:35:19 AM
MG's new campaign slogan - Vote Early #beforemorecrapisreleased
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 02, 2016, 11:40:32 PM
https://i.redd.it/ynodxgz96jux.png
http://pastebin.com/hgW5q5Kx

Interesting read...He's been right about everything. Not sure if the second link is the same guy, as second has some crazier comments, but first link has been spot on.

Stuff that's recently come to light: Foundation is where the troubles lie, emails are minor in comparison. The fact they've been investigating for a long time now. Other countries have hacked Hillary. Trump having info leaked to him (400 lb hacker comment). Other stuff is common knowledge now, not sure if they were called by him or not.

Mfw conspiracy theories come true

(http://www.relatably.com/m/img/pepe-memes-tumblr/iCim4eXE_400x400.w529.h529.jpeg)
Title: Stunted
Post by: stunted on November 03, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
(https://i.redd.it/nf4bdiy1mcvx.png)

 :AA:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 03, 2016, 08:00:08 AM
Oh yeah, that's the plane trump raped a 13yr old girl on and is currently being sued for it.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2016, 08:55:28 AM
Haiti?  Is that beleaguered Island Nation that the Clinton's and one of their corrupt foundations took in millions to support and they just funneled the money to cronies who just pocketed the cash??
Title: Stunted
Post by: stunted on November 03, 2016, 09:19:48 AM
Oh yeah, that's the plane trump raped a 13yr old girl on and is currently being sued for it.

Link to this conspiracy theory?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 03, 2016, 09:37:00 AM
/r/libliblibliblibliblib
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 03, 2016, 11:19:32 AM
This is for my boy stunz

(https://i.sli.mg/IYLqtE.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 03, 2016, 11:22:23 AM
Holy crap, that's fantastic
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2016, 12:18:56 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwJbihiWAAAzSU4.jpg:large)

Weird picture to use, but funny quote.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on November 03, 2016, 12:21:10 PM
This is for my boy stunz

(https://i.sli.mg/IYLqtE.gif)

amaze
Title: Stunted
Post by: stunted on November 03, 2016, 01:03:33 PM
 :love:

Best meme yet
Title: Stunted
Post by: stunted on November 03, 2016, 03:07:48 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794247777756860417 :sdeek:

Wikileaks tweeting out conspiracy theories
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Libtard economy
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/794308972455088130

Libtard transparency
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794273469349429254
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2016, 09:38:29 PM
The "safe" choice

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3901376/Secret-recordings-fueled-FBI-s-desire-probe-Clinton-Foundation-case-moves-likely-indictment.html
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 03, 2016, 11:27:47 PM
Quote
Here's an Email between Tony Podesta and Marina Abramovic https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893 In it, they invite Podesta to a "Spirit Cooking" dinner that's happening at Tony's house.

Looking up the woman, gets you her webpage and a graphical book she created.
http://www.editionjs.com/img/abramovic/ (Archive: http://archive.is/15yMm)

And a youtube link on what "Spirit Cooking" actually is. https://youtu.be/3EsJLNGVJ7E (Archive: https://vid.me/EPlE)

wat
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 04, 2016, 08:39:27 AM
I can't believe there are people willing to gamble our country away on a lunatic crook like hilltard, smh.

-bizarro NYT WaPo Slate Atlantic
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 04, 2016, 09:42:50 AM
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1792/Will-a-federal-criminal-charge-be-filed-against-Hillary-Clinton-in-2016#data  this is interesting
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 04, 2016, 10:14:13 AM
Drudge sharing spirit cooking. :bwpopcorn:

Not just art to this devil lady:

Quote
Marina!, What place do you see the occult having within contemporary art; can magick be made (not simply appropriated/ performed)?

Everything depends on which context you are doing what you are doing. If you are doing the occult magic in the context of art or in a gallery, then it is the art. If you are doing it in different context, in spiritual circles or private house or on TV shows, it is not art. The intention, the context for what is made, and where it is made defines what art is or not.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwZjrMtWEAAUCWN.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on November 04, 2016, 11:09:07 AM
There is great Twitter around spirit thing

"I knew she was a demon"
"Grandma prayed for evil to be revealed"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 04, 2016, 11:20:58 AM
Okay, the joke is super obvious, but still funny to think about Weiner sexting via this secure phone.

Quote
Hillary Clinton trusted Anthony Weiner enough to have him help deliver a “secure phone” to her, new emails released by the State Department reveal.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/04/emails-show-how-much-clinton-trusted-anthony-weiner/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 04, 2016, 11:32:27 AM
sexting-obsessed  :)

Quote
FBI ‘has found damning new emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server on sexting-obsessed Anthony Weiner’s laptop

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2115248/hillary-clinton-email-investigators-find-messages-are-not-the-same-as-those-seen-by-the-fbi-in-previous-probe/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 04, 2016, 11:43:01 AM
There is great Twitter around spirit thing

"I knew she was a demon"
"Grandma prayed for evil to be revealed"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#1 trending!

https://twitter.com/aniyah_vernisha/status/794531699933659136

She can't change her vote  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 04, 2016, 11:57:07 AM
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/794564432894590977

haha. clinton campaign and their conspiracy theories

i learned from scott adams that when people deny, they could be telling the truth or lying. when they attack the source, they're always guilty
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on November 04, 2016, 03:49:20 PM
https://twitter.com/OnMessageForHer/status/794620150968438784
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 04, 2016, 05:04:52 PM
Quote
The Democratic National Committee Has Told the FBI It Found Evidence Its HQ Was Bugged

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/dnc-told-fbi-it-may-have-been-bugged
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 04, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
(https://i.redd.it/tk9htsthcovx.png)

 :D
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on November 04, 2016, 05:22:59 PM
amaze
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 05, 2016, 12:07:43 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRav-34ufcE

hillary talks to the dead
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 05, 2016, 09:45:05 AM
What's funny about the Obama cabinet list email rage is he still hired mostly white guys.

Citi gave Obama a list, which ended up being his cabinet. Crooked!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2016, 09:58:51 AM
Taking this religion/occult direction is exactly what I needed
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on November 05, 2016, 10:40:26 AM
Taking this religion/occult direction is exactly what I needed

It's a delightful turn of events
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2016, 10:52:48 AM
I hope trump starts calling her wickedhillary
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 05, 2016, 12:33:39 PM
What's funny about the Obama cabinet list email rage is he still hired mostly white guys.

Citi gave Obama a list, which ended up being his cabinet. Crooked!

White guys are the 'crats favorite food group
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 06, 2016, 10:44:46 AM
https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/795264366547533824

(http://replygif.net/i/166.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2016, 11:49:11 AM
Lol, wtf

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795284806510714881
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2016, 11:51:10 AM
No crap, lol

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795124414182555652
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Panjandrum on November 06, 2016, 02:48:03 PM
FBI confirms email probe over. No changes since July.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 06, 2016, 03:56:18 PM
FBI confirms email probe over. No changes since July.
They roped us dopes.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 06, 2016, 04:09:51 PM
Comey now back to being a gutless political hack Hillary shill
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2016, 04:22:57 PM
Investigation into the psuedo-charitable foundation remains ongoing
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 06, 2016, 04:26:42 PM
american hero for a week.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 06, 2016, 06:01:57 PM
I thought the key issue before was that they wouldn't be able to prove that she knew that she was doing someting wrong. Did they think one of the newly discovered emails would help with that? Like, maybe she says in an email, "Gosh, the way I'm handling these emails is so wrong!"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2016, 06:04:09 PM
Good point, they should have abandoned their criminal investigation and not bothered to review the emails the subpoenaed, but which were destroyed by hillcrook. Nothing suspicious about that behavior.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 06, 2016, 06:10:56 PM
Hmm. I should have considered that before I made a silly comment about the situation.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 06, 2016, 07:23:09 PM
Going to mx Thursday and this news made the peso stronger.   :curse:

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 06, 2016, 07:29:41 PM
oh crap.  i need to change some money, thanks for the reminder to do that before the election.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 07, 2016, 01:54:59 AM
https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/795264366547533824

(http://replygif.net/i/166.gif)

A lot of ISPs have shut down wikileaks. Poor Julian just wants to get the truth out  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 07, 2016, 10:23:09 AM
This whole article is awesome.

Quote
“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2016, 10:38:18 AM
100d chess
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on November 07, 2016, 10:48:03 AM
This whole article is awesome.

Quote
“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428

that's a great food group.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2016, 12:31:43 PM
So corrupt.   SMDH

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793831278382428164

(https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793831278382428164)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2016, 12:34:28 PM
Quote
“Get ready for war with Russia” if Hillary Clinton is elected president, said progressive Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein.

Sadly Jill, Hillary is the most radical of the Prog-Lib War Hawks.   She (Hillary) desperately wants war with Russia. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2016, 12:40:15 PM
I wish dax or stunz would bring the pizza/hotdog child rape codeword conspiracy to this blog
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 07, 2016, 12:41:48 PM
I'm glad we're going to war with Russia with Hillary as President rather than Trump. She'll totally kick their asses.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on November 07, 2016, 12:42:08 PM
Would a war with Russia help or hurt our economy? I say help. Also would help with societal morale and comradery. Let's do it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on November 07, 2016, 12:42:44 PM
I'll join the reserves or something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2016, 12:43:19 PM
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

Quote
she has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2016, 12:44:25 PM
Look at the prog-lib hypocrite war hawks in residence.   Some real Internet Blog'ing bad asses.

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2016, 12:44:40 PM
That's a great point dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2016, 12:46:11 PM
I meant about the war hawkin' not badass blogin'
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2016, 12:47:01 PM
Personally I'm not supportive of a war with Russia
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 07, 2016, 12:50:45 PM
gotta take jill and flynn seriously, liblib.
(https://i.redd.it/ccxsop8otwdx.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 07, 2016, 12:58:08 PM
Clinton News Network fail

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795587864830439424
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 07, 2016, 12:58:51 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795612203223306240
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 07, 2016, 02:48:31 PM
Listen to today's This American Life.  Story on the email stuff.  They report that Hill isn't a criminal but instead a huge dumbass who doesn't even know how to use a desktop pc. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 07, 2016, 02:50:57 PM
I don't think too many people that age ever use a PC. For real.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on November 07, 2016, 02:51:21 PM
I believe it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on November 07, 2016, 02:52:52 PM
The cyber isnt something to be taken lightly
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 07, 2016, 02:59:55 PM
I was way off.

(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/10/PI_2015-10-29_device-ownership_1-06.png)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on November 07, 2016, 03:05:42 PM
my 80 year old grandmother has a pc and uses it for: solitaire, email, facebook. only those three items. no google searches.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 07, 2016, 03:07:39 PM
my 80 year old grandmother has a pc and uses it for: solitaire, email, facebook. only those three items. no google searches.

we have a desktop that Mrs. stone uses for paying the bills, facebook, booking flights ordering clothes and pintrest.

Nothing else ever
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 07, 2016, 03:10:01 PM
My 95! y/o gma has an Apple desktop thing.  When I email her I send attachments in size 20 font, which she then prints off to read.  Then she might hand write a response and mail it to me.  Most times she forgets I even emailed her tho.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2016, 03:24:15 PM
Great make yourself feel better anecdotes guys!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on November 07, 2016, 03:28:11 PM
i am internet friends with a very very old grandpa who knows his way around a desktop PC. in fact he has over 18,000 posts on a ksu message board
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 07, 2016, 03:32:40 PM
This whole thing could have been resolved with a CIS 101 class. And she would have got an hour of credit too!

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2016, 03:52:04 PM
My recently dead grandpa had a computer since at least the mid 80's and was a very early internet adopter

My long time dead grandpa probably never used a computer in his life
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: OK_Cat on November 07, 2016, 04:13:06 PM
i am internet friends with a very very old grandpa who knows his way around a desktop PC. in fact he has over 18,000 posts on a ksu message board

:lol:


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 07, 2016, 04:47:50 PM
For real, though.  This reporter guy said that he had more than one credible source tell him things like:

Hill's office was in a secure area where hand held devices werent allowed.  When she went to her office, she had to leave her blackberry with a guard.  When she wanted to check her email, she would get up, go get her blackberry, and wander around the part of the building without the restrictions.

Also, as late as like 2012, her staff were buying old ass blackberries off of ebay because she couldn't learn to use newer blackberry devices, or non-blackberry devices.

It painted a really sad pict of our government.  Said that almost no govt offices had computers at worker desks as of 2001.   :facepalm: Colin Powell bought 44,000 computers trying to change this.   :surprised:

I mean, Hill sounds like she is super afraid of tech.  She can't handle a Galaxy 1 through 7, or an iPhone, but she is going to be the head person using drones, flown by guys in Nevada, to blow up ppl in Afghanistan?   :dunno:

Can we please update the requirements to be pres?  You should have a basic functional understanding of how to adequately exist in a management position in a world with computers. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 07, 2016, 04:51:23 PM
Will she email the nuclear strike codes to her maid to print out for safe keeping?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 07, 2016, 04:53:20 PM
Pfft, the nuke places don't have email.  they have computers that run on the big floppy disks.  Pong is too advanced for them.  They wish they could figure out how to add a serial port so they could add a 56k modem so they could dial up so they could get AOL free for 100hrs so they could email Hill at home.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 07, 2016, 04:58:17 PM
Oh, Also, our govt is so shitty stupid with tech, that the wifi that the airforce uses on the Sect of State's plane isn't perfectly compatible with the email service the state dept uses so a bunch of the aides started forwarding stuff to their personal gmail accts to then forward to ppl on the plane.

If any of this is half true, it's scary that any of these ppl have any power what so ever.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 07, 2016, 05:06:46 PM
Wednesday could be scary.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 07, 2016, 05:28:01 PM
Quote from: Hillary
"Hello, Marina? Do you have those funny looking numbers I emailed for you to print out? I need them quickly."
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 07, 2016, 07:10:19 PM
Pfft, the nuke places don't have email.  they have computers that run on the big floppy disks.  Pong is too advanced for them.  They wish they could figure out how to add a serial port so they could add a 56k modem so they could dial up so they could get AOL free for 100hrs so they could email Hill at home.

I really don't mind this. The process of nuking somebody should be as difficult and time-consuming as possible.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 07, 2016, 09:14:15 PM
Listen to today's This American Life.  Story on the email stuff.  They report that Hill isn't a criminal but instead a huge dumbass who doesn't even know how to use a desktop pc. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Given how shitty most of these emails are written, I guess it's kinda not surprising. Like, I can't believe most gov't officials use email the way like 90% of normal Americans use text. SMDH
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 07, 2016, 09:33:57 PM
I don't believe she set up a separate email server and web domain because she's too stupid to pc.

At best, it was done to dodge FOIA requests.  At worst it was done to do everything wikileaks exposed it for.

She sent 60,000+ emails in a 2 year period, not exactly grandma cracker crap.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2016, 09:35:53 PM
I just want a few CC's of the elixir Dr Feelgood is conjuring up to get HRC War Pig through the day tomorrow.   

crap will make you HAF
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2016, 09:37:17 PM
99.9% sure she was hacked by a minimum of 5 foreign intelligence entities and likely more.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 08, 2016, 07:56:57 AM
My old company was highly resistant to switching to iphone after the Blackberry started to die.  It was over security concerns, real or perceived.  My first iphone was the 5s, that's how slow they were.  Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the government was even slower.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 08, 2016, 01:54:36 PM
My old company was highly resistant to switching to iphone after the Blackberry started to die.  It was over security concerns, real or perceived.  My first iphone was the 5s, that's how slow they were.  Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the government was even slower.

last i knew (several years ago, it may have changed, but i haven't heard that it has), fed employees with security clearance were required to use blackberries.  i think blackberry has been working on making security software to run on other phones, but i dunno if they have released any of that, or if they have whether the govt has deemed other phones running with blackberry security to be ok.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on November 08, 2016, 02:03:47 PM
weird technology meltdown from a guy who ends half his posts with

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2016, 02:12:12 PM
(http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/04/20/hillaryclintonbillclinton041916.jpg)

 :confused: +  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on November 08, 2016, 02:34:51 PM
that girl has en enormous camera
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 08, 2016, 03:31:45 PM
Meltdown?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 08, 2016, 03:38:32 PM
(http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/04/20/hillaryclintonbillclinton041916.jpg)

 :confused: +  :lol:

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161108/ca109ab7715254bd6ba6e7adbbd0e36a.png)

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161108/46a21586b62f7099aa5949e3575e663c.png)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2016, 03:57:50 PM
Dr. Feelgood, hairdresser and make-up artist were fantastic today.   :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 08, 2016, 03:58:58 PM
apparently the blackberry security stuff has been available for other phones for two years now and is approved for federal security clearance.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-blackberry-fipscertification-idUSBREA2P0Z120140326
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2016, 03:59:22 PM
What percentage of hillz do you suspect is bionic dax?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2016, 03:59:53 PM
She does look like a female version of Mao though. 

