Hillary Clinton

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

That feel when the conspiracy theorists were 100% right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

That's some scary shit right there.

Yep.

So now we're expected to believe these recent claims of decade-old sexual predation?

I can't say that all of them are false .. yet. But each one I have seen examined seems to fall apart.

Apparently mighty CNN - which proclaimed that there were some planes still had arm rests that went up - lacks the ability to do any real investigative journalism.

Here are the flights from that time frame and locations and none of the planes have arm rests that go up.



Essentially, it is looking as if Jessica Leeds' story is a falsehood. If you watch her video interviews, you will see where she mentions a man sitting first class across from her and wondering why that man didn't help her.

THAT MAN has come forth as a witness. Here is what he had to say about it:

“What she said about Trump is wrong. Indeed, Gilberthorpe claimed, Leeds was “trying too hard” in her attempt to win Trump over.

“Undoubtedly it was her,” he said. “I have a good photographic memory. I recognized her.” He said he contacted the Trump campaign because he didn’t like that Leeds said that another passenger sat by while she was molested.

Gilberthorpe, 54, said he was sitting across the first class aisle from the couple and saw nothing inappropriate. Leeds was wearing a white pantsuit, he said, while Trump was wearing a suit and cuff-links, which he gave to his British flight companion.

“She wanted to marry him,” Gilberthorpe said of Leeds, who apparently made the confession when Trump excused himself and went to the bathroom. There was no kissing, but the “shrill” Leeds was “very much in your face” with the real estate developer.
Gilberthorpe is even challenging Leeds to a public confrontation.

“I will go to head to head with her — I will meet her again. I will see her eyes across the table with my eyes and I will challenge her on the points she made. And I’ll tell you what, I would do this whether it was for Trump, for Clinton, for Obama, or for any man who’s been accused of sexually molesting someone when I know he did not,” he said.

Leeds could not immediately be reached for comment."

Am I the only one who think this is immensely scary that Hillary keeps threatening Russia with war in her discourses. Like seriously she want that war to happen?


that's how a WW3 could be started.

imagine that, people in the southern conservative state of Louisiana strongly favored the more center southern Christian candidate with a positive view from American black voters than the socialist north-eastern Jewish candidate.

the system must be rigged. Also, O'Malley.


Lets not even go into how diverse the republican vote must of been, very Christian and very rigid in a lot of Louisiana, I am sure several of the candidates on the republican side had traction. Chris Christie also does very well in Louisiana as a big-business friendly candidate

Also those places with strong abnormality for Clinton are almost certainly going to go to republican candidate by any name (well, maybe not trump).

Also get over it, the DNC wanted Hillary, the people it just so happened also wanted Hillary. GG.

"

LostForm wrote:

Also get over it, the DNC wanted Hillary, the people it just so happened also wanted Hillary. GG.

I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion. I honestly don't think we'll ever know if the people wanted Sanders more, or not. He wasn't given a chance for us to fairly determine that.

It doesn't really matter, because primaries are structured to be more like polls and less like elections; the DNC could run whomever they felt like, really, and it wouldn't be against any rules. That's what having a super-delegate system means.

The primaries were rigged in Clinton's favor. There's no rational way to look at the evidence and think otherwise. But rigging isn't off the table in primaries. You might disagree with it, and you should disagree with it, both morally and as a practical matter if fielding the best candidate... but it's not illegal or scandalous. It's merely status quo.

So do we need more party apparatus's or less? I mean, the DNC invited Sanders to caucus with them to begin with. So then are they really worried about him running as republican? Was he powerful enough of a candidate to carry third party? Is that why they brought him in? To 'rig' it against him? Or did he actually present an alternative to Hillary and we chose Hillary?

"

LostForm wrote:

So do we need more party apparatus's or less? I mean, the DNC invited Sanders to caucus with them to begin with. So then are they really worried about him running as republican?

