How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.
#GaryJohnson2016
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo
How could anybody know if they would vote for Hillary without knowing who she is running against? This question is very premature.
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
What were Ronald Reagan's accomplishments?
i will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo
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 quoThis is how Obama was elected - twice.
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.
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.
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.
'pubs really need to change their stance on marijuana if they want to win the POTUS election.
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?
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.
good ol' bill clinton was governor, and he was probably the best president of the last 300 years
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
good ol' bill clinton was governor, and he was probably the best president of the last 300 years
sebelius got elected gov in red state kansas, guess maybe she should be president too
(would support)
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.
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 will probably continue to cast my symbolic 3rd or 4th party vote to protest the status quo
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.
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).
Elizabeth Warren should be the first woman prez.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 because i don't vote d doesn't mean that the r's aren't all rough ridin' insane
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
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night? :love:
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
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
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night? :love:
sounds like she's lost the ksuw vote which sucks because I had a feeling it was up for grabs this time around
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.
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.
So nothing then? There's got to be something.
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night? :love:
Pretty studly?
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.
Did you guys see our girl, Hillary, on The Daily Show tuesday night? :love:
Pretty studly?
Her ankles are, for sure.
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.
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.
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.
hope she doesn't get the nomination. would not vote for.
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.
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.
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.
Except 2008?
I think the Clintons know how to win elections.
Except 2008?
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.
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman.
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?
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman. People that held that against him were idiots.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
K-S-U-Wildcats! has become the poster that many decide their opinion of his posts without considering the actual content.
Why does the average republican freak out and take it personally everytime the Clinton's do something?
Did Rush start this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I bet she starts wars because of her period. Girls are so gross
Will Bill tell her how to run the economy? Cause I could get behind that.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.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.
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.
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.
Republicans should be ecstatic if Hillary runs, she's repulsive to all demographics, even more than most Republicans currently are.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
the "low information voter" might be my favorite neocon talking point.
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/)
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.
:ROFL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30#t=75 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30#t=75)
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.”
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20525/ (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20525/)QuoteCollege 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?
20 students :surprised:
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.
It is just terrible evidence that college students are not engaged in politics.
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.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fillinoisreview.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d834515c5469e201a511dc023e970c-pi&hash=4b6ccc24c27bd7ace285e91f7473e30b0e279406)
In defense of higher education, it IS a degree mill in Florida that we are talking about.
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.
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:
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.
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'm telling you guys, Hillary would be a godsend for Pubs. Not quite Palin good, but close.
Why are liberal women so hated?
This makes me want to vote for her more. eff the police.
I just signed up [email protected] for like 50 porn websites
as an IT professional this stunt makes me cringe
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.
I wasn't going to vote for her either. Too connected, and this stunt proves it.
I already have Hillary fatigue. Her pants suits look like the garb Chinese communist wear.
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.
She mumped up Benghazi pretty hard. Total boss
I hadn't seen her picture in a while, she looks like crap. How do powerful wealthy people let themselves go like that.
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.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2015%2F03%2FTextual-Relations-copy.jpg&hash=10b1e87ff05efedbac8ea887b60ebb75cf0119d3)
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.
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 propagandaCelebrity marriage is not the same as human marriage
I wasn't aware Hillary failed the bar exam. That should be pretty damaging, if true.
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.
On paper, Hillary has got to be the worst candidate ever.
No crap, conservative women are just the worst.Also white and Christian, these things are very important to neocons
No one can attack women, unless its ProgLibs attacking a conservative woman.
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.
The 41-year-old brunette
Also white and Christian, these things are very important to neocons
also old and rich, very important things to neocons
they want an "obama", good grief ksuw
you forgot "bossy"
When your grandmother sent that to you, how many "FW:" were in the subject line? I'm guessing 4.
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?"
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.
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.
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
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.
What happened to Bush 3.0?
What happened to Bush 3.0?
He seems like a pretty decent person. The pubs hate him, though.
Jeb vs Hilliria. Nice grandpa against old crazed mean grandma.
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/)
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:
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?
this is going to be such a great election :excited: (for entertainment, not for the country)
Can't wait for the protests over these posters that contain the forbidden "coded words".
I don't think she gets the nomination.
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?
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?
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 have zero idea who omally is
I have zero idea who omally is
http://martinomalley.com/ (http://martinomalley.com/)
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.
man election years are so annoying. we're still like a year and a half away. this is going to be annoying
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.
Who is the athletic director?
What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Will ksuw survive this election? I'm not so sure :ohno:
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.
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
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
Maybe. I've never voted for any of them to be president, either.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 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.
You know professional actor Ronald Reagan had plenty of strange in his heyday. I mean c'mon.
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
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.
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
only if you're a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) with no reading comprehension
Shut up, bigot.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.
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.
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:
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.
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
Best circle jerk in months :love:
What does MG stand for?Mean Grannie.
Can I use that too?Yes, please do so.
I actually have hardcore ProgLib relatives who like Jeb.
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'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.
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
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/)
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 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.
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
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.
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.
Is that a gigantic novelty pine tree air freshner hanging from a stop light?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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 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.
Ksuw just can't stand that people are willing to pay for the clintons time. Hates free market capitalism I guess
Ksuw just can't stand that people are willing to pay for the clintons time. Hates free market capitalism I guess
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
If Dennis Hastert molested a student, he needs a lawyer with a lot of experience defending child rapists. He needs Hillary Clinton.
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
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.
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
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:
I will take 5% less on speaking fees than DickStone, FYI.
KSUW is an excellent source for all things Hillary
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:
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:
yes, asking someone to stand in line for autographs is very corrupt :lol:
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:
Hillary's policies suck, I will never vote for her.