Cute in a death march kind of way, I suppose.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 08, 2016, 04:00:48 PM
Is the whole hillary takes drugs thing supposed to be the home stretch table turner?  because woof if so
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2016, 04:02:00 PM
What percentage of hillz do you suspect is bionic dax?

0%, but the drug mix is likely over-the-top, imagine your daily effectiveness on the "Hillary Cocktail" Lib?   :love: 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2016, 04:04:54 PM
I'm already operating at max efficiency dax
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 08, 2016, 04:05:32 PM
lol
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 08, 2016, 04:05:58 PM
dax efficiency of you will
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2016, 04:06:23 PM
I'm already operating at max efficiency dax

Double your outcomes Lib!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2016, 04:15:31 PM
Several youngsters in the office were hardcore Berners, repeatedly extolling the virtues of Bern over "evil" Hillary.   Now they both sport huge HRC stickers on their cars (not hybrids).   For the most part, when I think of the exact opposite of Bern (outside what HRC War Pig tried to steal and co-opt) I think of HRC War Pig.   But the quest for power trumps (LOL) ideals on the (D) side of the floor, always.

Sad

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 08, 2016, 04:18:28 PM
dax's post led me to find out that there actually are hybrid toyota corollas
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2016, 04:20:17 PM
dax's post led me to find out that there actually are hybrid toyota corollas

The more you know. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2016, 04:21:14 PM
dax's post led me to find out that there actually are hybrid toyota corollas

I think my mom's husband has one. Might be a Honda tho. #bayareathings
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 09, 2016, 07:34:44 PM
It's Election Day!! Millions of Americans are casting their ballots today and participating in our democracy.

I want to thank you for having my back during this campaign. This team gave me the strength to keep fighting.

This is the final step of the long journey we’ve been on together, but now it's in your hands. Make history by heading to the polls today.

Find out where to vote here:



Thank you -- let's go!

Hillary
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2016, 09:08:11 PM
(http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/04/20/hillaryclintonbillclinton041916.jpg)

 :confused: +  :lol:

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161108/ca109ab7715254bd6ba6e7adbbd0e36a.png)

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161108/46a21586b62f7099aa5949e3575e663c.png)

Is she wearing a magic carpet?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 09, 2016, 10:29:40 PM
(http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/04/20/hillaryclintonbillclinton041916.jpg)

 :confused: +  :lol:

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161108/ca109ab7715254bd6ba6e7adbbd0e36a.png)

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161108/46a21586b62f7099aa5949e3575e663c.png)

Is she wearing a magic carpet?

That's was Chairman Mao's Friday fun day party smock.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 09, 2016, 11:22:05 PM
hillary was weeping, inconsolable last night. blamed comey and obama.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 11, 2016, 02:35:25 PM
THE NIGHTMARE CONTINUES

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/11/chelsea-clinton-being-groomed-for-congress/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 11, 2016, 02:38:45 PM
Jesus.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 11, 2016, 02:39:33 PM
LOCK HER UP
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 11, 2016, 02:43:12 PM
She's going to run for President some day.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 11, 2016, 02:44:59 PM
Poor Hillary, reduced to roaming through the woods talking to squirrels and liberal moms.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 11, 2016, 02:45:42 PM
granddaughter Charlotte just turned 2 :curse:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 11, 2016, 02:49:53 PM
Hard to sell access without someone roaming the halls of power.

In other news, 3 new CF sub foundations in the works.   Money laundering is a chore ya know.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 11, 2016, 02:50:46 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 13, 2016, 02:49:18 PM
In retrospect, given how much the DNC rigged the deal for Hillary.   Was she even a legit candidate? 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 13, 2016, 05:59:03 PM
Hard to sell access without someone roaming the halls of power.

In other news, 3 new CF sub foundations in the works.   Money laundering is a chore ya know.

With regard of selling access to power, have you read any articles on the trump transition team?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 13, 2016, 08:44:59 PM
Hard to sell access without someone roaming the halls of power.

In other news, 3 new CF sub foundations in the works.   Money laundering is a chore ya know.

With regard of selling access to power, have you read any articles on the trump transition team?

Have any of them been a Senator or Secretary of State and collected tens of millions of dollars from foreign entities towards their "foundations" and for giving "speeches"?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 13, 2016, 10:50:54 PM
Dax how is it that she lost the election but is still completely in your head?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 14, 2016, 05:56:08 AM
Dax how is it that she lost the election but is still completely in your head?

Weird (and angry) post. 

NYT excuses story just yesterday POSB.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 14, 2016, 11:11:55 PM
Quote
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.

temperament
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 14, 2016, 11:25:30 PM
Dax how is it that she lost the election but is still completely in your head?

Weird (and angry) post. 

NYT excuses story just yesterday POSB.

Wait, what does POSB stand for again? I know you threw out some hilarious nickname or another a couple months ago but I can't remember what it was.  :drool:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 14, 2016, 11:27:00 PM
Dax how is it that she lost the election but is still completely in your head?

Weird (and angry) post. 

NYT excuses story just yesterday POSB.

Wait, what does POSB stand for again? I know you threw out some hilarious nickname or another a couple months ago but I can't remember what it was.  :drool:

your nickname is bcog (biggest cuck on goEMAW)

how is clitler's moonwalk to the oval office going? :lol:

(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Moonwalk-Fail.gif)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 14, 2016, 11:28:39 PM
Dax how is it that she lost the election but is still completely in your head?

Weird (and angry) post. 

NYT excuses story just yesterday POSB.

Wait, what does POSB stand for again? I know you threw out some hilarious nickname or another a couple months ago but I can't remember what it was.  :drool:

your nickname is bcog (biggest cuck on goEMAW)

how is clitler's moonwalk to the oval office going? :lol:

Very slow. Will take at least 4 years.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 14, 2016, 11:29:31 PM
bold prediction bcog, but i bet she dies first
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 14, 2016, 11:30:57 PM
i think it was like BennyMeltdown or something but bcog will work great until we can remember the original daxism  :excited:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2016, 11:36:51 PM
bold prediction bcog, but i bet she dies first

She's done. Besides, Warren is going to run in 2020. What a nauesesting election that will be. Thank goodness is a few years off.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: waks on November 15, 2016, 04:26:14 AM
Quote
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.

temperament
Serious question...do you know anything about the person that your quote comes from?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 15, 2016, 08:33:59 AM
Quote
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.

temperament
Serious question...do you know anything about the person that your quote comes from?

According to several former secret service agents, this is totally within character for hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2016, 09:53:18 AM
A private organization which does their own DefCon rating moved it back to DefCon 5 after Trump got elected.

The world has avoided War Pig Hillary and her disastrous plans.   Thank you Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 15, 2016, 10:43:55 AM
bold prediction bcog, but i bet she dies first

She's done. Besides, Warren is going to run in 2020. What a nauesesting election that will be. Thank goodness is a few years off.

As much as it seems that both parties are run and organized by absolute morons, I just can't seem to agree that the dems would be that rough ridin' stupid.  I guess for that exact reason, it probably will happen, though. 

Will she even be running against Don, or will the ticket be able to shrug him off and give Pence the correct ticket title by then?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 15, 2016, 10:45:48 AM
I don't think Warren would be popular in a general election. She may run though.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 15, 2016, 10:57:38 AM
FAUXCAHONTAS :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 15, 2016, 11:27:25 AM
Someone needs to enlighten me as to why Elizabeth Warren running for president would be stupid?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 15, 2016, 11:31:52 AM
Quick take is that if she couldn't be considered as a good enough candidate this go round to challenge Hill, she shouldn't try to oust the guy that just beat Hill.

I also think that the Bernie and Donald support this year shows that both parties should rethink, at least temporarily, how they decide who is next and the running of candidates because it's their turn is the wrong approach.  The public seems to be sick of it and ready for a new approach, imo.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 15, 2016, 11:37:40 AM
Quick take is that if she couldn't be considered as a good enough candidate this go round to challenge Hill, she shouldn't try to oust the guy that just beat Hill.

I also think that the Bernie and Donald support this year shows that both parties should rethink, at least temporarily, how they decide who is next and the running of candidates because it's their turn is the wrong approach.  The public seems to be sick of it and ready for a new approach, imo.

It was her choice not to run, she wasn't banned or anything. Also you sort of contradicted yourself by mentioning Bernie, they are 100% in lock step on policy positions. She's a younger Bernie with polish.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 15, 2016, 11:41:17 AM
Quick take is that if she couldn't be considered as a good enough candidate this go round to challenge Hill, she shouldn't try to oust the guy that just beat Hill.

I also think that the Bernie and Donald support this year shows that both parties should rethink, at least temporarily, how they decide who is next and the running of candidates because it's their turn is the wrong approach.  The public seems to be sick of it and ready for a new approach, imo.

It was her choice not to run, she wasn't banned or anything. Also you sort of contradicted yourself by mentioning Bernie, they are 100% in lock step on policy positions. She's a younger Bernie with polish.

I have zero doubt that bernie was run as fodder, just like that Webb guy, but that the party was surprised by his popularity.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 15, 2016, 12:04:26 PM
Quick take is that if she couldn't be considered as a good enough candidate this go round to challenge Hill, she shouldn't try to oust the guy that just beat Hill.

I also think that the Bernie and Donald support this year shows that both parties should rethink, at least temporarily, how they decide who is next and the running of candidates because it's their turn is the wrong approach.  The public seems to be sick of it and ready for a new approach, imo.

It was her choice not to run, she wasn't banned or anything. Also you sort of contradicted yourself by mentioning Bernie, they are 100% in lock step on policy positions. She's a younger Bernie with polish.

I have zero doubt that bernie was run as fodder, just like that Webb guy, but that the party was surprised by his popularity.

Who is the entity that is making these choices about who runs?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 15, 2016, 12:13:59 PM
Quick take is that if she couldn't be considered as a good enough candidate this go round to challenge Hill, she shouldn't try to oust the guy that just beat Hill.

I also think that the Bernie and Donald support this year shows that both parties should rethink, at least temporarily, how they decide who is next and the running of candidates because it's their turn is the wrong approach.  The public seems to be sick of it and ready for a new approach, imo.

It was her choice not to run, she wasn't banned or anything. Also you sort of contradicted yourself by mentioning Bernie, they are 100% in lock step on policy positions. She's a younger Bernie with polish.

I have zero doubt that bernie was run as fodder, just like that Webb guy, but that the party was surprised by his popularity.

Who is the entity that is making these choices about who runs?

The parties.  I mean, I am sure anyone can run, but I am also sure that there are discussions between the party and the party loyals as to who would be the best party candidate and that others are asked to put their support behind them rather than run against them.   That is pretty much commonly accepted.  We hear often during races that the parties try to influence certain challengers to drop out so that they can support other candidates during primaries. 

If you are suggesting that the party simply provides the frame work for candidates to work within and that there isn't preference shown to certain candidates at times, I think the dems were made clear as an example of that not being the case with Debbie this election.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 15, 2016, 01:00:52 PM
She's a younger Bernie with polish.

she'll be 71 in 2020.  quick little hot take - our political parties need to stop running people that should be retired.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 15, 2016, 01:31:15 PM
She's a younger Bernie with polish.

she'll be 71 in 2020.  quick little hot take - our political parties need to stop running people that should be retired.

Which is why I'm backing Tulsi.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: steve dave on November 15, 2016, 02:07:58 PM
I'm going to vote for some moderate who doesn't suck complete crap and polarize everyone.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 15, 2016, 02:23:03 PM
Like Obama?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2016, 02:51:19 PM
Like Obama?

I agree, if the war mongerites, Patriot Actites, the convoluted foreign policyites, less transparency not moreites, the racial dividites, the no budget at allites had just been a little patient, they would have seen their kinship with Obama straight out.
 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 15, 2016, 04:12:45 PM
i have no idea how dax does it but i am very grateful he knows how
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2016, 04:48:57 PM
Elizabeth Warren is a female version of Bernie Sanders. Unlike Bernie, Elizabeth Warren is not Jewish - a plus for the secretly and sometimes not-so-secretly anti-Semitic Democrat base. Crazy people like MIR love Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren would be the first Native American nominee of a major party, and Dems love them some identity politics.

For all these reasons and more, she's definitely running in 2020. But I'm not going to start that thread for at least 2.5 years.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 15, 2016, 05:30:54 PM
Quick take is that if she couldn't be considered as a good enough candidate this go round to challenge Hill, she shouldn't try to oust the guy that just beat Hill.

I also think that the Bernie and Donald support this year shows that both parties should rethink, at least temporarily, how they decide who is next and the running of candidates because it's their turn is the wrong approach.  The public seems to be sick of it and ready for a new approach, imo.

It was her choice not to run, she wasn't banned or anything. Also you sort of contradicted yourself by mentioning Bernie, they are 100% in lock step on policy positions. She's a younger Bernie with polish.

I have zero doubt that bernie was run as fodder, just like that Webb guy, but that the party was surprised by his popularity.

Who is the entity that is making these choices about who runs?

The parties.  I mean, I am sure anyone can run, but I am also sure that there are discussions between the party and the party loyals as to who would be the best party candidate and that others are asked to put their support behind them rather than run against them.   That is pretty much commonly accepted.  We hear often during races that the parties try to influence certain challengers to drop out so that they can support other candidates during primaries. 

If you are suggesting that the party simply provides the frame work for candidates to work within and that there isn't preference shown to certain candidates at times, I think the dems were made clear as an example of that not being the case with Debbie this election.   :dunno:

Sure the parties have people they want to run but that has little or nothing to do with who runs. Sanders, Webb, and O'Malley all battled with the DNC from the start. Obama and Bill Clinton were outsiders when they jumped in.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 15, 2016, 07:09:47 PM
Tulsi has some really strong Modi ties that are uncomfortable.  That dude literally leads ethnic cleansing riots.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2016, 07:33:18 PM
Elizabeth Warren is a female version of Bernie Sanders. Unlike Bernie, Elizabeth Warren is not Jewish - a plus for the secretly and sometimes not-so-secretly anti-Semitic Democrat base. Crazy people like MIR love Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren would be the first Native American nominee of a major party, and Dems love them some identity politics.

For all these reasons and more, she's definitely running in 2020. But I'm not going to start that thread for at least 2.5 years.

Agreed, can totally see Liz being the odds on favorite for the labeler party aka intolerant Prog-Lib Nation.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on November 15, 2016, 09:12:34 PM
Corey Booker or Tammy Duckworth. (President Duckworth sounds like a cartoon character imo, but whatevs.)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 15, 2016, 11:53:36 PM
Tulsi has some really strong Modi ties that are uncomfortable.  That dude literally leads ethnic cleansing riots.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

Mrs. Gooch, we may have a problem. Our girl has three years to clean this up :cry:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 16, 2016, 12:04:43 AM
Corey Booker or Tammy Duckworth. (President Duckworth sounds like a cartoon character imo, but whatevs.)

Booker isn't happening, people have to get this through their heads. Black guys running for president have to be squeaky clean, Booker isn't, far from it. He also has enemies in the party.