Why ask us this? The DNC and Hillary's staff discuss all of this in the leaked emails. You can see for yourself in their own words, what they had planned, their strategies, where things weren't following plans etc for the other candidates.

Maybe, if I have more time, I will post a few more pages from the study - the two links given before debunk your theories in post-reply #1706460. They already considered them, weighed the data with and without them and determined that the results were actually worse (in terms of voter fraud) given the factors you mentioned.

You don't need to get into the actual data analysis to see what I am talking about, unless you enjoy that sort of thing.


.....

Meanwhile, back on the Soros' ranch, we have that lovely lady - a model of harmonious decorum, who professes to be so concerned about what we are teaching our daughters...

Hillary gives us a prefect example of how we should behave in private vs in public, by dropping the N bomb.

"Tracey Martin, a former travel chef for the Clintons during their time in the White House, said in a radio interview with WBEN's Tome Bauerle that Hillary, in a moment of anger, referred to a black man as, "That n-----!"

In the interview, Martin told the radio host, "I was doing an event at the Elizabeth Taylor Medical Center in Washington, which is an HIV AIDS clinic, and I was doing a tea prior to the public press party, and that was with Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Jacques Chriac, the former president of France's wife. A gentleman of color came in with something and it did not please [Clinton] the way it was, and when he walked out she says, 'That...' and then she uses the n-word.

According to Martin, racist comments were not uncommon coming from Hillary during his time with the Clintons.

"You know, they think nothing of it because there's not press around," Martin told the host. "After you've been around them long enough, whether it be the Clintons or the Kennedys or whoever, once they feel comfortable with you their guard is let down."

Martin has worked for both the Clintons and the Kennedys, as well as cooking for other heads of state:

Look at the primary results map. There is a definite trend to the results. He crushed in the west/north west and the very far north east, she won handedly in the south east and the south in general. The mid west was close in every state.

You should have had your bullshit detector go off when you try to equate a 50 point victory in a state to voter fraud. Ya Bernie, he was gonna win it with out those .3% being fixed for him. You don't think people of Louisiana would have noticed? Get a clue.

"

LostForm wrote:

Look at the primary results map. There is a definite trend to the results. He crushed in the west/north west and the very far north east, she won handedly in the south east and the south in general. The mid west was close in every state.

You should have had your bullshit detector go off when you try to equate a 50 point victory in a state to voter fraud. Ya Bernie, he was gonna win it with out those .3% being fixed for him. You don't think people of Louisiana would have noticed? Get a clue.

From your statements, I wonder whether you gave the study I linked even a cursory glance.
The study was published June 7th, and as of that date they had analyzed 31 states with voting and they compared and contrasted the results with the states with caucusing as well. The national "trend to the results" as you put it, was the subject of their analysis.

"

LostForm wrote:

imagine that, people in the southern conservative state of Louisiana strongly favored the more center southern Christian candidate with a positive view from American black voters than the socialist north-eastern Jewish candidate.

They examined race and ideology:
"The numbers show that even when adjusting for the percentage of African-Americans in the state and the role of political ideology, as the risk of electoral fraud increases, so too does the claimed level of support for Secretary Clinton. "





Here's an example of what Louisiana data without fraud looks like:







In comparison here's what Louisiana's data looked like with fraud:






The study authors looked at the data in numerous ways and looked at alternative explanations, but the alternatives failed to hold up under analysis. When they looked at the nation as a whole, it got much worse. The chance that something fishy wasn't going on is literally off the charts.









But, you don't have to take their word for it. Like any reputable scientists, they have the raw data they used available for other people to analyze. It is about 4.3 megs as an Excel spread sheet.

Feel free to do your own analysis on it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGRjVtVmdORlRTc0k/view

Hillary condemns Donald Trump for Chicago rally violence. You know, the violence her party incited.

http://archive.is/LOsCm

"

Xavderion wrote:

Hillary condemns Donald Trump for Chicago rally violence. You know, the violence her party incited.

http://archive.is/LOsCm

Hillary and Violence are stronger together..