Hillary's policies suck, I will never vote for her.
the few paragraphs i've read about kasich, i could def get behind him
Why are libtards so angry about freedom?'Cause its not free!!!!
Why are libtards so angry about freedom?'Cause its not free!!!!
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 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.
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!
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!
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.
'bias! Get in here!
Guess what though. We are the nation filled with paranoid dumbasses.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.
We used to be really dumb tho
We used to be really dumb tho
Every generation thinks things are falling apart. It's called change. Dumb bullshit truism, ksuw.
We should make voting as hard as Josh Duggar at a family reunion.:lol:
Still waiting for anyone to explain why lowering the bar even more for the voting electorate is a good idea.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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 genuinely interested in why people think we should make it even easier than it already is to vote.
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.
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.
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?
There is not always merit to "making everything easier."
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.
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.
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."
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.
Restrictions on driving have direct safety implications - restrictions on voting do not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're right about the "tide of history" - but that's not an argument for expanding voting in a growing idiocracy.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
She's not going to be able to launch over the fact that she sucks
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.
After Benghazi and the coverup, how is she even being remotely being considered for a presidential nomination?
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 wonder if anyone will vote against her because she's a woman.
naw, no one voted against obama cause he was black.
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?
Ummm 404 coverupAfter 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?
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.
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
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 _____."
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Ksuw has been invigorated by donald trump!
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.
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.
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.
All medical procedures are disgusting
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.
Haven't read this thread since April. Am I still good to vote Hillary?
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.
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.
Maybe I missed it but what does the acronym MG stand for?
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
Project veritas strikes again, catching Hillary staffers blatantly violating voter registration laws in Nevada.
there's nothing wrong with sending weasel pictures to women that want them
Project veritas strikes again, catching Hillary staffers blatantly violating voter registration laws in Nevada.
really? what happened?
there's nothing wrong with sending weasel pictures to women that want them
Did they want them? :dunno:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Link?
Specifically about me defending MG
[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/)
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:
Mrs Gooch
She isn't going to be charged. And she will likely win the general, you should probably prep for that.
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.
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?
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.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.
Sad, but true.
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.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.
Sad, but true.
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.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.
Sad, but true.
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.
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.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.
Sad, but true.
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
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
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.
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/)QuoteAs 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.
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.
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.
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/)
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.
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)QuoteToday, 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%.
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)QuoteToday, 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.
What's that say about republicans after they lose to her :sdeek:
Who's your candidate dax?
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.
Hill Dawgs is pretty damn center left
Hill Dawgs is pretty damn center left
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)
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)
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/)
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.
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?
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.
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?”
Clinton responded by saying, “I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
But what she said, awwww eff it nevermind I'm not going to waste my time.
She is seriously going to mop the floor with trump or Carson. How scary that has to be for the GOP.
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.
She is seriously going to mop the floor with trump or Carson. How scary that has to be for the GOP.
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 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.
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.
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.
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%.
She also mentioned that they're having a major immigration problem right now. :lol:
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:
QuoteDonald 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.
QuoteDonald 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.
QuoteDonald 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.
I think a good chunk of Cruz supporters may as well. And all 7 of the Huckabee supporters.
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:
rough ridin' Debbie, I hope she gets hit by a car, what an incompetent bitch.
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.
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?
Hillary supporter outed :lol:
She's going to send a task force to Area 51, and find out that UFO's make great cover for black projects.
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/)
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)
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!
i can't believe the repulican party has no one that can beat hilary clinton.
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."
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:
I bet she's not indicted
That a felony, son. This could be it for her. Better re-draft Biden.
Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?
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?
Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?
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.
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 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.
I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.
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.
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.
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 don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.
Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.
: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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Grossly simplified? :facepalm: I just can't with this guy.
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?
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
Yes, please.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
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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."
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)QuoteIn 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)QuoteAccording 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."
Anything goes . . . As long as their Democrats
Hypoco-Lib response, sad.
It's a shame that Clinton's are so closeted for the sake of political power.
Innocent until proven guilty.... Unless there (dax!) a democrat:D they're*
Go away edn
I honestly think Bill is a massive piece of crap for what he did for Monica and libs hypocritically give him a free pass.
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.
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?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:
It would be best for the country if Hil was indicted, and Biden was forced to run. Biden would beat Cruz or Trump.
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Media :curse:
Msnbc is now reporting on this. Does that mean it's still part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
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.
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.
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.
Really the media seems to have picked an old white man with hair that looks like piss colored cotton candy and hates mexicans
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.
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.
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.
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!!!"
FSD we gotta post transfer order in here for you :lol:
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.
Isn't that why you hate rubio?
So do you want them to just remain in the US illegally?
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.
If you sell them work permits, they aren't illegal anymore. That is amnesty.
Ksuw just can't stand the idea of brown citizens. MAAAAAYBE some brown quasi slaves, but def no brown citizens
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.
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.
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
Does any of this really matter?No.
run, bloomie, run.
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:
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.
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 problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.
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."
The problem is that there wasn't a good clear policy on operating your private email server.
:lol: Never change, Edna.
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
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 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.
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.
She's going to prison isn't she?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.
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.
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.
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 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:
You guys don't really believe she is going to be indicted right?
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
Because of the delay in release?Because she was trying to avoid a release altogetherI'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.
Have any of you ever held a TS government clearance?
No judgement with this question. Just looking for perspective.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.Have any of you ever held a TS government clearance?
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.
Did he transmit classified material in violation of his NDA? If so, press onward.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.
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?
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.
I said, even more hilarious that edn Whack-A-Doodle continues to clamor for excuses. Pathetic and sad.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.
But typical
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.
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.
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?
I said, even more hilarious that edn Whack-A-Doodle continues to clamor for excuses. Pathetic and sad.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.
But typical
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.