Duckworth is interesting, she has done things that she'll get dragged for; not born in America, sued for bullying subordinates while working for Veteran's Affairs in Illinois, Blago was her boss incidentally. The interesting thing about that lawsuit is that it was settled and a part of the settlement was that she didn't have to admit wrongdoing. The plaintiffs accepted the settlement, then wanted it thrown out, judge said naw.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: mocat on November 16, 2016, 06:51:51 AM
Tulsi has some really strong Modi ties that are uncomfortable.  That dude literally leads ethnic cleansing riots.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

Mrs. Gooch, we may have a problem. Our girl has three years to clean this up :cry:

That article sort of glosses over her connection to that guy
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 16, 2016, 08:41:19 AM
Tulsi has some really strong Modi ties that are uncomfortable.  That dude literally leads ethnic cleansing riots.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

Mrs. Gooch, we may have a problem. Our girl has three years to clean this up :cry:

 :frown: Back to the drawing board.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 16, 2016, 08:51:38 AM
That article makes me think she will win in a landslide.  A right flanking dem who may hate muslims.  I mean, she would have  gotten the base, many moderates, and many independents in this election if running.  She would prob be pres elect right now.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 08:21:03 AM
Why is the word, "pardon" even being brought up in regard HRCWP?   I thought she didn't do anything wrong. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on November 17, 2016, 08:32:04 AM
Why is the word, "pardon" even being brought up in regard HRCWP?   I thought she didn't do anything wrong. 

I think just about everyone, including herself, has admitted that she did something wrong.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 17, 2016, 08:56:12 AM
 Could you imagine being her cellmate?  She would cause a prison riot.  Bill is probably against a pardon.  I would laugh if the condition of the pardon was MG had to be Obama's maid and.fax retrieval assistant.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 10:13:11 AM
Wow

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 10:15:37 AM
Wow

Probably enough stuff in her system to kill 3 normal people and a horse.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 10:17:24 AM
And she literally smells like sulfur!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2016, 10:31:05 AM
Wow

(http://www.namespedia.com/image/Golum_5.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2016, 10:33:07 AM
I think it is interesting that we're not seeing any news accounts from inside Hillary's election night war room. I seem to recall similar stories for Romney, McCain, Kerry, etc. I find it hard to believe there wasn't a single journalist there.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 17, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
makes you think
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 17, 2016, 10:38:33 AM
During election night coverage, it was reported on TV that the Clinton campaign kicked out all journalists when things started looking really bad for them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 10:39:58 AM
During election night coverage, it was reported on TV that the Clinton campaign kicked out Killed all journalists when things started looking really bad for them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 17, 2016, 10:48:05 AM
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2016, 10:49:23 AM
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 10:52:45 AM
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.
OMG!  :love:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 17, 2016, 11:05:52 AM
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.
OMG!  :love:

I know what you're thinking, I thought the same thing after I hit post, wrong punctuation. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 11:20:48 AM
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hillster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 17, 2016, 11:47:28 AM
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hipster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.

I not sure who I caucused for has anything to do with mocking a moron for laughing at the appearance of an old woman, but whatever you're certainly smarter than I am.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2016, 11:51:57 AM
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 12:01:14 PM
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hipster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.

I not sure who I caucused for has anything to do with mocking a moron for laughing at the appearance of an old woman, but whatever you're certainly smarter than I am.
I love it when one of the biggest bullies on this blog determines when it's right to be sentimental and when to call ppl dumb rough ridin' POS. Your resume really is dumbfounding. I hope you have a great day, MIR
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 17, 2016, 12:09:35 PM
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hipster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.

I not sure who I caucused for has anything to do with mocking a moron for laughing at the appearance of an old woman, but whatever you're certainly smarter than I am.
I love it when one of the biggest bullies on this blog determines when it's right to be sentimental and when to call ppl dumb rough ridin' POS. Your resume really is dumbfounding. I hope you have a great day, MIR

Bully, lol. How sensitive millennial of you. Butch up. No matter how inferior I make you feel, you can take solace in knowing that I wasn't in NHS.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 12:12:59 PM
Just calling a spade a spade, champ.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 17, 2016, 12:13:40 PM
she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote.

would this surprise you if you divorced it from political context though?  like if someone asked you what % of the us population lives in the 100 largest cities, what would you guess?  and if they asked you how many counties encompass the 100 largest cities?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 12:26:34 PM
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 17, 2016, 12:27:42 PM
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote

The city dwellers do this to themselves.  Time to take some responsibility.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 12:29:43 PM
Yeah, votes for a national office should totally be given different weights depending on where you live within the nation.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 17, 2016, 12:37:09 PM
Yeah, votes for a national office should totally be given different weights depending on where you live within the nation.

It should be based on how much land you own. Only land owners should vote....maybe just white male landowners.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 17, 2016, 01:14:23 PM
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2016, 01:16:39 PM
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote

That isn't really how it works, though. Rural and urban votes are equal in swing states. Neither matter in deep red or blue states.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2016, 01:17:18 PM
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.

yes
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 17, 2016, 01:17:27 PM
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.

I can get behind this idea.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 01:17:35 PM
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.
Yeah, that ACT score really turned out to be a deal breaker for me. I just have a silly little Masters underneath my belt, but can barely form complete sentences without drooling all over myself. So sad.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 01:19:15 PM
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote

That isn't really how it works, though. Rural and urban votes are equal in swing states. Neither matter in deep red or blue states.

So then it's exactly how I said it works?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 17, 2016, 01:20:19 PM
No, more like not at all how you said it works.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 01:21:32 PM
Oops, I thought you quoted a different post
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 17, 2016, 01:22:47 PM
can barely form complete sentences.

if there was a word cloud of your messageboard identity, this would be a gigantic word.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 01:25:07 PM
Remember that time you called me a narcissist? OMG! Was that the most hypocritical thing ever said on a message board? SYS loves himself some SYS.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 17, 2016, 01:30:02 PM
Remember that time you called me a narcissist? OMG! Was that the most hypocritical thing ever said on a message board? SYS loves himself some SYS.

i am pretty content with myself.  but that's not actually what being a narcissist means.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 01:36:26 PM
Quote
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes

Pictured: SYS character from gE
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2016, 02:34:48 PM
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

Yeah.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote.

would this surprise you if you divorced it from political context though?  like if someone asked you what % of the us population lives in the 100 largest cities, what would you guess?  and if they asked you how many counties encompass the 100 largest cities?

Oh, I am sure that given the right detail, I can make that feel right, but at 5:45am this morning it struck me as kinda crazy.  Also, she only won 500 counties nationally.  That is pretty crazy in itself.

Same podcast said that Obama only won 700 counties.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 17, 2016, 02:44:43 PM
Quote
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes

Pictured: SYS character from gE

i haven't even posted my act score for everyone to admire, so i think we can consider this debunked.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 17, 2016, 02:45:39 PM
i haven't even posted my act score for everyone to admire, so i think we can consider this debunked.

oh no, i just fanningbragged it.  what does this all mean?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
Quote
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes

Pictured: SYS character from gE

i haven't even posted my act score for everyone to admire, so i think we can consider this debunked.
I'm willing to make fun of myself. It was to a related topic about paying for education. That's super awesome tho that you never have to go to work and still have a job. LOOK AT YOU!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on November 17, 2016, 02:49:20 PM
i'm considering whether or not to tip my lawnmower too.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 02:51:03 PM
Just think how easy campaigning would.  The intolerant labelers wouldn't have to leave major metro areas.   HRCWP never left Raleigh or Charlotte when campaigning in NC.  4.5 million people in a swing state don't live in either place. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2016, 02:57:31 PM
I am going  to run next go round and just tell each of those counties that 25% of my entire campaign fund will be given to one lucky county, picked at random, if I win.  Raffle for my presidency. 

That paired with being from the midwest seems to be about as foolproof of a campaign plan as it gets. 

 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: stunted on November 17, 2016, 04:57:21 PM
Wow

holy crap. rest in hell hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2016, 09:53:42 AM
Trump Won't Pursue Investigation Against Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-escalates-war-with-news-media-cancels-meeting-with-new-york-times/2016/11/22/3b02f9ce-b0b1-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html)

Disappointing if true, but as per usual, it's also difficult to determine what Trump actually means. Is he saying he's not going to exert pressure to ramp up the investigation (fine), or that he's going to pressure the FBI to shut down its investigation into the Clinton Foundation? That would be a shame and really inappropriate if he does that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2016, 09:55:50 AM
LOCK HER UP!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 22, 2016, 09:57:38 AM
Trump Won't Pursue Investigation Against Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-escalates-war-with-news-media-cancels-meeting-with-new-york-times/2016/11/22/3b02f9ce-b0b1-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html)

Disappointing if true, but as per usual, it's also difficult to determine what Trump actually means. Is he saying he's not going to exert pressure to ramp up the investigation (fine), or that he's going to pressure the FBI to shut down its investigation into the Clinton Foundation? That would be a shame and really inappropriate if he does that.

Pay for play and total lack of email security sold out US National Security.  Dumb not to investigate. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 22, 2016, 10:08:07 AM
LOCK HER UP!

:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 22, 2016, 10:11:21 AM
More like, LOCK THIS THREAD UP!  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Cire on November 22, 2016, 10:27:34 AM
Trump Won't Pursue Investigation Against Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-escalates-war-with-news-media-cancels-meeting-with-new-york-times/2016/11/22/3b02f9ce-b0b1-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html)

Disappointing if true, but as per usual, it's also difficult to determine what Trump actually means. Is he saying he's not going to exert pressure to ramp up the investigation (fine), or that he's going to pressure the FBI to shut down its investigation into the Clinton Foundation? That would be a shame and really inappropriate if he does that.

Pay for play and total lack of email security sold out US National Security.  Dumb not to investigate. 

Why would donald trump put his friend Hilary Clinton in jail?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 22, 2016, 10:29:11 AM
Especially when she basically handed him the presidency.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Tobias on November 22, 2016, 10:29:44 AM
that's a great point cire
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on November 22, 2016, 11:33:32 AM
Screw Trump. This just means that we'll get her indicted in 2020.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2016, 11:37:29 AM
Like OJ, the Clintons will ultimately land in prison for something.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 22, 2016, 11:53:34 AM
Keep hope alive, bud
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 22, 2016, 11:57:26 AM
Screw Trump. This just means that we'll get her indicted in 2020.

That would be amazing if he pulls that out for campaign time 2020. Def keep the Dax's of the world on DEATH(TOTHE)CON 1
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 22, 2016, 11:58:25 AM
She was judged by the people, let the fbi indict her if they have something, and President Donald J. Trump can get on with dealing with more important issues for the betterment of this glorious country.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 22, 2016, 12:06:19 PM
eff rule of law, LOCK HER UP
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 22, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Clinton charity donations dropping like a rock tho
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 22, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Proof!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 22, 2016, 12:30:51 PM
Clinton charity donations dropping like a rock tho

LOL, obviously. The quid pro quo business is dead. Murdering, rapist, extremists will have to find a new way to get weapons. The progressives are sad the homosexuals and females are somewhat safer.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 22, 2016, 12:49:03 PM
The quest for power has no bounds for the intolerant left.

Sad

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2016, 01:25:37 PM
She was judged by the people, let the fbi indict her if they have something, and President Donald J. Trump can get on with dealing with more important issues for the betterment of this glorious country.

Contrary to the impression Comey gave with his horrific public pronouncements, the FBI does not indict. That is up to the DOJ by way of a grand jury.

I don't think Trump intends to impede the FBI's investigation. I think he intends to stay out of it, which is perfectly appropriate. Clinton should be quite worried that Jeff Sessions - and not Loretta Lynch - will be heading the DOJ.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on November 22, 2016, 01:29:34 PM
lol @ Sessions or anyone indicting Clinton.  It was all political and now that she lost and is finished, they won't care anymore.  It wasn't and never will be about justice.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 22, 2016, 01:31:31 PM
Oh yeah  I forgot that comey is back to being an evil Democrat operative now that he didn't recommend to indict
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2016, 01:48:19 PM
Oh yeah  I forgot that comey is back to being an evil Democrat operative now that he didn't recommend to indict

Who said that? I think both sides can agree that Comey royally effed this whole thing up.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 22, 2016, 02:01:17 PM
Pay no mind to lib, he's just a festering cauldron of rage these days.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 22, 2016, 02:52:02 PM
lol @ Sessions or anyone indicting Clinton.  It was all political and now that she lost and is finished, they won't care anymore.  It wasn't and never will be about justice.

Bro, do you even wikileaks? #delusion #libtard
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 22, 2016, 03:22:39 PM
lol @ Sessions or anyone indicting Clinton.  It was all political and now that she lost and is finished, they won't care anymore.  It wasn't and never will be about justice.

Bro, do you even wikileaks? #delusion #libtard

Kellyanne said that he isn't going to pursue charges and that the rest of the party will fall in line with that.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2016, 03:23:36 PM
Law and order candidate my ass!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on November 22, 2016, 03:25:21 PM
Well, I certainly am not believing anything until I see a late night tweet about it.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: ChiComCat on November 22, 2016, 03:28:30 PM
lol @ Sessions or anyone indicting Clinton.  It was all political and now that she lost and is finished, they won't care anymore.  It wasn't and never will be about justice.

Bro, do you even wikileaks? #delusion #libtard

Feel free to bump my post when they bring charges dumbass
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2016, 03:35:27 PM
lol @ Sessions or anyone indicting Clinton.  It was all political and now that she lost and is finished, they won't care anymore.  It wasn't and never will be about justice.

Bro, do you even wikileaks? #delusion #libtard

Kellyanne said that he isn't going to pursue charges and that the rest of the party will fall in line with that.

Career agents at the FBI are not "the rest of the party." There will be no special prosecutor, and no more subpoenas from Congress. But the FBI will continue to investigate unless Trump shuts them down, and I don't read that from his or Kellyanne's comments.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 22, 2016, 05:07:25 PM
Maybe she is.really sick, and Trump being humane.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 22, 2016, 09:49:21 PM
He is probably going to follow the constitution and leave the decision whether or not to charge her up to the FBI and justice dept without his interference.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 22, 2016, 09:52:07 PM
He is probably going to follow the constitution and leave the decision whether or not to charge her up to the FBI and justice dept without his interference.

I really doubt he realizes that is even an option.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 22, 2016, 09:58:17 PM
Exactly what Obama did, so studly
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 22, 2016, 11:31:52 PM
Must feel great for the intolerant lefties to know that Hillary War Pig isn't going to get prosecuted.   Total benevolent move by Trump et. al.   

Too bad whistle blowers didn't get the same treatment from Obama. 

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 23, 2016, 07:06:05 AM
He is probably going to follow the constitution and leave the decision whether or not to charge her up to the FBI and justice dept without his interference.

I really doubt he realizes that is even an option.

Possibly. Probably. I'm gonna be optimistic.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 23, 2016, 09:09:12 AM
Question for our legal scholars, can Congress on its own appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's shady activities when she was SOS.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on November 26, 2016, 04:03:58 PM
Hillary = dog vomit.  What the *\©\€|[< is she trying to do to our country.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 20, 2016, 03:27:31 PM
27 email strings with top secret info, 6 of which are still top secret on Weiner's laptop (for some inexplicable reason), but, still "cleared". 

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: OK_Cat on December 20, 2016, 04:56:09 PM
I think Dax has a school yard crush on old HillDawg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: chum1 on December 20, 2016, 05:09:42 PM
Apparently, Hillary was engaging in "email" activities. Sounds fishy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/12/20/emails-between-clinton-and-top-aide-but-little-else-spurred-fbi-to-resume-controversial-probe
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 20, 2016, 05:47:24 PM
Must feel great for the intolerant lefties to know that Hillary War Pig isn't going to get prosecuted.   Total benevolent move by Trump et. al.   

Too bad whistle blowers didn't get the same treatment from Obama. 

Sad

How many Hillary Clinton "supporters" are even on this blog.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 21, 2016, 12:03:36 PM
Must feel great for the intolerant lefties to know that Hillary War Pig isn't going to get prosecuted.   Total benevolent move by Trump et. al.   