"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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
she didn't have a state dept email? LOL
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:
every politician in the history of the world has an email they use to avoid FOINot an issue for Reno or KSUW when Brownback does it though....
Non issue
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)QuoteEXCLUSIVE: 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.
every politician in the history of the world has an email they use to avoid FOINot an issue for Reno or KSUW when Brownback does it though....
Non issue
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: KSUWYeah, 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.
There is def several concerns:Great post, and what 99% of us believe.
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.
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.
every politician in the history of the world has an email they use to avoid FOI
Non issue
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?
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.
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.
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.
If the head of the FBI recommends charges, you think they won't? Political suicide for all close to her.
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
Oops. Need to disable that. Just pulled it from storage to use as a reader.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.
FuckBoys?
Let's play a game, guess who this belongs to:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnKSVxiO.jpg&hash=0690c2bbb70c7d3435b80971dc7cf332fecc2fc2)
"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?'"
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.
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:
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:
Let's play a game, guess who this belongs to:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnKSVxiO.jpg&hash=0690c2bbb70c7d3435b80971dc7cf332fecc2fc2)
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181
posted without comment
Let's play a game, guess who this belongs to:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnKSVxiO.jpg&hash=0690c2bbb70c7d3435b80971dc7cf332fecc2fc2)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sticky wicket :love:
I hope that guy gets paid for that gif. It's the best!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.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.totalprosports.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fjaguars-fan-cant-believe-it-nfl-fan-gifs.gif&hash=47786a45753609ed41a0ed48413d54b51a0308ca)
Very odd
Just take the compliment dax, rough ridin' weirdo
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
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!
I think the Colin Powell thing would be a bigger deal if say . . . he was running for the highest office in the United States.
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.
Does that guy's shirt say Settle for Hillary? :lol:
Hilrod hittin' the ads hard!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-reaches-base-with-aol-login-page-ad/article/2001023
Bernie too, fyi
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FHillary-Trek.jpg&hash=a376fb27a83321c05378a97e39dbd769af1dd4a8)
Clinton Foundation allegedly will be subpoenaed
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FAlbright-Steinem.jpg&hash=6e84c95eee21c27eaf781631454e7c4cec0cf560)
Just another example of the conservative media misreporting what they said
IPhone probablyCorrect. Plus fat fingers and getting too excited when posting; either enraged pissed psycho or getting groin zingers from sharing with goEMAW folks.
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:
It will be so great when they all Fif.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdeo7Q2E5cE
Yep nothing says innocence like PTF.If you say so.
Trump makes her electable.
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.
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.
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.
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.
If she wants to go after his foreign policy ineptitude, he got her Libyan intervention and Iraq war vote.
This one's interesting
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Minnesota is vastly studlier than i thought. Rubio and Sanders, wow
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.
Dems are white knuckling this so hard.
Dems are white knuckling this so hard.
Moderates are just looking at properties in Vancouver
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)QuoteBryan 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?
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)QuoteBryan 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.
Minnesota is vastly studlier than i thought. Rubio and Sanders, wow
Dems in the GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI love them some HFP2016
“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
“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.
“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.
“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.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F011%2F032%2FORLY.jpg&hash=7c76f19f997a4208fa04d7e7ae6352d6e9be628b)“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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, nothing.
Nice job deflecting and avoiding whackadoodleThere 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.
Nice job deflecting and avoiding whackadoodleThere 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.
Is any thread other than the Facebook thread worth reading anymore in the pit? This is pathetic.
So, nothing.
Only you'd be so ridiculous to go in another direction when someone references a specific scandal. Nice work dude.
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.
Lib7, Hillary foot soldier and resident mongoloid
Lib7, Hillary foot soldier and resident mongoloid
Stay on topic
"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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what did the crime bill do? The article posted just says it's bad and racist, but doesn't say how.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Also, Ted should use Rafael on ballots in states like cali, nevada and new Mexico to try and pick up votes
I bet it's close, but it's entirely possible more people hate hillary than rafael.
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.
Also, Ted should use Rafael on ballots in states like cali, nevada and new Mexico to try and pick up votes
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.:lol:
Oh yeah, they hate nasa too
If Clinton gets indicted after the convention, do the democrats get to choose a different name for the ballot?
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 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?
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.
So you think she did this, you think its wrong, and you are ok with her judgment as president?Isn't the Secretary of State an appointed position? :confused:
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.
To me this a "vote for the crook it's important" type election.
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.
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
Gal? Good grief you are old.
Reading lib7's predictable retorts is like looking into the eyes of a child.
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
Reading lib7's predictable retorts is like looking into the eyes of a child. So adorable, so much to learn. :emawkid:
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
Got whooped in another primary.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383
http://freedomoutpost.com/hillary-clintons-pathological-lying-and-erratic-behavior-due-to-drug-and-alcohol-addiction/
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.
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.
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.
Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?
Is it possible for the pit to come together and make a Gary Johnson pact?
HAAAAAARRRRRDDDDD PASS. Islamaphobes aren't for.me.
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)?
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.]
It's a fair question for anyone throwing around "islamaphobe"
I also hope you aren't seriously questioning categorizing the banning of burqas as Islamaphobic.
Are you referring to Barack Obama and again why are you asking me?
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.
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.
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 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.
Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.
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.
Gary Johnson proposed a ban on burquas, not all face covering, just burquas.
he also publicly changed his mind like five minutes later.
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.
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.
We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!
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?
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
We should kill anyone who's willing to vote for this hack!
we might be down to 2% of the human population.
we might be down to 2% of the human population.
:love:
"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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The republican odds get better the closer to election day. Biden/Warren couldn't put a competent campaign together in October.
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.
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.
dax, did i say anything about counterpunch.org? weird anger you have there.
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.
Oh geezus, really KK? The women was an unmitigated geo political disaster as SOS.
WTF? Korea?
WTF? Korea?
you said Hillary as SOS presided over the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII.
WTF? Korea?
you said Hillary as SOS presided over the biggest geo-political mess since the end of WWII.
On a global scale, absolutely.
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.
Dax, you got mushed right there, bud. Just take it like a champ and move on.
Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Dax, you got mushed right there, bud. Just take it like a champ and move on.
Dax, you got mushed right there, bud. Just take it like a champ and move on.
More like M*A*S*H'd.
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.
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.
I guess. I'm kinda dumb. :frown:
I find it weird that WC08 groups sales people and servers togetherBoth get ragged on. I dunno, just jobs that i've worked at, where ppl treat you like crap.
Is Google unfairly supporting Hilldawg?
https://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg
For fans of Silicon Valley, seems pretty Hooli - esque.
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?
Watching 13 hours right now. This country is so mumped either way. :cry:Political opinions based on big Hollywood movies? Yep, sounds like wacky
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?
I find it weird that WC08 groups sales people and servers together
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.
If Elizabeth Warren is the VP pick I'm all in with Hillary. Talk about a dream team.
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 scienceI 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?
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?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1840171%2Fthumbs%2Fo-100-EMOJI-570.jpg%3F5&hash=b30937d1225bc118061d722a58ff838e4d5d3526)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?
don't be a dick pvegs
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.
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
If pvegs thinks "his thing" is being mean to dax then I don't even...
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.
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.
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.
"IM NOT CRAZY YOURE CRAZY"
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.
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
"IM NOT CRAZY YOURE CRAZY"
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.
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.
Bubble hates the truth. :curse: #truththe paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism. :love:
Bubble hates the truth. :curse: #truththe paranoid lunatic interpretation of #truth has permanently stained the reputation of american conservatism. :love:
these words don't make sense, they're put together in the wrong order or being used incorrectly.Bubble hates the truth. :curse: #truththe 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.Bubble hates the truth. :curse: #truththe 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.
i'm being serious.these words don't make sense, they're put together in the wrong order or being used incorrectly.Bubble hates the truth. :curse: #truththe 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.
They make perfect sense, you just hate the reality of the message.
i'm being serious.these words don't make sense, they're put together in the wrong order or being used incorrectly.Bubble hates the truth. :curse: #truththe 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.
They make perfect sense, you just hate the reality of the message.
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.
love of war, propagation of US hegemonyI'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.
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
love of war, propagation of US hegemonyI'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
yeah, greenwald's liberal masochism is often anti-west enough for the conspiracy crowd. that's not new.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
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 goodconsciousconscience vote for this thing?
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.
AP is reporting in 2010 MG's private server was messing up State department computers they had to turn off their safety features.
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.
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:
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
The 47 Clinton Friends Who Mysteriously Turned Up Dead (Pt. 1)
http://lidblog.com/47-dead-clinton-friends-pt1/
The 47 Clinton Friends Who Mysteriously Turned Up Dead (Pt. 1)Wow! Makes you think.
http://lidblog.com/47-dead-clinton-friends-pt1/
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.
Way too many missed period opportunities
“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.
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.
does steve dave even know? :frown:
fill me in :ohno:
fill me in :ohno:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36074.msg1582133#msg1582133
does steve dave even know? :frown:
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Well, this is complete bullshit. What's our next angle to bring her down?
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.
That's stupid at this point.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I'm reading that the FBI might still remove Hillary's security clearance.
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.
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.
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
To be fair to Reno, he was paraphrasing the FBI's legal conclusion.
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.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741351028273086464
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741311272818475008
Dax is NOT going to let Hillary get away with a damn thing. Stay vigilant friend
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.
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?
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/
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."
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.
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.
What am i looking at here stunzy
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.
Renocat wouldn't survive the vetting process
Renocat wouldn't survive the vetting process
Tim Kaine? as VP?
It will be stupid and bad, no doubt.
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...
plus he's sort of from kc.
Kaine brings the Hillary corruption factor down from 11 to 10.5.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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.
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.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'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.
Kaine is awful, stop acting like he isn't
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.
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.
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.
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
Email is online dax
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.
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.
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'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!
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.
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time
bfd, even college gameday confiscates signs all the time
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??
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
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.
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.
Trump doesn't know what that means
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Overthrowing or trying to overthrow relatively stable, predominantly secular governments in the Middle East sounds like another good way.
Who said anything about being afraid of Russia? :shrug
this is an all time low for you john doug :frown:
Who said anything about being afraid of Russia? :shrug
Well, they kind of already have, so . . .
Well, they kind of already have, so . . .
And russia is still a little pissant so my point is really solid.
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.
Yeah, a 5000 nukes pissant. So if Russia is such a Pissant, why is Hillary calling Putin Hitler?
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.
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.
I think they already got the part of Ukraine that they wanted
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 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
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/julian-assange-hacked-emails-include-info-hillarys-arming-jihadists-including-isis-syria/
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F010%2F100%2Fdis_gon_be_good.gif&hash=220919efbfd44525f9e5d98e3646b1bf67925380)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/julian-assange-hacked-emails-include-info-hillarys-arming-jihadists-including-isis-syria/
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F010%2F100%2Fdis_gon_be_good.gif&hash=220919efbfd44525f9e5d98e3646b1bf67925380)
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?
Dax is going to be downright suicidal when Hillary cruises in November
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
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.
Well, they kind of already have, so . . .
And russia is still a little pissant so my point is really solid.
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
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 "from Vermont" thing is not really relevant, fyi. Everyone's from somewhere.
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.
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
"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,"
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.
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."
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
dax does hillary rent or own that space in your head?
dax does hillary rent or own that space in your head?
This is the Hillary Clinton thread. Weird post SB
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Whoever wins ohio will win. Nobody gaf about national polls.