Too bad whistle blowers didn't get the same treatment from Obama. 

Sad

How many Hillary Clinton "supporters" are even on this blog.

There's a thread where many were outed, many others remain closeted.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 21, 2016, 02:21:16 PM
Must feel great for the intolerant lefties to know that Hillary War Pig isn't going to get prosecuted.   Total benevolent move by Trump et. al.   

Too bad whistle blowers didn't get the same treatment from Obama. 

Sad

How many Hillary Clinton "supporters" are even on this blog.

There's a thread where many were outed, many others remain closeted.

Based on my reading of this blog, her support her mostly seems to exist in dax's mind.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on December 21, 2016, 02:39:51 PM
This blog has quite a few principled liberals that won't vote for a bad candidate or horrible person. Can't say the same for the conservatives on this blog. Sad really
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on December 21, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
Politico article on FB saying 62% of dems and independents don't want another Hill run.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 21, 2016, 04:15:03 PM
It's sort of alarming that the number isn't higher than 62%.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on December 21, 2016, 05:27:19 PM
It's sort of alarming that the number isn't higher than 62%.

she'll be nine thousand years old and she just lost to donald trump.  it's amazing it isn't 100%.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on December 21, 2016, 05:39:48 PM
Politico article on FB saying 62% of dems and independents don't want another Hill run.

I think we have learned by now that the polls are really bad at nailing down percentages of large groups.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sys on December 21, 2016, 05:45:52 PM
I think we have learned by now that the polls are really bad at nailing down percentages of large groups.

i hate stuff like this.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 21, 2016, 05:56:42 PM
I didn't like Hillary but I still got really defensive about the allegations against her (most of which, if not all were absolutely NOT fake news).   

Sounds about right
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on December 21, 2016, 09:48:05 PM
I didn't like Hillary but I still got really defensive about the allegations against her (most of which, if not all were absolutely NOT fake news).   

Sounds about right

Having principle is a hell of a burden dax, be lucky you don't have to carry that weight.
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 21, 2016, 10:05:04 PM
I didn't like Hillary but I still got really defensive about the allegations against her (most of which, if not all were absolutely NOT fake news).   

Sounds about right

Having principle is a hell of a burden dax, be lucky you don't have to carry that weight.

Lol, because we all know Internet blogs is where the truth lies.

Let's see, you were all for Bernie "sell out" Sanders, then Jill "Hillary's Bitch" Stein. 

Principles?  Hilarious.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 21, 2016, 10:14:09 PM
Must feel great for the intolerant lefties to know that Hillary War Pig isn't going to get prosecuted.   Total benevolent move by Trump et. al.   

Too bad whistle blowers didn't get the same treatment from Obama. 

Sad

How many Hillary Clinton "supporters" are even on this blog.

There's a thread where many were outed, many others remain closeted.

Based on my reading of this blog, her support her mostly seems to exist in dax's mind.

You could save yourself a lot of time by just reading that thread. There were a lot of hilltard supporters. Basically all the libtards.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: gatoveintisiet on December 21, 2016, 10:23:28 PM
if you communicated more bad stuff towards Trump, you were technically supporting his closest contender.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on December 21, 2016, 11:48:57 PM
I didn't like Hillary but I still got really defensive about the allegations against her (most of which, if not all were absolutely NOT fake news).   

Sounds about right

Having principle is a hell of a burden dax, be lucky you don't have to carry that weight.

Lol, because we all know Internet blogs is where the truth lies.

Let's see, you were all for Bernie "sell out" Sanders, then Jill "Hillary's Bitch" Stein. 

Principles?  Hilarious.

(http://.medium.com/max/800/1*vLVkZ19eY_vHD1smCCpxhA.jpeg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 21, 2016, 11:54:41 PM
No pic on tap a talk, but nice effort.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 22, 2016, 12:07:45 PM
Rebel delegate who communicated directly with Clinton campaign faces possible prosecution.

Sad that they tried to commit election fraud . . . Again
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on December 22, 2016, 12:53:08 PM
Comeon let her be President of California.  Or.least.NYC mayor
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 22, 2016, 01:51:05 PM
Must feel great for the intolerant lefties to know that Hillary War Pig isn't going to get prosecuted.   Total benevolent move by Trump et. al.   

Too bad whistle blowers didn't get the same treatment from Obama. 

Sad

How many Hillary Clinton "supporters" are even on this blog.

There's a thread where many were outed, many others remain closeted.

Based on my reading of this blog, her support her mostly seems to exist in dax's mind.

You could save yourself a lot of time by just reading that thread. There were a lot of hilltard supporters. Basically all the libtards.

how would that save me time?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2016, 03:00:13 PM
Rebel delegate who communicated directly with Clinton campaign faces possible prosecution.

Sad that they tried to commit election fraud . . . Again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4059162/Surprise-Electoral-college-rebels-wanted-stop-Trump-touch-Clinton-campaign-movement-s-leader-facing-prosecution.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4059162/Surprise-Electoral-college-rebels-wanted-stop-Trump-touch-Clinton-campaign-movement-s-leader-facing-prosecution.html)

They should all be in prison.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 22, 2016, 09:34:30 PM
Rebel delegate who communicated directly with Clinton campaign faces possible prosecution.

Sad that they tried to commit election fraud . . . Again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4059162/Surprise-Electoral-college-rebels-wanted-stop-Trump-touch-Clinton-campaign-movement-s-leader-facing-prosecution.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4059162/Surprise-Electoral-college-rebels-wanted-stop-Trump-touch-Clinton-campaign-movement-s-leader-facing-prosecution.html)

They should all be in prison.

It really is sad, what total desperation.   Truly one of the greatest collective political meltdowns of all time.

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CatsNShocks on December 23, 2016, 09:20:15 AM
It's funny that in every article on this topic they have to put in there that "Hillary won the popular vote by..."
The butthurt is still very strong.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on December 23, 2016, 09:46:56 AM
It's probably her ring tone
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 24, 2016, 02:18:37 PM
So first she loses the election, then she pushes for a rust belt recount and Trump expands his lead in those states, then she pushes for electors to defect and more defect from her, expanding Trump's lead even more. Yup, it's a hat trick!

(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/12/Hillary-Biggest-loser.jpeg)

Good riddance (but she still needs to go to prison).
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: wetwillie on December 24, 2016, 02:38:53 PM
LOCK HER UP!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 06, 2017, 12:28:13 PM
Supposedly NY Dems want her to run for NY City Mayor.   She is like a roadkill that lays in the road and won't go away.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Kat Kid on January 06, 2017, 12:32:00 PM
Supposedly NY Dems want her to run for NY City Mayor.   She is like a roadkill that lays in the road and won't go away.

almost no one outside of paid Clinton operatives wants this.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 06, 2017, 01:30:16 PM
I would think there is a whole shitload of republicans, in races everywhere, that want her to be the sole challenger to them.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: MakeItRain on January 06, 2017, 01:59:08 PM
I would think there is a whole shitload of republicans, in races everywhere, that want her to be the sole challenger to them.

NYC mayor isn't one of those races
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 06, 2017, 02:01:39 PM
I would think there is a whole shitload of republicans, in races everywhere, that want her to be the sole challenger to them.

NYC mayor isn't one of those races

Well, yeah.  I was responding to KK.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 08, 2017, 07:35:37 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/818248752150482944
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 08, 2017, 08:21:44 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/818248752150482944

RUSSIANS!!!
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Yard Dog on January 09, 2017, 08:21:19 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Al6Hhah.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2017, 10:01:03 AM
Yep, but that didn't stop the ProgLib meltdown over a guy who said gay marriage was the law of the land. 

Never let a made up "crisis" go to waste.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 09, 2017, 10:04:04 AM
Don still hasn't released his taxes yet, you guys.  Lots of speculation that he has a lot of money in his biz from countries that many Americans wouldn't be comfy with. 

Going to be interesting to see how that is treated by those blasting Clinton and Saudis. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2017, 10:13:29 AM
Don still hasn't released his taxes yet, you guys.  Lots of speculation that he has a lot of money in his biz from countries that many Americans wouldn't be comfy with. 

Going to be interesting to see how that is treated by those blasting Clinton and Saudis.

LOL, corporations all across this country have business dealings on an expansive level with "uncomfortable" countries.   The current president (and former SOS) never met a theocratic dictatorship they wouldn't sell weapons to, as long as they were "with us". 

There's a difference between doing business and selling influence as the sitting SOS. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 09, 2017, 10:16:25 AM
I agree with most of that.  However, Don doesn't seem to want to blind trust or liquidate.  So, shortly, we may have a president that has very large amts of money that are tied to those govts.  What then?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2017, 10:21:34 AM
I agree with most of that.  However, Don doesn't seem to want to blind trust or liquidate.  So, shortly, we may have a president that has very large amts of money that are tied to those govts.  What then?

Well I agree that is bad if he doesn't put those holdings into a trust.   He's dumb if he doesn't because he will be, and should be investigated. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 09, 2017, 10:24:02 AM
Are people seriously callimg for Don to liquidate his assets? That seems unreadonable and would be unprecedented.

Funny, I don't remember anyone asking the Kerry's to liquidate Heinz or disclose all the countries where they sell ketchup.

GMAFB with this tax return nonsense. I can't believe that's actually expected.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 09, 2017, 10:24:26 AM
I agree with most of that.  However, Don doesn't seem to want to blind trust or liquidate.  So, shortly, we may have a president that has very large amts of money that are tied to those govts.  What then?

Well I agree that is bad if he doesn't put those holdings into a trust.   He's dumb if he doesn't because he will be, and should be investigated.

What have you seen that makes you think he might not be dumb?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2017, 10:26:36 AM
I agree with most of that.  However, Don doesn't seem to want to blind trust or liquidate.  So, shortly, we may have a president that has very large amts of money that are tied to those govts.  What then?

Well I agree that is bad if he doesn't put those holdings into a trust.   He's dumb if he doesn't because he will be, and should be investigated.

What have you seen that makes you think he might not be dumb?

No more dumb then any of the idiots the left idolizes. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: CNS on January 09, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
Are people seriously callimg for Don to liquidate his assets? That seems unreadonable and would be unprecedented.

Funny, I don't remember anyone asking the Kerry's to liquidate Heinz or disclose all the countries where they sell ketchup.

GMAFB with this tax return nonsense. I can't believe that's actually expected.

Blind Trust is the go to.  I haven't seen anyone saying that liquidation is the way to go.  The Heinz comparo is a bad comparo and you know it, unless they borrow huge amts of money from foreign banks and businesses that we aren't aware of.  I am assuming that isn't the case. 
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 09, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
Are people seriously callimg for Don to liquidate his assets? That seems unreadonable and would be unprecedented.

Funny, I don't remember anyone asking the Kerry's to liquidate Heinz or disclose all the countries where they sell ketchup.

GMAFB with this tax return nonsense. I can't believe that's actually expected.

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm and they still investigated him.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 12, 2017, 03:06:20 PM
Amazing. And peoplw are worried about Russia, lollz

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/07/23/COLUSION-corruption-cover-20000-emails-dnc-released-wikileaks/
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 12, 2017, 03:08:18 PM
So obsessed with Hillary he's digging up 6 month old fake news
Title: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2017, 03:59:58 PM
Weird that lib is so obsessed with fake news.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on January 15, 2017, 11:09:11 AM
Closing it down.
https://www.google.com/amp/observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-foundation-shuts-down-clinton-global-initiative/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2017, 11:33:05 AM
No more pay-to-play for sale?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2017, 11:24:24 PM
Closing it down.
https://www.google.com/amp/observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-foundation-shuts-down-clinton-global-initiative/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon

No need for the money laundering fund when you don't have political power to sell.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 02:40:31 PM
It's comical at this point.

http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 11, 2017, 02:52:53 PM
Well she won't receive my vote, I guarantee you that
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 03:29:34 PM
SMDH many of the paranoid New McCarthyites thought she wasn't corrupt.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Gooch on May 11, 2017, 03:42:18 PM
Good thing she's not the President.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 11, 2017, 03:44:29 PM
It's comical at this point.

http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor

If you weren't a crazy person you'd focus on donations from the Sauds instead of linking an article about Hilldawg intervening on behalf of a Nobel winner operating a microloan bank who gave Bill between $25k-50k.

The last 80% of that piece goes on to say that her "intervention" was legal. Did you even read it? I went to the author's twitter and guess what her pinned tweet concerned???

B E N G H A Z I
E
N
G
H
A
Z
I
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 03:48:24 PM
It's comical at this point.

http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor

If you weren't a crazy person you'd focus on donations from the Sauds instead of linking an article about Hilldawg intervening on behalf of a Nobel winner operating a microloan bank who gave Bill between $25k-50k.

The last 80% of that piece goes on to say that her "intervention" was legal. Did you even read it? I went to the author's twitter and guess what her pinned tweet concerned???

B E N G H A Z I
E
N
G
H
A
Z
I

The legality is dubious at best and your about 8 months behind the curb on the Saudi discussion.   

Pay to play, friend.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 11, 2017, 04:01:31 PM
you discredit the pay for play point by bringing up a phone call to help out a 70yr old philanthropist when you could discuss saudi money. it doesn't matter if it's 8-months late and the 10,000th time.

almost every hillary mention by republicans since november has been moronic, her taking money from the sauds is her only relevance now.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 04:30:36 PM
you discredit the pay for play point by bringing up a phone call to help out a 70yr old philanthropist when you could discuss saudi money. it doesn't matter if it's 8-months late and the 10,000th time.

almost every hillary mention by republicans since november has been moronic, her taking money from the sauds is her only relevance now.

It's completely separate.  I was talking about the Clinton's and the Saudi's months,  even years ago (among so very many corrupt things).   It's essentially understood.

Of course what you're not acknowledging is the quid-pro-quo and the highly dubious legal standing of a sitting SOS going to bat with a foreign government for a contributor to her husbands (and hers) highly corrupt Foundation. 

But if you want to continue to flail, please continue   
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 14, 2017, 06:58:57 AM
Hillary Clinton accepts money from foreign theocrats while serving as secretary is "not important".

Don having a hotel in russia is a "smoking gun".

Lunatics
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on May 14, 2017, 08:51:37 AM
I'm not looking to argue which is worse or defend anything. They are both receiving or have received money that may influence their decisions. Correct?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2017, 12:05:52 AM
Snitches get stitches . . . or shot in the back.
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 17, 2017, 07:20:46 AM
Clinton's set up dark money PAC.

With the demise of the highly corrupt money laundering Clinton Foundation, the Clinton's move further into untraceable money. 

Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 26, 2017, 07:12:02 AM
Things aren't going exactly as planned

 https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4831849/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-fbi-senate/%3Fsource%3Ddam
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 09:19:59 AM
Dirty money, COLUSION, fixing legal problems, dem operatives passing on debate questions, fake dossier's on Trump, well over a billion dollars spent and she still lost.

Amazing
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on June 29, 2017, 01:56:22 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-reading-harry-potter-builds-compassion-immigrants-refugees-171236704.html
What in the hell Hillary?  Read the constitution you ignoramus.  Do all pissggresives believe this rot?  This old ripper needs to just shut her yaphole.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: renocat on July 13, 2017, 11:25:53 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-operative-who-sought-hillary-emails-killed-himself
SteveDave, Dax, FSD, Libs, SdK did this guy really commit suicide?  Clintons have a dark side of supposedly bumping people off.   I think this is kind of fishy?
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: bucket on July 13, 2017, 11:27:53 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-operative-who-sought-hillary-emails-killed-himself
SteveDave, Dax, FSD, Libs, SdK did this guy really commit suicide?  Clintons have a dark side of supposedly bumping people off.   I think this is kind of fishy?

(https://theintellectualist.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DEpgVs1UQAAkUNd.jpg?x75966)

The suicide note certainly looks legit
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 14, 2017, 07:16:25 AM
Only thing missing is "nothing to see here"
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 14, 2017, 07:20:09 AM
I'm not into the Clinton's kill people donald colluded with russia dopey conspiracy theory stuff.
Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: SdK on July 14, 2017, 07:28:30 AM
I don't really know. I also don't really care.