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.
RIP Shahram Amiri :(
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.
Good newsQuoteWikiLeaks 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:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSc3XmWEAQR-TA.jpg)
Yep she's just an economic machine: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.
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
reagan had Alzheimer's while in office, fyi
Dax, when did Reagan die?'95 apparently
Sorry, I should have said sixteen, not six, and it was really more like fifteen.
The health and mental capacity rumors swirl with ever greater zeal.
evil genius criminal mastermind and also hapless invalid operating without the use of her mental faculties, all at once
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!)
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.
reagan had Alzheimer's while in office, fyi
The health and mental capacity rumors swirl with ever greater zeal.
Your guy alex jones is really running with this
Great point.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?
Is that why Hillary makes those crazy faces? She's having mini seizures?
Lib really clings to a lot of weird stuff. Strange, but predictable.
Hillary's VP seems awfully oscar Weberish.
Rush says Hillary isn't "all there" because she looked at her notes during a speechMaybe he was talking about eye sight? I mean, it's all on a teleprompter for them.
Rush says Hillary isn't "all there" because she looked at her notes during a speechMaybe he was talking about eye sight? I mean, it's all on a teleprompter for them.
because its crap lib7
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
Assange says murdered dnc dude leaked the emails not the Russians :horrorsurprise:
that video, lol
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...
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
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.
Clinton emails :zzz:
Back to the exciting Trump thread! :buh-bye:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes it is. Did anyone ever thing otherwise?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)
But guys, if you don't vote for this despicable human being the Republicans will put a bunch of Scalias on the Supreme Court.
Yes it is. Did anyone ever thing otherwise?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)
My uncle said when asked Bill said the show was 99% accurate. No clue if that was said or not.Yes it is. Did anyone ever thing otherwise?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)
Well, most liberals think the government is a benevolent god.
media :curse:
Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)
media :curse:
Compilation of CNN Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y60H5au3vo)
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.
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?
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:
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.
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:
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.
whoa, you love all that stuff SB? :frown:
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.
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.
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'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'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.
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.
whoa, you love all that stuff SB? :frown:
:curse: :curse:
https://twitter.com/realkingrobbo/status/762775921111826432
Who is doing that?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.
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.
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:
yes, gary johnson is super small-time. running a state with ~ 2 million people is not even remotely close.
yes, gary johnson is super small-time. running a state with ~ 2 million people is not even remotely close.
So, Arkansas then.
Get out the illegal vote!
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.
Man. What must it be like to spend a day in the life of dax?
I would think they'd want to continue unless they discover an easier way to make money.
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.
You might be the least self-aware person on the planet :lol:
Oh look sys cryptic strikes again with nothing, as usual.
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.
good lord, you idiots.
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:
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:
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.
I can't help to wonder why very rich ppl continue to throw money away if it doesn't buy them things.
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/
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.
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?
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.
More time fundraising over the past term?
Ppl betting on the person already in the job, knowing the percentages.
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.
And sys skyrockets up my chartsOh 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.
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.
Hey imagine that, illegal picked to run get out the vote by Clinton campaign has direct ties to Soro'sthis was a confusing post to read
Hey imagine that, illegal picked to run get out the vote by Clinton campaign has direct ties to Soro'sthis was a confusing post to read
We permanately deleted 33000 emails by mistake, hur hur hurOur foundation is not for profit.
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?
Always a good look to be the only person posting in a thread.
And that appears to be a common practice.
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.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.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.
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 ClintonOk. 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.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.
"everyone's doing it" is not an acceptable defense to breaking the law.
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.
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.
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.
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.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:
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.
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.Oh dax, you are right.
Ignore SDK, the IT illiterate.
I know you weren't. Latitude is tricky. I always thought Maine was farther north than Montana. But nope.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:
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?
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.
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?
:ohno:
https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/767867716157964288
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.
This is EXACTLY what I expected for her (Brooklyn) HQ.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11619355.1469741706%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.JPG_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_1280%2Fimage.JPG&hash=5f6f446a0d97f4c9abbe0037920ac93965628952)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11619379.1469741995%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.JPG_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_1004%2Fimage.JPG&hash=5e272e2f5f590d5d4c9b28ad005588bb65ac07f8)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11619349.1459788869%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.JPG_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_1004%2Fimage.JPG&hash=b6d54a08c7cf1b01de69bf45fe92473a9e78e998)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11619366.1459789808%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.JPG_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_1004%2Fimage.JPG&hash=1cac28d7123768a7358813e97b3166e43564b2de)
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.
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.)
that place has the 5 hour workday vibe the lazy millennials crave
Brooklyn huh? Yay gentrification!
If Julian Assange is murdered prior to releasing his election "game changer" ..........
Accepter of millions from horrible racists, talks racism?
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.
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.
you guys make a very, very strong case that hillary is in fact a moderate republican disguised as a democrat
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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?
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!
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!
She just doesn't have the guts to do stuff that will hurt her chances in the election!
Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy: "trump should show his tax returns" :zzz:
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
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?
I think trump doesn't use email
Lol at the resident Hilbots who are denying they're Hilbots
LOL at the resident alt-righters LOLing at the Hilbots.
LOL at the resident alt-righters LOLing at the Hilbots.
Let's see some @'s, chum
I think trump doesn't use email
I guess even if he does use email, it couldn't be any worse than his twitter.
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.
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.
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.
@dax, conspiracy theory alt-right
@stunz, alpha male/anti-PC alt-right
@fsd, racist/sexist alt-right
@ksuw, uneducated alt-right
@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
Oh gosh, ya know he wasn't authorized to delete those messages, shoot (concerned look), darn it to heck.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.
http://nyti.ms/2coUd5e
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.