I hope it was his own choice and not made under duress from someone else.

In general, I find it plausible that the Clintons have had people killed. I also think there are more important things to worry about. I don't have an opinion one way or another.



Title: Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 14, 2017, 12:30:40 PM
I'm not into the Clinton's kill people donald colluded with russia dopey conspiracy theory stuff.

It's just funny. 

But the Clinton's had major business dealings with the Russian's just like Trump. 

One problem though. Hillary was SOS when the biggest one was going down.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 14, 2017, 01:17:52 PM
Poor Hillary. She so desperately wants to be relevant. She so desperately wants to comment on Weinstein. But she's got this problem. Her serial rapist husband. What do you do? Well, I guess you just say "it's in the past." :lol:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/hillary_clinton_on_weinstein_trump_a_sexual_assaulter_bill_clintons_behavior_litigated_in_the_past.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/hillary_clinton_on_weinstein_trump_a_sexual_assaulter_bill_clintons_behavior_litigated_in_the_past.html)

Hey - credit to the (foreign) journalist who asked the completely obvious question.

And credit to Hillary for acknowledging "the sexual assault in the Oval Office." Oh wait she was referring to Trump, not Monica.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on October 14, 2017, 01:23:42 PM
Oh hai ksuw
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 14, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
It's kinda gross that trump voters like ksuw hold a greaseball movie producer to higher standards than the current president of the United States.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on October 14, 2017, 02:31:39 PM
They also act like they're arguing with someone that harvey is a huge POS, as if there was anybody out there defending him
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sys on October 14, 2017, 02:39:01 PM
conservatives' clinton butthurt is the greatest butthurt of all time.  i mean coates and all these other libs go on and on about their obama butthurt, but obama actually was our president just a few months ago.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sys on October 14, 2017, 04:08:50 PM
it's measured in units of bigness, memphis.  #.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 14, 2017, 05:14:59 PM
They also act like they're arguing with someone that harvey is a huge POS, as if there was anybody out there defending him

Oh no, libs are falling all over themselves to see who can denounce Harvey the most..... now. Just not the last 20 years when he was lining their pockets. The point is not that pubs are fonts of virtue - but that libs are massive hypocrites for claiming a "war on women" when their chief financiers and elder statesmen are massive sleazebags.

And then Hillary - Hillary Clinton - has the gall to claim that these offenses are somehow worse than the what was done by the zombie poonhound she's still married to.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 14, 2017, 05:38:18 PM
And then you voted for Donald Trump for president
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on October 14, 2017, 05:41:04 PM
So like, people should not trash harvey now if they didn't in the past? :confused:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 14, 2017, 05:43:26 PM
So like, people should not trash harvey now if they didn't in the past? :confused:

Nope. Didn't say that. Reread and repeat.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 14, 2017, 05:45:00 PM
The trump voter mental gymnastics about this is really something to behold.

THE WAR ON WOMEN IS A MYTH CREATED BY LIBERALS AND HAS NO BASIS IN THE REAL WORLD

HAHAHA LOOK AT THIS MASSIVE COVER UP AND ACCEPTANCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A LIBERAL DONER WHAT HYPOCRITES

WELP GUESS I'LL VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sys on October 14, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
DONER

 :lick:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 14, 2017, 06:22:21 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 14, 2017, 08:03:54 PM
Well I'd say he is a doner now.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: chum1 on October 14, 2017, 10:02:20 PM
On one hand, I feel like she just needs to go away. On the other, there's definitely some value in the way she drives Trump and other neanderthals absolutely bonkers.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 15, 2017, 07:23:16 PM
conservatives' clinton butthurt is the greatest butthurt of all time.  i mean coates and all these other libs go on and on about their obama butthurt, but obama actually was our president just a few months ago.

They are obsessed

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/174854-Hillary-Clinton-Will-Never-Be-President
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2017, 02:26:20 PM
There’s no sleazeball lib, that lib won’t defend.

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 16, 2017, 02:34:39 PM
There’s no sleazeball lib, that lib won’t defend.

Sad

No sleaseball r you won't vote for president
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on October 16, 2017, 02:42:13 PM
Quote
A public service post: The list of women that have come forward about Donald Trump;
Ninni Laaksonen, former Miss Finland. “Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt” in July 2006.
Jessica Drake. Said Trump grabbed and kissed her without consent, then offered her 10K for sex in 2006.
Karena Virginia. Says she was groped by Trump at the U.S. Open in 1998.
Cathy Heller. Says Trump grabbed her and attempted to kiss her at Mar-a-lago in 1997.
Summer Zervos. Apprentice contestant says Trump started kissing her and grabbing her breasts, began "thrusting his genitals." 2007.
Kristin Anderson. Said Trump reached under her skirt and grabbed her vagina through her underwear in the early 1990s.
Jessica Leeds. Said Trump lifted up the armrest, grabbed her breasts and reached his hand up her skirt in the early 1980s.
Rachel Crooks. Says she was assaulted by Trump in an elevator in Trump Tower in 2005.
Mindy McGillivray. Says Trump groped her while she was attending a concert at Mar-a-lago in 2003.
Natasha Stoynoff. Says Trump pushed her against a wall and jammed his tongue down her throat at Mar-a-lago in 2005.
Jennifer Murphy. Apprentice contestant says Trump kissed her on the lips after a job interview in 2005.
Cassandra Searles. Says Trump grabbed her ass and invited her to his hotel room in 2013.
Temple Taggart McDowell. Former Miss Utah says Trump kissed her directly on the lips the first time she met him in 1997.
Jill Harth. Says Trump repeatedly sexually harassed her and groped her underneath a table in 1993.
“Jane Doe” or Katie J. In June, a California woman — “Jane Doe” ? filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump raped her at a party when she was 13 years old. Video testimony from Katie J, who accuses Trump of raping her at 13. 1994
Ivana Trump. In a 1992 deposition during their divorce, Trump’s first wife described an incident in which she says her then-husband forced her to have sex with him.
The Missing;
Maria, 12 - Raped by Trump in third encounter with Jane Doe in 1994.

This is the person dax defends daily and voted for president
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2017, 02:42:56 PM
There’s no sleazeball lib, that lib won’t defend.

Sad

No sleaseball r you won't vote for president

Lib is angered up more than usual.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: catastrophe on October 16, 2017, 03:01:14 PM
What do you think should be done in light of these accusations, Dax?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 16, 2017, 05:10:27 PM
Attack the accuser
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: The Big Train on October 16, 2017, 06:56:04 PM
What do you think should be done in light of these accusations, Dax?

Talk about how it’s Hillary’s fault for letting Bill do it

Sad
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 17, 2017, 01:05:33 PM
conservatives' clinton butthurt is the greatest butthurt of all time.  i mean coates and all these other libs go on and on about their obama butthurt, but obama actually was our president just a few months ago.

WRONG, the greatest butthurt of all time is the butthurt exhibited by the libtarded when they are aptly identified as ginormous two-faced hypocrites. as exhibited ad nauseam itt.

I mean, look at them go. One guy even joked about someone pointing to Bill Clinton as an excuse for Donald's alleged behavior after he offered Donald's behavior as an excuse for Lib Bundler Weinstein's behavior. It's lol levels of butthurt
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 17, 2017, 01:06:44 PM
Poor Hillary. She so desperately wants to be relevant. She so desperately wants to comment on Weinstein. But she's got this problem. Her serial rapist husband. What do you do? Well, I guess you just say "it's in the past." :lol:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/hillary_clinton_on_weinstein_trump_a_sexual_assaulter_bill_clintons_behavior_litigated_in_the_past.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/hillary_clinton_on_weinstein_trump_a_sexual_assaulter_bill_clintons_behavior_litigated_in_the_past.html)

Hey - credit to the (foreign) journalist who asked the completely obvious question.

And credit to Hillary for acknowledging "the sexual assault in the Oval Office." Oh wait she was referring to Trump, not Monica.

Her position is psychotic, which makes sense because she (and her supporters) are psychopaths.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: catastrophe on October 17, 2017, 01:48:07 PM
What do you think should be done in light of these accusations, Dax FSD?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: catastrophe on October 17, 2017, 02:36:11 PM
Guys, I think I found out how to shut down this thread.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on October 17, 2017, 03:45:50 PM
I speculate ol Bill has grabbed and squeezed her old snatchywompus  and boobs she is bitter and falling down
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 17, 2017, 03:56:09 PM
What do you think should be done in light of these accusations, Dax FSD?

IDK what accusations you are talking about. What do you think should be done, cat atrophy?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: catastrophe on October 17, 2017, 04:01:47 PM
Poor Hillary. She so desperately wants to be relevant. She so desperately wants to comment on Weinstein. But she's got this problem. Her serial rapist husband. What do you do? Well, I guess you just say "it's in the past." :lol:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/hillary_clinton_on_weinstein_trump_a_sexual_assaulter_bill_clintons_behavior_litigated_in_the_past.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/hillary_clinton_on_weinstein_trump_a_sexual_assaulter_bill_clintons_behavior_litigated_in_the_past.html)

Hey - credit to the (foreign) journalist who asked the completely obvious question.

And credit to Hillary for acknowledging "the sexual assault in the Oval Office." Oh wait she was referring to Trump, not Monica.

And

Quote
A public service post: The list of women that have come forward about Donald Trump;
Ninni Laaksonen, former Miss Finland. “Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt” in July 2006.
Jessica Drake. Said Trump grabbed and kissed her without consent, then offered her 10K for sex in 2006.
Karena Virginia. Says she was groped by Trump at the U.S. Open in 1998.
Cathy Heller. Says Trump grabbed her and attempted to kiss her at Mar-a-lago in 1997.
Summer Zervos. Apprentice contestant says Trump started kissing her and grabbing her breasts, began "thrusting his genitals." 2007.
Kristin Anderson. Said Trump reached under her skirt and grabbed her vagina through her underwear in the early 1990s.
Jessica Leeds. Said Trump lifted up the armrest, grabbed her breasts and reached his hand up her skirt in the early 1980s.
Rachel Crooks. Says she was assaulted by Trump in an elevator in Trump Tower in 2005.
Mindy McGillivray. Says Trump groped her while she was attending a concert at Mar-a-lago in 2003.
Natasha Stoynoff. Says Trump pushed her against a wall and jammed his tongue down her throat at Mar-a-lago in 2005.
Jennifer Murphy. Apprentice contestant says Trump kissed her on the lips after a job interview in 2005.
Cassandra Searles. Says Trump grabbed her ass and invited her to his hotel room in 2013.
Temple Taggart McDowell. Former Miss Utah says Trump kissed her directly on the lips the first time she met him in 1997.
Jill Harth. Says Trump repeatedly sexually harassed her and groped her underneath a table in 1993.
“Jane Doe” or Katie J. In June, a California woman — “Jane Doe” ? filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump raped her at a party when she was 13 years old. Video testimony from Katie J, who accuses Trump of raping her at 13. 1994
Ivana Trump. In a 1992 deposition during their divorce, Trump’s first wife described an incident in which she says her then-husband forced her to have sex with him.
The Missing;
Maria, 12 - Raped by Trump in third encounter with Jane Doe in 1994.

This is the person dax defends daily and voted for president
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 17, 2017, 05:39:00 PM
A public service post: Is this what the pit has become? Some fucktard dimwit who thinks he's in some gotcha moment attempting to pin posters down on whether they think law enforcement should investigate sexual assault?  As if anyone is debating that topic?

I fully blame the resident libtards for empowering this idiot behavior. Shame!.....SHAME!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: catastrophe on October 17, 2017, 06:11:02 PM
Can’t tell if you’re talking about KSUW’s post or lib’s. Please clarify.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on October 18, 2017, 11:51:43 AM
War is about to be unleashed on Hillary Clinton who can't give it up.  When the dust settles, she will be a pile of destroyed and despised pike of ashes.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/18/grassley-probes-clinton-conflicts-interest-amid-new-questions-in-russia-uranium-deal.html
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on October 19, 2017, 03:54:45 PM
 :flush:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/19/making-sense-of-russia-uranium-and-hillary-clinton/
All she had to do was shut up and enjoy being a rich crook.   This is about hate.   She and her apostles are trying to foment things to harm Trump and his agenda.   Trump is pissed.. Hillary and Bill going to jail.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on October 25, 2017, 12:15:41 PM
Left media is turning on Hilliary and Bill.  They lied to them about whether they paid for the Trump dossier.  They and their cohorts lied to  NY Times reporters.  The dynamic crime duo are going to be degutted and demonized.  All this narrsistic power whore had to do was keep her damn yap shut.  Instead she has led a destroy Trump crusade and pity tower to chastise America for voting for Donald and not her.  She could have reaped the awards of her crimes and scum  peacefully. 
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 25, 2017, 12:22:25 PM
Still huge Lib heroes.   Both are beloved across the entirety of Libdom.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: chum1 on October 27, 2017, 09:35:55 PM
 :Woot:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/924089852139892736
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: steve dave on October 27, 2017, 09:40:28 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 28, 2017, 06:54:17 AM
Quote

Republicans are seeking information on whether there was an FBI investigation into Russian efforts to infiltrate the U.S. energy market as well as whether the deal should have been approved in the first place.

House Democrats blasted the investigations, calling them a partisan exercise to distract from various investigations into Russian election interference.

“These investigations were initiated on a partisan basis and will shed no light on Russia's interference in the 2016 election, but then again they are not intended to do so,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: bucket on October 29, 2017, 09:38:44 AM
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/924248138973462528
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/924457383446925318
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 29, 2017, 09:48:40 AM
Do you think she regrets not complying with that subpoena from day 1, or is she just full blown psychopath who generally thinks she did nothing wrong and actually believes she had the election stolen?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: bucket on October 29, 2017, 09:55:13 AM
Do you think she regrets not complying with that subpoena from day 1, or is she just full blown psychopath who generally thinks she did nothing wrong and actually believes she had the election stolen?

I wasn't thinking anything. I thought it was a funny tweet by her. However, I do agree with her that reigniting the possibility of an investigation right before an election is bad form.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 29, 2017, 01:00:54 PM
I think it's the latter
Title: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2017, 07:12:30 AM
The Russians invested billions into the Clinton’s, who in turn bought the DNC.  She still lost.  No wonder they’re trying to delegitimize the election in hopes of installing their candidate.

The ROI is gonna be huge.  What other natural sources abundant in the US will be transferred to foreign control?  The Clinton’s already took care of the best coal for energy and a huge chunk of Uranium.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: The Big Train on November 03, 2017, 07:33:29 AM
Do you feel better now Dax?  It’s like the itch you just can’t scratch huh
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2017, 07:38:03 AM
Do you feel better now Dax?  It’s like the itch you just can’t scratch huh

Thanks, I just won $1.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: bucket on November 03, 2017, 07:48:02 AM
Do you feel better now Dax?  It’s like the itch you just can’t scratch huh

Thanks, I just won $1.

 :D
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 03, 2017, 08:00:19 AM
[youtube]https://youtu.be/g46Q8PNJzbY[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2017, 02:56:05 PM
Nope
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 06, 2017, 02:54:03 PM
So Comey's first draft of his announcement exonerating Clinton said she was "grossly negligent." Then somebody figured out that "gross negligence" is expressly criminalized by the statute - so it was revised to "extremely careless."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails)

What do you even say at this point? I'm honestly having difficulty finding the right words to describe the magnitude of Comey's incompetence. Or is incompetence even the right word? Corruption? Some scary/sad mishmash of incompetence, spinelessness, swampiness, and corruption?

Quote
Comey: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were grossly negligent in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Comey Crony: Uh sir, "gross negligence" is a violation of the law - it's right here in the statute.

Comey: [loud mouth breathing] Oh.... What should we say?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on November 06, 2017, 04:49:38 PM
I agree Hillary's presidency should be terminated immediately
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 06, 2017, 05:25:06 PM
Fortunately she LOST! :party:

But I don't think we should just ignore the malfeasance of Obama's FBI and Justice as a result. Do you?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on November 06, 2017, 05:36:15 PM
Is Comey still on the job or nah?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2017, 08:49:31 PM
I like how the libtards think not getting a job or quitting a job gets you out of a crime you already committed.

Cop: you are driving with your lights off on the wrong side of the highway and there's a half drank bottle of rose in your hand
Mocat: so?
Cop: that's illegal
Mocat: I'll give you a bj and $20 to let me off
Cop: that's illegal, too
Mocat: hold on, let me quit my job. Siri, dial "public library"
Siri: dialing pube guy barry
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: catastrophe on November 06, 2017, 08:54:27 PM
I like how many Republicans got super pissed about how Comey handled the Hillary thing months later right around the time the Russia investigation started heating up.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2017, 09:01:21 PM
Everyone should be pissed at how comey handled the hillary thing. He's a stooge that compounded he stoogery by allowing himself to be compromised and manipulated by criminals.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 06, 2017, 09:59:41 PM
I like how many Republicans got super pissed about how Comey handled the Hillary thing months later right around the time the Russia investigation started heating up.

This has nothing to do with Russia. At all. The FBI has been stalling on releasing docs for months. How can you read what was revealed today and not be disgusted?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 06, 2017, 10:15:50 PM
Trump has everyone immune  :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on November 06, 2017, 10:23:58 PM
So Comey's first draft of his announcement exonerating Clinton said she was "grossly negligent." Then somebody figured out that "gross negligence" is expressly criminalized by the statute - so it was revised to "extremely careless."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails)

What do you even say at this point? I'm honestly having difficulty finding the right words to describe the magnitude of Comey's incompetence. Or is incompetence even the right word? Corruption? Some scary/sad mishmash of incompetence, spinelessness, swampiness, and corruption?

Quote
Comey: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were grossly negligent in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Comey Crony: Uh sir, "gross negligence" is a violation of the law - it's right here in the statute.

Comey: [loud mouth breathing] Oh.... What should we say?
I thought Comey said Hillary would be gross in a negligee.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on November 06, 2017, 10:29:23 PM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-clinton-sexism_us_5a007060e4b0baea26336734
n the sixth chapter of her new book, Hacks, former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile says Hillary Clinton’s top male aides engaged in sexist behavior toward her. Brazile says it prompted her to tell the group during a contentious conference call, “Gentlemen, let’s just put our dicks out on the table and see who’s got the bigger one, because I know mine is bigger than all of yours.”
Hillary hired little pens meany perverts who horndogged an old loud black woman..  Of course Hillary is a champion for Wwomahood
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2017, 05:19:06 AM
Just a giant web of corruption. 

COLUSION with Russia, bribes, fixing primaries, destroying evidence.  SMDH

Yet still one of the most popular figures in the Dem party. 

James Comey was/is nothing but a shill who is BFF’s with Mueller.

CuckBernie:  We knew we got screwed, but I still endorsed her anyway.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 07, 2017, 09:00:33 AM
Dax, she didn't win so she's totally exonerated. She never has, still doesn't, and never will have any political power or influence.

This hillary donna brazile feud is odd and very  :bwpopcorn:  Much more so than the trump russia stuff.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on November 07, 2017, 12:33:19 PM
You are only as good as the scum you keep.  Hillary associates herself with low life scum.  One of these is low life lawyer David Boies.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/06/report-top-dem-lawyer-clinton-donor-helped-weinstein-suppress-accusations-with-army-of-spies/
How can Hillary Clinton be considered a champion for women by the left femilitants.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2017, 01:03:47 PM
Dax, she didn't win so she's totally exonerated. She never has, still doesn't, and never will have any political power or influence.

This hillary donna brazile feud is odd and very  :bwpopcorn:  Much more so than the trump russia stuff.

Your defense madam?  I didn’t win the election.

Case dismissed.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: chum1 on November 14, 2017, 12:05:06 PM
Well, crap, guys.

Quote
Jordan said he thought evidence unearthed in the last year about how FBI decided not to charge Clinton over her handling of classified information at the State Department appeared to be enough to warrant a special counsel.

"'Looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel," Sessions responded.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/930481382828199936
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Gooch on November 14, 2017, 12:06:33 PM
Daddy Donny is not going to be happy.
Title: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2017, 11:03:03 PM
CNN finally running stories on the black slave trade that popped up soon after the overthrow of the Libyan government and continues today. 

Hillary was briefed about this as SOS.  The US also knew that AQ was embedded in the “rebels” overthrowing the Libyan government. 

Just a horrible human being.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: The Big Train on November 16, 2017, 07:30:22 AM
It’s like crack, Dax keeps coming back.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 16, 2017, 09:03:40 AM
CNN finally running stories on the black slave trade that popped up soon after the overthrow of the Libyan government and continues today. 

Hillary was briefed about this as SOS.  The US also knew that AQ was embedded in the “rebels” overthrowing the Libyan government. 

Just a horrible human being.

Yeah, but she didn't win the election so slave trades and hundreds of thousands of murdered syrians aren't important. Now, back to allowing the import of dead elephant heads!!! Irreperable harm sullying the office!!! :runaway:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 16, 2017, 09:06:20 AM
I think the libtard would have some credibilty if the libtard were capable of exercising the slightest degree of levity and critical thinking.

Rather, the libtard appears to be a serial victim of click bait and seems debilitated by irrational thought.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 16, 2017, 09:10:54 AM
Fsd, what is your favorite and least favorite thing about don
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 16, 2017, 09:19:18 AM
Qaddafi was done dirty.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Cire on November 16, 2017, 10:23:04 AM
Donald trump should do something about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on November 23, 2017, 07:37:54 AM
Old boss cow just had to keep mooing instead of keeping her damn yap shut.  She could have retired, and been a martyr to other women wanting to be in the game, but no she lit a fuse to blow up a nuclear turd.  Now the Democrats are turning on the Clintons; no longer afraid of them.  Sebelius is latest to do so; from CNN:

"Sebelius extended her criticism to Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton White House for what she called a strategy of dismissing and besmirching the women who stepped forward—a pattern she said is being repeated today by alleged perpetrators of sexual assault—saying that the criticism of the former first lady and Secretary of State was "absolutely" fair. Sebelius noted that the Clinton Administration's response was being imitated, adding that "you can watch that same pattern repeat, It needs to end. It needs to be over."
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on November 27, 2017, 11:35:41 PM
Apparently Hillary is responsible for the return of slavery in Africa.  Mostly women and children.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/clinton-ponders-2020-run-lets-not-forget-her-real-libya-scandal-glenn-reynolds-column/895853001/
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 29, 2017, 08:28:50 PM
 :surprised:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/362234-clintons-understated-support-from-firm-hired-by-russian-nuclear-company?amp
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on December 01, 2017, 04:21:29 PM
Hope to get some insights about LoserHillary
http://gut.bmj.com/content/45/suppl_2/II55
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 04, 2017, 03:45:21 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/362823-clinton-on-matt-lauer-every-day-i-believe-more-in-karma

 :D
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 09:03:08 PM
:surprised:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/362234-clintons-understated-support-from-firm-hired-by-russian-nuclear-company?amp

The Clinton's lied?  stunned
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: The Big Train on December 04, 2017, 10:10:02 PM
I’m stunned you commented on it......  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 10:13:42 PM
I’m stunned you commented on it......  :lol:

Some people clearly don't get this thread.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 04, 2017, 10:21:49 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/362823-clinton-on-matt-lauer-every-day-i-believe-more-in-karma

 :D

Haha, she will be getting hers soon after the Strzok news.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 05, 2017, 08:12:02 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/362823-clinton-on-matt-lauer-every-day-i-believe-more-in-karma

 :D

Haha, she will be getting hers soon after the Strzok news.

I just love how it's not karma for Matt because he was sexually inappropriate with his coworkers, but it was karma for Matt because he asked her tough questions on live tv.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 05, 2017, 01:44:26 PM
In light of the recent bombshell, we have a better of how the revisions went down....

So Comey's first draft of his announcement exonerating Clinton said she was "grossly negligent." Then somebody figured out that "gross negligence" is expressly criminalized by the statute - so it was revised to "extremely careless."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails)

What do you even say at this point? I'm honestly having difficulty finding the right words to describe the magnitude of Comey's incompetence. Or is incompetence even the right word? Corruption? Some scary/sad mishmash of incompetence, spinelessness, swampiness, and corruption?

Quote
Comey: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were grossly negligent in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Peter Strzok: Hold on a second, sir, let me just finish sending this text message. Uh sir, "gross negligence" is a violation of the law - it's right here in the statute.

Comey: [loud mouth breathing] Oh.... What should we say?

Peter Strzok: How about "extremely careless?"
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 06, 2017, 11:08:13 AM
In light of the recent bombshell, we have a better of how the revisions went down....

So Comey's first draft of his announcement exonerating Clinton said she was "grossly negligent." Then somebody figured out that "gross negligence" is expressly criminalized by the statute - so it was revised to "extremely careless."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails)

What do you even say at this point? I'm honestly having difficulty finding the right words to describe the magnitude of Comey's incompetence. Or is incompetence even the right word? Corruption? Some scary/sad mishmash of incompetence, spinelessness, swampiness, and corruption?

Quote
Comey: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were grossly negligent in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Peter Strzok: Hold on a second, sir, let me just finish sending this text message. Uh sir, "gross negligence" is a violation of the law - it's right here in the statute.

Comey: [loud mouth breathing] Oh.... What should we say?

Peter Strzok: How about "extremely careless?"

We're going to write you a letter, and in it, we're going to say you were extremely careless! (Alec Baldwin as Hans Blix)

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 17, 2017, 10:24:44 AM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/942343647126867969

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 17, 2017, 02:38:04 PM
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/942343647126867969

 :lol:

I wonder if Podesta talked about UFO’s with his Russian buddies.  Huge UFO community in Russia.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: The Big Train on December 21, 2017, 07:35:44 AM
Time to start locking up political opponents. Supreme leader has begun the process.

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/943824156092661765
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on December 21, 2017, 07:43:11 AM
I sure hope sessions has never sent any derogatory texts about Hillary
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on December 21, 2017, 12:42:31 PM
I sure hope sessions has never sent any derogatory texts about Hillary

handwritten letters are more his speed
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on January 03, 2018, 04:52:31 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/03/fire-reported-bill-and-hillary-clintons-new-york-house/1001184001/
So, what email evidence or foundation money laundering evidence was being burned?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Institutional Control on January 03, 2018, 07:31:47 PM
ummm, reno, you can’t burn emails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Woogy on January 03, 2018, 11:40:24 PM
You've never sifted through the discarded stacks of paper left around the printers at work, have you?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 05, 2018, 10:59:01 PM
Comey lied about clinton investigation being over the second time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-interviewed-top-clinton-aide-huma-abedin-after-saying-investigation-of-her-boss-had-concluded/2018/03/02/1be1cd04-1be0-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.fbde6068fa11

Comey was so goddamn incompetent
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 12, 2018, 03:04:34 PM
Continuing a long Democrat tradition, Clinton saved her nuttiest, most condescending, jabs for a foreign audience overseas.

https://ntknetwork.com/clinton-on-trump-voters-they-didnt-like-african-americans-having-rights-or-women-having-jobs/ (https://ntknetwork.com/clinton-on-trump-voters-they-didnt-like-african-americans-having-rights-or-women-having-jobs/)

Quote
Hillary Clinton suggested that people who supported President Trump in 2016 did so because they “didn’t like black people getting rights,” or women getting jobs, during a discussion at the India Today Conclave on Sunday.

“If you look at the map of the United States, there’s all that red in the middle where Trump won. I win the coasts, I win Illinois, I win Minnesota, places like that,” Clinton said.

“What the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product,” Clinton explained. “So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.”

Quote
Hillary Clinton said that white women voted for President Trump during the 2016 presidential election because their husbands told them to, during a discussion at the India Today Conclave on Saturday.

The moderator asked Clinton why she thinks almost 52 percent of white women voted for Trump, despite them knowing about the controversial “Access Hollywood” tape.

“[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” Clinton explained. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

This is what every liberal politician - hell, probably most liberals - really believes about Red State America.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 12, 2018, 03:19:12 PM
Well they did vote for Donald Trump
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 12, 2018, 03:46:50 PM
Every day it becomes more clear why she lost to Trump. I don't think any other candidate could have.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 12, 2018, 03:48:23 PM
Yeah, those quotes are outrageous  :jerk:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 12, 2018, 10:04:22 PM
It's lol how out of touch with reality the dnc is.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: LickNeckey on March 12, 2018, 10:10:27 PM
Is her analysis really that off?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 12, 2018, 10:17:31 PM
You can't be serious. "Didn't like black people getting rights". A quixotic delusion
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 12, 2018, 10:43:59 PM
Is her analysis really that off?

Married women vote the way their husbands tell them?  :Rusty:

Also, Hillary doesn't believe a word of that crap she spewed. She's pathological.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 12, 2018, 10:55:02 PM
You would think with that super low center of gravity, she couldn't fall.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76EuMPDCWfs[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 13, 2018, 09:46:47 AM
Is her analysis really that off?

Yes.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 13, 2018, 09:47:33 AM
You would think with that super low center of gravity, she couldn't fall.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76EuMPDCWfs[/youtube]

Those stairs don't look like they are ADA compliant, to be fair.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 13, 2018, 11:19:17 AM
Trump supporters don't like women using stairs, so it makes sense
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on March 13, 2018, 11:36:01 AM
Slave men serving her?
Russian nerve poison?
Brain imbalance?
STD from Bill the Thrill kicking in?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: LickNeckey on March 13, 2018, 11:52:17 AM
You can't be serious. "Didn't like black people getting rights". A quixotic delusion

“Let them call you racists. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists,” he said. “Wear it as a badge of honor.”

Is her analysis really that off?

Yes.

"Oregon State University assistant professor Kelsy Kretschmer co-wrote a study examining women’s voting patterns. “We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology,” she told the Guardian last year."

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 13, 2018, 12:48:09 PM
Quixotic delusion: a belief harbored by libtards that everyone who isn't a dem is a sexist, racist, _____ist, and must be relentlessly accused as such for purely partisan reasons.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 13, 2018, 12:50:22 PM
It's not "everyone who isn't a dem", it's everyone that voted for Donald Trump
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 13, 2018, 12:50:46 PM
You can't be serious. "Didn't like black people getting rights". A quixotic delusion

“Let them call you racists. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists,” he said. “Wear it as a badge of honor.”

Is her analysis really that off?

Yes.

"Oregon State University assistant professor Kelsy Kretschmer co-wrote a study examining women’s voting patterns. “We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology,” she told the Guardian last year."

I find most women in America do what they want.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: LickNeckey on March 13, 2018, 01:48:55 PM
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912917702499

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00234.x/epdf?referrer_access_token=gncnLuAwA0u6A-mTiuTkDYta6bR2k8jH0KrdpFOxC65jAdSTjgdTIGHadzPYStWFOZUAuj4wl9vBKe5rbXhOwa_hvr46R92qNCN05U8nhhDcgxqYLDeUEuNiLI8TTDmdJVcVA9ouhVmi7bxgF0ee0ez980FNCXpkVRsnL_soZYW0qXTulSagFIqL9q-O8lPzYEr32IWMfSkPIyaAD_sLD0NtyVDi7OeTdIiBFbBw6-NxAQrhSCeARe_MLJzjybCDP-sFvQbpToefkWRlABgLqOzBWeqwfqpPSLDP_6SwWw1qa0IjFqujgfnd39wnTjnHukxiGmTY7OV1sCAf9dhJcR557nhIf8OPz-D3BbYanMy4sP-aXDoM_5_58se-Tkqpqr2_ESlDxJao3-q9mg1AW84PfLYTPZVytDbvsiNN50c%3D
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Woogy on March 13, 2018, 02:03:24 PM
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912917702499


LOL
"While we find that married white women and Latinas have significantly lower levels of linked fate than unmarried women of the same race/ethnicity, we find no such relationship for black women."