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:
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
I think Alt-Right means fear and opinions are always correct and that facts are for muslim loving queers, or something.
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?
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.
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.
Dax's obsession with non-trump supporters is very weird and sad
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
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.
@closeted hilbot
@conflicted posers
@illcheckhilonelectionday
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.
@closeted hilbot
@conflicted posers
@illcheckhilonelectionday
You are such a giant pussy
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.
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.
What's the issue here? Heat exhaustion is no joke.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
That video makes me want to vote Clinton.
https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200
this is a bit sad
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.
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
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.
http://nyp.st/2c78dQ6
Tim Kaine: A lot like Trump
Tim Kaine: An even bigger friend to big finance than Hillary
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
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.
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.
Doesn't mix well with brain swelling blood clots, or whatever caused her to keel over a few years back.
Asking for someone's health records is a little bit ridiculous. I would never allow the public to see mine, and I'm healthy.
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.
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
Lol, nice edit.
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.
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.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.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.
Yeah, if I want someone to be president, I think whether or not they're physically able to do the job is relevant information.
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?
Infowars is a legitimate source - actual thing said by dax
these debates will be fascinating
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 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.
:cheers: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:
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?
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?
or maybe because our most of our medical record system is undigitized and therefore outdated.
or maybe because our most of our medical record system is undigitized and therefore outdated.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/
This is horrifying.
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.
or maybe because our most of our medical record system is undigitized and therefore outdated.
Yeah, that's it man
Hillary should just tell us all that she won't release the records because they are confidential.
A secretary of state would have their entire medical history integrated into one place and kept with the physician that travels when they travel.
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?
Libertarian will be 3rd by a good margin in either directionThank you.
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.
man. 4chan is a weird place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And they usually suck, save for Biden.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.
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
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.
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.
Very damning, for sure. Maybe now she will finally be indicted.
Very damning, for sure. Maybe now she will finally be indicted.
anything from trump foundation yet?
phew, was worried, though it didn't seem like anyone gave a crap anywhere on the internet
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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....
apparently I'm the only one who watched that breitbart or whatever film cat27 posted :don'tcare:
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
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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]
QuoteMilton 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
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.
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.”
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)
It was three months ago! Doesn't matter anymore!
#hilbotlogic
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.
Quotea source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department
Anyone hear about the Hillary body double conspiracy theory?? Definitely has some legs...
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.
So far just the once, but it was on pretty short notice so maybe they just keep one on retainer
maybe even more than that. you're paying for their silence as well.
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?
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?
there is no way a second human being on planet earth has the same alien mouth shape as reba
MIR has a thing for female singers with weird mouths
MIR has a thing for female singers with weird mouths
Does he like Jewel too?
do you guys think all of the bush's are voting for hillary or just the dad? surprised they aren't voting Johnson tbh.
do you guys think all of the bush's are voting for hillary or just the dad? surprised they aren't voting Johnson tbh.
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?
No way. Gotta treat the bd like the real. Otherwise ppl catch on.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Obama is so much better at those kind of thingsYup. She got pissed.
Meh. Some of it. You think she'd agree to some of those slams?
Meh. Some of it. You think she'd agree to some of those slams?
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.
Lib seems upset
Oh golly, Obama lied about his knowledge of Hillary's improper email services. No one is surprised.
It would be huge if he diddo you mean HUUUGE?
It would be huge if he diddo you mean HUUUGE?
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.
johnny o and treysolid putting clownsuits on the uranium conspiracy theorists like dax
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI[/youtube]
What about when reality TV show personalities run for president?
His Jesus president was an uneducated actor so I'm sure he's loving the reality TV star
You know stuff can just be funny, you don't have to "but Hillary!" literally everything
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?
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.
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.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comeys-clinton-immunity-1475017121Dax 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.
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.
Numerous people on her staff are taking the 5th, and we have people on this board denying Clinton has engaged in criminal activity. #SMHFSD 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?
I'd imagine these same people deny steroid use in baseball during the late 90's early 00's.
Hey Hillary your poster girl for abused women is an accomplice to murder and a porn queen;
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.Hey Hillary your poster girl for abused women is an accomplice to murder and a porn queen;
What is this?
Wikileaks dropping a bomb at 5am :Wha:
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?
“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.”
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.
Must be tbt
Hello. I'm an elite hacker. I use wordpress and have issues with file hosting solutions.
i'll take the crap out of that.
Good update, thx
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/what-is-the-point-of-tim-kaine-1787460446
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.
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.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34dJ7nheBaw[/youtube]
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
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.
I don't see any irony there, CF3.
would you think poorly of a man who didn't support and encourage other men who were rough ridin' his wife?
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
This WL stuff is super underwhelming
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
There are 6 pages on this blog over donald saying "grabbing pussy"
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.
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.
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.
Of course they are. They nominated him.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
Placing stories :facepalm:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784837207110606853
Of course they are. They nominated him.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
I bet most are still voting for Trump.Of course they are. They nominated him.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
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 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.
You said you'd never vote for a pro-choice candidate earlier this year, CF3.
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.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.
I bet most are still voting for Trump.Of course they are. They nominated him.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
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)
And 15k is laughable compared to the mainstream evangelicals who are going to vote for him in the millions.
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
What's something terrible that she said? I've read a couple articles and didn't think anything was terrible.
I didn't need any new evidence to confirm that she behaves like every major candidate for President ever.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.”
You should read outliers.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
:surprised:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/785529594778615813
what are the chances that whoever loses this election is imprisoned within the next year? it's not zero.
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912Wait is that the hidden camera abortion guy?
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785313930365263872
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785573385308962818
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785586566710304769
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FBilly%2520popcorn.gif&hash=43111ce45f20c7d7cdce3b75b8cc7826d5b2f2a3)
what are the chances that whoever loses this election is imprisoned within the next year? it's not zero.
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912Wait is that the hidden camera abortion guy?
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785313930365263872
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785573385308962818
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785586566710304769
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FBilly%2520popcorn.gif&hash=43111ce45f20c7d7cdce3b75b8cc7826d5b2f2a3)
:love:https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/781263804948774912Wait is that the hidden camera abortion guy?
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785313930365263872
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785573385308962818
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/785586566710304769
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FBilly%2520popcorn.gif&hash=43111ce45f20c7d7cdce3b75b8cc7826d5b2f2a3)
So the "bomb" today is that some election guy thinks there is maybe voter fraud because voters can wear burkas
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
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.
Quote from: Ed KleinBill 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.
Quote from: Ed KleinBill 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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
campaign clinton is a pandering dumbass. wikileaks clinton knows how to get things done.
Bombs!
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.
Bombs!
:Woot:
still waiting for the one where hillary says the n-word
who's her puppet master dax? big war?
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
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
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15616QuoteCheryl, 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
Clinton just shy of 50% in RCP poll average.I hope she is overconfident tonight.
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 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.
It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment.
she'll be evil for nobody's benefit besides those corrupt at the top.
i love you steve dave but i don't think even super alpha studs like us are included :frown:
"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"
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15560Quote"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:
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!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.4cdn.org%2Fpol%2F1476851541036.jpg&hash=e63155c8f8941f619c960881546fec637560acb1)
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?
also, there was a bomb threat right by this Clinton shadow ops organization today. Coincidence? obviously not.
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!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.4cdn.org%2Fpol%2F1476851541036.jpg&hash=e63155c8f8941f619c960881546fec637560acb1)
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!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.4cdn.org%2Fpol%2F1476851541036.jpg&hash=e63155c8f8941f619c960881546fec637560acb1)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15560Quote"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.
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 groupThe best.presidents.come.from.either.the.south or.rural.areas.
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?
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/
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:
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.
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
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.
Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/jay-z-hillary-clinton-concert/
The event -- which aides expect will draw thousands
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.
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.
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?
Damn
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
: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.
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.
: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.
Why would someone make the leap to irrationally hating Hillary, when there are so many rational reasons to hate her? Lazy?
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/791366720774606848
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/791462942944399361
zero. Lots of dorks in costumes tho.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/792050888957423616
How awesome would it be to have a newly elected president that is criminally pardoned by the outgoing president? :lol:
How awesome would it be to have a newly elected president that is criminally pardoned by the outgoing president? :lol:
How awesome would it be to have a newly elected president that is criminally pardoned by the outgoing president? :lol:
Interesting all the email stuff came after Kim Dotcoms tweets.
Interesting all the email stuff came after Kim Dotcoms tweets.
Post the tweets!
“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.”
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.
I think you mean Attorney General
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.
Clinton could quickly be disqualified from running for president just days before the election
I just don't "get" /r/the_Donaldi like the pepe memes a lot but everything else is so politically immature.
I just don't "get" /r/the_Donald
I just don't "get" /r/the_Donald
W E W L A D
E
W
L
A
D
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."
Man, the world will flip out when Comey is announced as new SOS or something.
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.
Dax is such a pessimist :frown:
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.
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.
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.
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
Dickileaks.
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.
anthony weiner is the hilarious gift that keeps on giving
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 tweetQuoteWhile 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?
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?
You all know House of Cards is about the Clintons right?
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.
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.
I will!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.
These people can't elp themselves
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793102680096968704
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793189117005860864
Uh oh, hilltard and the 1960's era cold war campaign
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793267599664615424
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
I have no clue who this 3,00 follower chick is, but :D
https://twitter.com/RealHeatherRoss/status/793539966039126017
Radio host Sean Hannity on Tuesday embraced a piece of fake news about President Obama deleting endorsements of Hillary Clinton from his Twitter account.
Oh yeah, that's the plane trump raped a 13yr old girl on and is currently being sued for it.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwJbihiWAAAzSU4.jpg:large)
This is for my boy stunz
(https://i.sli.mg/IYLqtE.gif)
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)
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.
Hillary Clinton trusted Anthony Weiner enough to have him help deliver a “secure phone” to her, new emails released by the State Department reveal.
FBI ‘has found damning new emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server on sexting-obsessed Anthony Weiner’s laptop
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
The Democratic National Committee Has Told the FBI It Found Evidence Its HQ Was Bugged
What's funny about the Obama cabinet list email rage is he still hired mostly white guys.
Taking this religion/occult direction is exactly what I needed
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!
FBI confirms email probe over. No changes since July.They roped us dopes.
https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/795264366547533824
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F166.gif&hash=77e0a9a5f729dbc1f4533d4611e0e5191c2add36)
“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."
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
“Get ready for war with Russia” if Hillary Clinton is elected president, said progressive Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein.
she has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others.
my 80 year old grandmother has a pc and uses it for: solitaire, email, facebook. only those three items. no google searches.
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
"Hello, Marina? Do you have those funny looking numbers I emailed for you to print out? I need them quickly."
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.
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
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.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indianz.com%2FNews%2F2016%2F04%2F20%2Fhillaryclintonbillclinton041916.jpg&hash=a8c529c466167e633a4406c55c0d516c3d981ffc)
:confused: + :lol:
What percentage of hillz do you suspect is bionic dax?
I'm already operating at max efficiency dax
dax's post led me to find out that there actually are hybrid toyota corollas
dax's post led me to find out that there actually are hybrid toyota corollas
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indianz.com%2FNews%2F2016%2F04%2F20%2Fhillaryclintonbillclinton041916.jpg&hash=a8c529c466167e633a4406c55c0d516c3d981ffc)
:confused: + :lol:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161108%2Fca109ab7715254bd6ba6e7adbbd0e36a.png&hash=9199c98b3840fcc496ba0b5f282071bdfb70ad86)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161108%2F46a21586b62f7099aa5949e3575e663c.png&hash=82747b62ed1464f65b8f5b3f692114a74c754301)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indianz.com%2FNews%2F2016%2F04%2F20%2Fhillaryclintonbillclinton041916.jpg&hash=a8c529c466167e633a4406c55c0d516c3d981ffc)
:confused: + :lol:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161108%2Fca109ab7715254bd6ba6e7adbbd0e36a.png&hash=9199c98b3840fcc496ba0b5f282071bdfb70ad86)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161108%2F46a21586b62f7099aa5949e3575e663c.png&hash=82747b62ed1464f65b8f5b3f692114a74c754301)
Is she wearing a magic carpet?
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.
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?
Dax how is it that she lost the election but is still completely in your head?
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.
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.
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:
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:
bold prediction bcog, but i bet she dies first
Serious question...do you know anything about the person that your quote comes from?QuoteCNN 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?QuoteCNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.
temperament
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
She's a younger Bernie with polish.
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.
Like Obama?
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:
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.
Tulsi has some really strong Modi ties that are uncomfortable. That dude literally leads ethnic cleansing riots.
Corey Booker or Tammy Duckworth. (President Duckworth sounds like a cartoon character imo, but whatevs.)
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:
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:
Why is the word, "pardon" even being brought up in regard HRCWP? I thought she didn't do anything wrong.
Wow
Wow
During election night coverage, it was reported on TV that the Clinton campaignkicked outKilled all journalists when things started looking really bad for them.
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.OMG! :love:
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.OMG! :love:
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hipster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.
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.
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, MIRNo, 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, MIRNo, 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.
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 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.
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
Yeah, votes for a national office should totally be given different weights depending on where you live within the nation.
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
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.
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.
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.
can barely form complete sentences.
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.
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes
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.
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?
QuoteNarcissism 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!QuoteNarcissism 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.
Wow
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.
LOCK HER UP!
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.
Screw Trump. This just means that we'll get her indicted in 2020.
Clinton charity donations dropping like a rock tho
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.
Oh yeah I forgot that comey is back to being an evil Democrat operative now that he didn't recommend to indict
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
It's sort of alarming that the number isn't higher than 62%.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rebel delegate who communicated directly with Clinton campaign faces possible prosecution.
Sad that they tried to commit election fraud . . . Again
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.
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.
I would think there is a whole shitload of republicans, in races everywhere, that want her to be the sole challenger to them.
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
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/818248752150482944
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
It's comical at this point.
http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor
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
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.
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?
I'm not into the Clinton's kill people donald colluded with russia dopey conspiracy theory stuff.
They also act like they're arguing with someone that harvey is a huge POS, as if there was anybody out there defending him
So like, people should not trash harvey now if they didn't in the past? :confused:
DONER
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.
There’s no sleazeball lib, that lib won’t defend.
Sad
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.
There’s no sleazeball lib, that lib won’t defend.
Sad
No sleaseball r you won't vote for president
What do you think should be done in light of these accusations, Dax?
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.
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.
What do you think should be done in light of these accusations,DaxFSD?
What do you think should be done in light of these accusations,DaxFSD?
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.
QuoteA 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
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.
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?
Do you feel better now Dax? It’s like the itch you just can’t scratch huh
Do you feel better now Dax? It’s like the itch you just can’t scratch huh
Thanks, I just won $1.
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 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.
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."I thought Comey said Hillary would be gross in a negligee.
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?QuoteComey: 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?
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.
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.
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.
:surprised:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/362234-clintons-understated-support-from-firm-hired-by-russian-nuclear-company?amp
I’m stunned you commented on it...... :lol:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/362823-clinton-on-matt-lauer-every-day-i-believe-more-in-karma
:D
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.
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?QuoteComey: 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?"
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?QuoteComey: 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?"
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/942343647126867969
:lol:
I sure hope sessions has never sent any derogatory texts about Hillary
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.”
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.”
Is her analysis really that off?
Is her analysis really that off?
You would think with that super low center of gravity, she couldn't fall.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76EuMPDCWfs[/youtube]
You can't be serious. "Didn't like black people getting rights". A quixotic delusion
Is her analysis really that off?
Yes.
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."
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912917702499
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."
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:
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.
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.
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
Oh Dax :lol:
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
Gregg’s timeline is something else :sdeek:
I don’t know how anyone could believe some of this garbage, but apparently a lot do.
Actually I’m a critical thinker so I digest info from stuff I see and form an opinion.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.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:
Happy 6th anniversary to the Hillary indictment watch thread.
i really fail to see how Biden can avoid directly responding to the Truth Hammer
[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.You really ought to be more careful to verify citations (or lack of same) on your news consumption, man.
https://twitter.com/MajorPatriot/status/1254867251016196096
[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.You really ought to be more careful to verify citations (or lack of same) on your news consumption, man.
https://twitter.com/MajorPatriot/status/1254867251016196096
Gotta love someone worth $50 million still grinding on that side hustle, throwing 1k at commodities.
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.
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.
I'm perfectly fine with mega corruption as long as it's Democrats doing it
I'm perfectly fine with mega corruption as long as it's Democrats doing it
Whatever makes you feel better. Pure, unfettered evil doesn’t deserve much better iyam.
albeit circumstantial
lmao
lmao
https://twitter.com/GSElevator/status/1302258988533321728
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.
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.
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.
So you're saying Trump is guilty as eff.That would be a no DerpPappy
So you're saying Trump is guilty as eff.That would be a no DerpPappy
as a rule you should assume a tweet from anyone whose twitter handle includes ", Esq." is total horseshit