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: LickNeckey on March 13, 2018, 02:10:09 PM
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912917702499


LOL
"While we find that married white women and Latinas have significantly lower levels of linked fate than unmarried women of the same race/ethnicity, we find no such relationship for black women."

The most commonly cited explanation for this phenomenon is the “black utility heuristic,” a framework developed by University of Chicago professor Michael Dawson in 1994. More commonly referred to as linked fate, it’s the sentiment among blacks that one’s prospects are ultimately tied to the success of the race. In his seminal book Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics, Dawson argues that because race has been the predominant factor in blacks’ American experience, “it was much more efficient for them to use the status of the group, both relative and absolute, as a proxy for individual utility.” In more practical terms, black voters prioritize the well-being of the group over their individual interests, and consider what’s best for the group as a whole because history has shown them that “we are in this thing together.”
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Kat Kid on March 13, 2018, 02:29:18 PM
you will get no argument from me that Hillary was by far the worst candidate for President in my lifetime. I'm not saying Donald is a better person or is more competent, but he obviously ran a much better campaign.

The fact that Hillary is still in denial is not all that surprising, but she doesn't even have the sense to just shut up.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Woogy on March 13, 2018, 02:29:30 PM
OSU's Kretschmer was trying to blame focus on married white women though.....
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Brock Landers on March 13, 2018, 03:11:00 PM
Yeah it's been over 16 months since the election and she's still out there Brucecusing it up.  Probably trying her best to remain in the public consciousness and drum up sympathy for another run in 2020.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Katpappy on March 13, 2018, 10:33:03 PM
Yeah it's been over 16 months since the election and she's still out there Brucecusing it up.  Probably trying her best to remain in the public consciousness and drum up sympathy for another run in 2020.
Trump(71), Hillary(71) and Bernie(73) are all to rough ridin' old to run again.  :th_twocents:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on March 14, 2018, 07:17:00 AM
All 3 of these old bitter haters think they are more elite than the common sap especially white ones.  The think that the government is the best thing to solve all problems.  Their religion is the state, and they believe that they are prophets.  Hillary believes us middle Americans are deplorable.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 12, 2018, 05:03:48 PM
https://twitter.com/newsbyhughes/status/984546571600715776
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 12, 2018, 06:19:51 PM
Look at unilateral Jim Comey trying to cryptically assuage his conscious.



Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 12, 2018, 06:31:56 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html

Just a little dumpster dive as to why there was an unsecured server, emails went missing and hard drives fell down the stairs.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 12, 2018, 07:22:58 PM
James Comey is an idiot. Whoever thought that ass clown should be in charge of anything deserves to be whipped with a chain.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Spracne on April 12, 2018, 08:08:39 PM
We oughta loretta lynch that feller.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on April 20, 2018, 12:52:37 PM
 :emawkid:e
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/20/democratic-party-files-suit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-election-report.html
Dangfloculation woman!  Get over it.  Pepole didn't like you.  You are worse than fungus on a dog turd.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 22, 2018, 10:57:41 PM
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/988208889014431750
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: renocat on April 23, 2018, 06:20:39 AM
It would be a hoot if she cost the Democrats to lose the mid terms.  The wild wild left supported her and see this election as a war to annihilate Trump or to stymie his agenda.  Her  constant yapping is going to fire up Republicans.  The wild card is Trump.  But it may be vote for anything else than a Clintonommunist.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2018, 01:39:39 AM
Pro Trump PAC files suit against Federal Election Commission for failing to oversee DNC state strawman illegal money funneling during 2016 election.  Which they claim illegally funneled $84 million dollars contributed at the state level back through the DNC and to the Clinton Campaign.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 20, 2018, 03:58:09 PM
Trey Gowdy. What a treasure. TL:DNR version: James Comey drafted his exoneration of Clinton based on a lack of intent, months before he even interviewed Clinton, which would have been the best and perhaps only way to prove intent.

Quote
REP. TREY GOWDY: Inspector General Horowitz, I want to go back to a couple minutes on the issue of intent. I mean am I correct, is that your understanding from what Jim Comey said that the missing element was -- was some element of intent that he was reading into the statue?

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL: That's what he said. I think what the prosecutors were looking at was knowledge and--

GOWDY: Knowledge that the wrongfulness of her conduct or knowledge that -- that her arrangement with herself may have allowed classified information to traverse her server?

HOROWITZ: Knowledge that classified information actually did transit through her server.

GOWDY: All right.

HOROWITZ: Because of the absents of markings.

GOWDY: Well, the questions I have for you are equally applicable, whether the missing intent is knowledge or intent. Can you think of a better way to determine was an actor knew than to ask the actor what he or she knew? Am -- am I missing some better repository of evidence than to actually interview the target or the suspect yourself?

HOROWITZ: I would say there could be instances where there would be better evidence like contemporizing recordings as opposed to the interview where the person might not be candid but ...

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: I'm not aware -- I'm not aware of those in this case. But perhaps you know something I do not?

HOROWITZ: No I'm not. But I'm just saying you asked hypothetically is there a better way to get evidence of someone's state of mind ...

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: Given the evidentiary restrictions in this case, can you think of better way to -- to resolve that issue of knowledge than to actually interview the target herself?

HOROWITZ: No, I think you would want to interview the target herself.

GOWDY: All right. And what would you ask the target? You -- you were a highly decorated federal prosecutor from one of the most prestigious districts in the country, what would you ask the defendant if you were trying to determine whether or not that person, that suspect had knowledge.

HOROWITZ: Well you'd certainly want to start at the beginning, which is why did the server come to be set up? What was the rationale behind it? What did you understand it would be used for? Questions like that because so much of it would be focused on what the intent rationale thinking was behind creating the -- your own separate server or domain name from the outset.

GOWDY: You have multiple explanations have been given in the past on that very issue. Would you ask the suspect or the target to reconcile those different explanations?

HOROWITZ: Presumably, you would ask the subject during the interview, in any area where there might be differing reports of testimony or recollections.

GOWDY: If there had been false exculpatory statements made in connection with fact pattern, will you ask the target or the suspect to explain those false exculpatory statements?

HOROWITZ: I think if you were interviewing any witness you would want to ask them about information that was out there that would suggest there was a false exculpatory.

GOWDY: When I use the phrase consciousness of wrong doing, what does that mean to you?

HOROWITZ: That means you have an awareness, perhaps unstated, that the conduct that you've engaged in is wrongful in some way.

GOWDY: What about concealment?

HOROWITZ: Well that can mean, I guess, different things depending upon the nature of the concealment. It can be active. It can be passive at some level. But it's keeping something from somebody else and we have a concern here about concealment on what happened in connection with July 5.

GOWDY: How about the destruction of evidence?

HOROWITZ: Again, that can be personal or it can be knowing that someone else is going to do it, but it is, obviously, destroying evidence or information that's -- has (inaudible) value.

GOWDY: I guess what I'm, kind of, struggling with a little bit -- I was asked over the weekend whether or not I think she should've been charged. I can't answer that question because I don't think she was interviewed properly. And it's very difficult to go back and conduct a proper interview after one has already been botched.

Did you see all of the questions that you and I just went over in the 302? Were all of those asked of her during that July interview?

HOROWITZ: I think one of the concerns that's been raised is that a 302, only being a summary of what was said, that there isn't a transcript or other more definitive report on, precisely, all of the questions and answers. So, we have a summary and that's what we're working off of, that. It's an extensive summary, but it's still not a transcript.

GOWDY: Well, given the fact that you and I agree that actually talking to the witness, the suspect, the target might be, absent of contemporaneous recordings, some of the better evidence on knowledge and intent. How in the hell was Jim Comey able to draft an exoneration press release, six weeks before that interview took place?

HOROWITZ: I -- you know, I think it -- it's clear from looking at what we uncovered that by that point in time, they had largely concluded what they had concluded. And as you--

GOWDY: But my question is, if what you're missing was knowledge and, or intent and the single best repository for that evidence is the person you've yet to talk to, how in the hell can you make that conclusion?

HOROWITZ: I think -- I'll give you what the answer was that we got back which was, of course we kept open the possibility that we would find some evidence that would change that -- that view. That was the explanation we were given.

GOWDY: If that were true, did you find drafts of inculpatory press releases?

HOROWITZ: No, we did not.

GOWDY: You found no memos or drafts where he had decided to charge her?

HOROWITZ: That's correct. We were told, by the way, by the prosecutors, as you see here, that they did not draft anything until after the interview, precisely because they wanted to wait before making a final judgment for the interview.

GOWDY: Isn't that we normally do? Wait until the last interview is.

HOROWITZ: Correct.

GOWDY: This is my last question I'll have for you. Back when you did trial work, do you remember the judge ever admonishing the jury that you are not to make up your mind until the last witness has testified and the last piece of evidence has been introduced? Do you remember you remember a jury ever being told that by a judge?

HOROWITZ: Not only do I remember that as a prosecutor, but I actually served on a jury last year. So, I remember that from the judge's instruction.

GOWDY: It's kind of one of the basic precepts of our justice system is that you wait until it's over before you draw a conclusion and I am just dumbfounded that Director Comey would draft a press release and cite the missing element, when the single best repository of potential evidence on that element had yet to be talked to. I just -- I find that stunning, but I'm also just stunningly out of time.

By the way, intent was never a requirement under the pertinent criminal statute, but that's a different issue.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 13, 2018, 01:24:59 PM
Man, Trump hates Puerto Rico and Hillary hates Unites States soldiers.  :frown:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/benghazi-hillarys-stranded-heroes/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=conservativetribune&utm_content=2018-09-13&utm_campaign=manualpost

Quote
When the heroes of Benghazi finished their mission, the State Department, run by Hillary Clinton at the time, told them they had to foot the bill for their own plane fare home from Germany, according to former congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 27, 2019, 01:24:50 PM
Rumors of an investigation into Clinton/DNC ties to the Ukraine (finally).

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on March 27, 2019, 01:29:53 PM
Dax, expect an email from kdub about how dangerous speculation is
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 04, 2019, 04:39:31 PM
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article109203352.html

Dang, Hillary and those in her orbit were the centerpieces in hundreds of millions of dollars in Russian "investment".

Uncle Joe and Joe Jr. in the Ukraine.  Ukrainian entities trying to help Hillary get elected.    Unsecured email server a payoff to the Russians (and Chinese)?

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 10, 2019, 07:25:05 AM
63 million votes and a 2.5 year meltdown because this mega corrupt person wasn't elected president . . . 

https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1137090107033493504

https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1137092180844134400
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 15, 2019, 04:52:34 PM
Carter Heavy Industries aka ChiCom Heavy Industries, very big in the wedding and yoga business.   This person was almost our president and her loss triggered a 1000 plus day meltdown of epic proportions by LibDerp Nation.    :lol:

https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1161930684954550272
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: chum1 on January 09, 2020, 06:54:58 PM
 :cry:

https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/status/1215430429379121152
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Institutional Control on January 09, 2020, 09:22:50 PM
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1215423112688361473?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 09, 2020, 09:57:49 PM
Poor Dax :frown:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 09, 2020, 11:12:48 PM
Poor Dax :frown:
Tbt, do you think Hillary is a squeaky clean politician? Just asking. I don’t think libs constantly posting twitter endorsements down here in the pit and the great fight with Dax is really doing anything IRL for your “I just don’t want another war” endorsement. You seem to move the goalposts a bit. I honestly don’t care, nothing has really changed since 2016. Our prez is an embarrassment, but the market is good and all this end of the world stuff was played by liberal media, who continues to play the same card, because they’re getting nowhere. Focus on backing a reasonable candidate in 2020 and endorse them, fund them (with this new fun $ you seem you don’t know what to do with), and rejoice. #SomeNewPerson2020
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 10, 2020, 06:53:47 AM
Oh man, I just didn’t see this happening.   

Everyone has had suicidal hard drives. 



Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 10, 2020, 07:36:06 AM
I'm somewhat embarrassed that I fell for the "Hillary is literally Satan" propaganda that conservatives have pushed for 20 years. It makes me empathize for people like dax who continue to be fooled though.

Live and learn.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 10, 2020, 07:56:51 AM
Nothing says I've done nothing wrong like taking ball peen hammers to hard drives, doing so much bleach biting, bleachbit.org actually considered a public IPO and deleting 35K emails.

It's not a crime, if you can get away with it aka the Costanza variation.

 



Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 10, 2020, 09:27:37 AM
Oh Dax :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 10, 2020, 09:41:38 AM
Oh Dax :lol:

Grats Bud, glad your hero got away with it.  I know you're thrilled.

Everyone knows hard drives fall down the stairs all the time.  I mean, duh. 

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on January 11, 2020, 09:59:52 AM
Yeesh

https://twitter.com/danagould/status/1215681020315353096?s=19
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 11, 2020, 10:57:05 AM
But....her emails :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 13, 2020, 08:31:26 AM
She's baaaaaacccckk...   :peek:

https://therepublicpost.wordpress.com/2020/04/12/state-dept-releases-phone-transcript-of-hillary-admitting-she-knew-benghazi-was-planned-attack/

Quote
The State Department released a phone transcript this week that proves Hillary Clinton knew the Benghazi massacre was a planned attack and not a protest.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents this week.

DEVELOPING
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 20, 2020, 10:35:58 PM
Bless her little black heart....

https://twitter.com/GreggJarrett/status/1251483056462008320
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 20, 2020, 10:44:02 PM
Gregg’s timeline is something else :sdeek:

I don’t know how anyone could believe some of this garbage, but apparently a lot do.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 20, 2020, 10:57:05 PM
Gregg’s timeline is something else :sdeek:

I don’t know how anyone could believe some of this garbage, but apparently a lot do.

I take it you've been drinking the CNN koolaid all this time and haven't really been following along, huh?

 :gocho:
Title: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 20, 2020, 11:49:13 PM
Gregg’s timeline is something else :sdeek:

I don’t know how anyone could believe some of this garbage, but apparently a lot do.

I take it you've been drinking the CNN koolaid all this time and haven't really been following along, huh?

 :gocho:
Actually I’m a critical thinker so I digest info from stuff I see and form an opinion.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 21, 2020, 02:35:10 AM
Useful Idiot Nation believed every word out out of Lyin Susie Rice’s mouth regarding the YouTube video.   They parroted it repeatedly.   
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 21, 2020, 09:12:35 AM
Gregg’s timeline is something else :sdeek:

I don’t know how anyone could believe some of this garbage, but apparently a lot do.

I take it you've been drinking the CNN koolaid all this time and haven't really been following along, huh?

 :gocho:
Actually I’m a critical thinker so I digest info from stuff I see and form an opinion.

Fair play, brother...  I tend to find that independent reporters with large followings, but without "blue checks", tend to be the most honest and accurate sources of information. 

If I were to discount Gregg Jarrett, it's simply be due to the fact that he's accepting checks from a big corporate entity with a disinformation/misinformation agenda to control groupthink.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 24, 2020, 10:43:19 AM
Poor Killary just isn't having a very good month, it seems.  I sure hope one of those sealed indictments doesn't have her name on it... That would just be so unfortunate.

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Shipp/status/1253707460394856454
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 24, 2020, 11:28:12 AM
How are contributions?  I heard they were way down since pay-to-play was off the table.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: chum1 on April 24, 2020, 11:35:46 AM
Happy 6th anniversary to the Hillary indictment watch thread.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 24, 2020, 12:38:06 PM
Was really sad to see that despite major economic growth around the world in 2018 and 2019, particularly in the U.S.   That people still didn't have that giving feeling towards the money laundering Clinton Foundation. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/11/clinton-foundation-cash-flow-drop/

Lack of pay for play does take a bite, I suppose.

$249 million raised from the Russians during that first glorious year as SOS.   :lol:



Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 24, 2020, 12:41:17 PM
Happy 6th anniversary to the Hillary indictment watch thread.

Haha
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 25, 2020, 09:43:45 PM
 https://twitter.com/judicialwatch/status/1254236254041853952
Title: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 25, 2020, 09:44:43 PM
BleachBit isn’t perfect. 

What bathroom server were these on?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 27, 2020, 11:14:58 AM
The plot thickens...

https://twitter.com/TruthHammer888/status/1254801861401427971
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 27, 2020, 11:21:23 AM
Jill Joe Biden will not discuss these matters!

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: LickNeckey on April 27, 2020, 11:46:42 AM
i really fail to see how Biden can avoid directly responding to the Truth Hammer
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 27, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
i really fail to see how Biden can avoid directly responding to the Truth Hammer


Jill has already told Joe he's not responding, relax Lick.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 27, 2020, 12:21:30 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWmiYvZU4AUAhZr?format=jpg&name=small)


 :driving:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 27, 2020, 12:31:17 PM
Lol, hilldawg is such a sarcastic troll master  :lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 27, 2020, 06:14:38 PM
[They]'ve already proven that [they] can create a toilet paper "shortage".  Prepare for the food supply/meat shortages they are conditioning you for already.

https://twitter.com/MajorPatriot/status/1254867251016196096
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Spracne on April 27, 2020, 07:32:20 PM
[They]'ve already proven that [they] can create a toilet paper "shortage".  Prepare for the food supply/meat shortages they are conditioning you for already.

https://twitter.com/MajorPatriot/status/1254867251016196096
You really ought to be more careful to verify citations (or lack of same) on your news consumption, man.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: wetwillie on April 27, 2020, 09:28:07 PM
Gotta love someone worth $50 million still grinding on that side hustle, throwing 1k at commodities.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 28, 2020, 06:40:36 AM
[They]'ve already proven that [they] can create a toilet paper "shortage".  Prepare for the food supply/meat shortages they are conditioning you for already.

https://twitter.com/MajorPatriot/status/1254867251016196096
You really ought to be more careful to verify citations (or lack of same) on your news consumption, man.


http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/02/02/Why-37-Year-Old-Clinton-Financial-Scandal-Still-Relevant?amp

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tyson-foods-chairman-food-supply-chain-breaking-meat-plant-shutdowns-coronavirus-pandemic/

:confused:

Which one are you troubled by?

:dunno:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 28, 2020, 08:18:55 AM
https://twitter.com/evawehrman/status/1255113841689743361

A quick web search for “John Tyson connection to Clinton” in your favorite search engine turns up some interesting things...


https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=ziuoXqqTJcTysQXBu6m4CA&q=john+tyson+connection+to+Clinton&oq=john+tyson+connection+to+Clinton&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6BQgAEM0COgUIIRCgAToFCCEQqwI6CAghEBYQHRAeOgcIIRAKEKABUMsRWLY2YLhCaABwAHgAgAFXiAH-BpIBAjEymAEAoAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 28, 2020, 10:52:27 AM
Gotta love someone worth $50 million still grinding on that side hustle, throwing 1k at commodities.

Interesting as to when it took place.... That $98k was more than she and Billy were making combined at the time.  Quite the "side hustle".  We should all be so "fortunate".



http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/02/02/Why-37-Year-Old-Clinton-Financial-Scandal-Still-Relevant

Quote


The Clinton era of the 1990s is remembered as a prosperous time punctuated by a series of scandals. Today, we tend to dismiss these scandals as irrelevant because they mostly involved sex, were exaggerated by partisan Republicans and were mostly related to actions taken by Bill Clinton, who will not be on the 2016 ballot. But sweeping away all this history deprives voters of the chance to consider a largely forgotten financial scandal that directly involved Hillary Clinton during 1978 and 1979.

Under the guidance of an attorney representing Tyson Foods, Hillary Clinton made a $98,540 profit from a $1,000 initial investment in less than one year trading commodity futures. While $98,540 may not seem like much money relative to the Clinton family’s wealth today, it exceeded Bill and Hillary’s combined annual income at the time.



When this story was revealed in the spring of 1994, Hillary Clinton’s press secretary suggested that the enormous profit was the result of the First Lady’s own research — but the Tyson-linked attorney, James Blair, admitted that he advised Clinton when to buy and sell the futures. Further, there was no evidence that Clinton had previously traded in commodity futures or knew much about the market.

Careful readers at the time also learned that Clinton’s initial trading also had a serious irregularity. Unlike stock investments, commodity futures are almost always purchased with high levels of margin, meaning that the investor is using a substantial proportion of money borrowed from the broker to control positions. Exchanges and regulators typically require investors to keep a minimum amount of cash in their futures accounts to avoid getting into a negative position if futures prices move in the wrong direction. In Hillary Clinton’s case, her $1,000 initial investment was well below the $12,000 deposit required by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for the first trades she executed. So not only did Hillary make an extraordinary profit for a novice investor, she did so without following the rules applied to less well-connected traders.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 30, 2020, 07:28:08 AM
May end up having to change the “Trump ones Russia” thread title to “DNC owned Russia” before this is all said and done.... :lol:

https://twitter.com/stevescalise/status/1255679859516375048
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 30, 2020, 08:20:55 AM
Is this a #sadcomeyface or the #ijusthatedtohavetodothatcomeyface ??

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 30, 2020, 09:00:14 AM
When this is all said and done, will it be more like the Cats coming back from down 28-7 at half in Ames 1999 to win 35-28 in the last two minutes OR more like the 2015 Iowa State game in Manhattan where the clowns completely botched everything at the end and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?

Watching the sheeple nationwide (and here) gloat for 3.9 quarters of the battle like a bunch of ISU fans has been nothing short of amazing while knowing how the game ultimately turns out.

 :ksu:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 30, 2020, 12:46:40 PM
SO they murder everyone in their path but this Blair guy who has direct knowledge of insider trading still kicking?

They are super bad at suspiciously murdering people who can hurt them
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on April 30, 2020, 12:56:38 PM
I take it you don't understand how that game is played...

I understand and assume that you'd likely not participate in either scenario but for sake of example let's say someone has knowledge of you committing the heinous crime of insider trading. 

Another guy happens to have pics or video of you banging your wife's sister &/or best friend. 

Which one gets (suspiciously) taken out?   
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: star seed 7 on April 30, 2020, 01:44:14 PM
I would 100% kill the one that could actually send me to jail first.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 06, 2020, 12:21:52 PM
Dadgummit... I really thought she was totally off the hook by this point.

https://truepundit.com/exclusive-durham-resurrects-clinton-foundation-probe-feds-disclose-dojs-renewed-focus-on-widespread-charity-vaccine-fraud/

Quote
Thought to be left for dead, the federal probe of the Clinton Foundation has found new life in Connecticut, where U.S. Attorney John Durham has quietly breathed life back into the investigation of the Clinton’s widespread charity and vaccine schemes.

Durham’s newly-minted focus of putting the schemes of the Clinton Foundation back under the federal microscope was detailed on the Thomas Paine Podcast  and the Moore Paine Show on Patreon. Top-level federal sources detailed just when and what is happening surrounding these surprising revelations and how it relates to what is playing out with the corrupt CDC, FDA, NIH and White House coronavirus ‘gurus’ Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx and CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, who are all linked to the shady operations and associates of the Clinton Foundation.

Durham was tasked by U.S. Attorney General William Barr with conducting a sweeping probe of FBI surveillance abuse against the 2016 Trump campaign.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2020, 01:15:34 PM
Hillary has to secretly be pining for that VP pick, because as soon as its done, contributions are going to be roaring back into the CF pay-to-play foundation . . . which to no one's surprise, had their record year when Hillary became SOSUS.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 06, 2020, 02:11:22 PM
The meltdown Dax would have if Hillary got the VP pick would be one for the ages. It would rival any that he's had and that's saying something.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2020, 02:41:06 PM
I'm perfectly fine with mega corruption as long as it's Democrats doing it

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 06, 2020, 05:18:03 PM
I would absolutely LOVE it if she runs for either President or VP...   TRUMP & Co. would be absolutely ruthless with her and the amount of dirt they have at this point is astronomical. 

It'd be like Bum Fights meets Mike Tyson in his prime.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: I_have_purplewood on May 06, 2020, 05:27:04 PM
I'm perfectly fine with mega corruption as long as it's Democrats doing it

Not sure why you continue to respond to this putz.   :dunno: (ftp://:dunno:)
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 08, 2020, 10:29:57 PM
The fireworks are just beginning!

https://twitter.com/truthhammer888/status/1258961146528149507

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Spracne on May 08, 2020, 10:35:30 PM
I don't take any person seriously who would publicly refer to any woman as "the teflon bitch". Sorry, bqqkie.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 08, 2020, 10:40:50 PM
Whatever makes you feel better. Pure, unfettered evil doesn’t deserve much better iyam.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Spracne on May 08, 2020, 10:43:03 PM
Whatever makes you feel better. Pure, unfettered evil doesn’t deserve much better iyam.

It's not something a thoughtful person would publicly declare. Just saying.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 08, 2020, 10:48:48 PM
I pray the Lord has mercy on her soul for what’s happened to the many Haitian children her foundation removed from Haiti. I won’t apologize for what truthhammer said on Twitter as his anger is his own. I stand by my assertion that she’s pure evil. Too much evidence, albeit circumstantial, to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: steve dave on May 09, 2020, 10:11:01 AM
albeit circumstantial

lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 10, 2020, 03:25:38 PM
albeit circumstantial

lmao


What crazy timing!!  Not nearly as circumstantial anymore...  Matter of fact, not circumstantial at all any more.

https://twitter.com/truthhammer888/status/1259537662718828545

:lol:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 11, 2020, 01:55:31 PM
Somebody needs to get those records sealed back up...

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1259915041190617095

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2020, 02:01:40 PM
The fact that the Clinton campaign was using all of their Washington contacts to spur on a Trump investigation is well known.

I don't know why they bothered,  Barry "The president wants to know everything we're doing" Obama aka President Stand Down had already been spying on the Trump campaign.


Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 13, 2020, 10:42:59 AM
Was the "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative all fake the whole time?!?!?   :sdeek:

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/05/12/fox-news-john-brennan-russia-hillary-clinton/

That would certainly be a plot twist nobody saw coming!!

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 13, 2020, 11:11:39 AM
Shitff knew there was no COLUSION but kept right on going and then used the Ukraine deal to try and save face.

Pelosi Pens > Pandemic



Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Institutional Control on July 24, 2020, 11:53:24 AM
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1286678750592106500?s=20
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: steve dave on September 05, 2020, 08:17:55 PM
lmao

https://twitter.com/GSElevator/status/1302258988533321728
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: nicname on September 05, 2020, 09:45:32 PM
lmao

https://twitter.com/GSElevator/status/1302258988533321728

Man, Ts and Ps for Bill. I can’t even imagine a life lived constantly in the presence of such a creature. She’s sucked the life right out of him.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: MakeItRain on September 07, 2020, 04:46:25 PM
lmao

https://twitter.com/GSElevator/status/1302258988533321728

Man, Ts and Ps for Bill. I can’t even imagine a life lived constantly in the presence of such a creature. She’s sucked the life right out of him.

Nicname is the one friend in the group who always takes the joke a bit too far.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: nicname on September 07, 2020, 04:53:30 PM
lmao

https://twitter.com/GSElevator/status/1302258988533321728

Man, Ts and Ps for Bill. I can’t even imagine a life lived constantly in the presence of such a creature. She’s sucked the life right out of him.

Nicname is the one friend in the group who always takes the joke a bit too far.

This is often true.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 08, 2020, 06:55:56 AM
On top of that hell for Bill she was railing on about the Russians. 

Enraged paranoia.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Institutional Control on October 09, 2020, 04:10:53 PM
We got her guys!!


https://twitter.com/ryanafournier/status/1314658973056937987?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: steve dave on October 09, 2020, 04:13:14 PM
lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 09, 2020, 04:16:43 PM
Imagine being a kid and opening up this giant, refrigerator-sized box on Christmas, and finding out it was packed with printouts of all of Hillary's emails.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Tobias on October 09, 2020, 04:16:56 PM
can her ass!
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Brock Landers on October 09, 2020, 04:31:42 PM
This might be the final straw that convinces me to not vote for Hillary!   :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: cfbandyman on October 09, 2020, 04:33:02 PM
Amaze, I love how the pub strategy is basically to act like it's 2016 again.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: wetwillie on October 09, 2020, 07:27:22 PM
Releasing them to whom?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Trim on October 09, 2020, 09:12:40 PM
Predictit still hasn't declared over the bet that she'll run for president or not.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2020, 10:12:16 PM
She’s a Strangelovian lunatic
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on October 11, 2020, 12:19:26 AM
Correct, it is she who is the lunatic.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 11, 2020, 10:47:31 AM
Correct, it is she who is the lunatic.
I know you’re an amazing dumbass who only stalks my posts.   But if you read any of her internally exfiltrated emails from the DNC.  You would know that her foreign policy was that of perpetual war and playing one country or faction off another. 

She’s responsible for killing tens of thousands of people and displacing millions. 
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: LickNeckey on August 10, 2022, 03:55:52 PM
https://twitter.com/PamKeithFL/status/1557357323735244800?t=D3ThwnT5liiOMNNtkJmGoQ&s=19

is this accurate?
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: mocat on August 10, 2022, 04:15:26 PM
as a rule you should assume a tweet from anyone whose twitter handle includes ", Esq." is total horseshit
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2022, 04:50:19 PM
It doesn't matter if there was even 1 document that was mishandled by Clinton.

The claims that it was "approved" are  :blank: to say the least.

Even at that time, any Federal IT officer that signed off on an off-site server, allegedly managed by a 3rd party should have been fired on the spot with extreme prejudice. 

It is absolute fact that State Department officials beat down the DOJ to reclassify documents that Hillary had in her possession in order to remove the charge of mis-handling classified materials.   She also had at least one person with no security clearances of any kind handling documents that were often left in the open at her personal residence. 

Only a total derp believes the long winded over the top hyper-partisan explanations that she didn't do anything wrong.
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Katpappy on August 10, 2022, 07:08:59 PM
So you're saying Trump is guilty as eff. 
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2022, 07:21:59 PM
So you're saying Trump is guilty as eff.
That would be a no DerpPappy
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: Katpappy on August 10, 2022, 07:29:04 PM
So you're saying Trump is guilty as eff.
That would be a no DerpPappy

 :ROFL:  one's a sneaky criminal old lady, but big daddy trump is a jolly old guy who just mislabeled some household paperwork.  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2022, 07:44:28 PM
Some fantastic assumptions #derppappy
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2022, 11:17:26 AM
Shame shame on me for not realizing until today that the Onward Together PAC was yet another Clinton grift.

The existence of the PAC only reaffirms that all of their bluster about campaign finance reform (I mean seriously, the Clinton's talking about campaign finance reform  :lol:) was yet another ploy to grift from millions of derp ass #blueanon.   

Then to top it all off, she rolled the grift on to the party itself by selling the party her donor list and software (note to DNC IT security experts, if you haven't I'd vet that software hard) for a couple of million bucks.   :lol: :lol:

Goodness gracious. 

Again, shame on me for not putting this all together until today.







Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: chum1 on August 15, 2023, 07:32:17 AM
Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1691267214060527616
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: CNS on August 15, 2023, 04:30:01 PM
Hillary flex memes are peak cringe.

Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2023, 12:32:13 AM
Election outcome denialsim - the exclusive domain of #blueanon

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you."
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: MakeItRain on August 16, 2023, 12:06:57 PM
as a rule you should assume a tweet from anyone whose twitter handle includes ", Esq." is total horseshit

There's a reason why that woman must include Esq. with her social media handle but y'all aren't ready for that
Title: Re: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: steve dave on November 15, 2023, 08:00:38 AM
https://twitter.com/highprogressive/status/1724649002988187886
Title: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2024, 07:35:39 AM
A throwback to a simpler time. Hil probably regaling Vlad with how generous Russian oligarchs were being towards the Clinton Foundation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240216/d692a058563752dac8b081677e60ed04.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk