Hillary Clinton

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

O'Keefe hits Hilary with clear proof of a felony. But it's a law which few people understand, fewer care about (hell, I'm not even sure that should be illegal) and probably won't gain any more attention than last time. Remember last time, with deleting the emails? Yeah, nothing happened.

Anyway, at least three felonies now that anyone with reading comprehension and the law in front of them can clearly see she's guilty of.

As per Dilbert guy, Trump is losing the persuasion game. Hillary framed him as a racist sexist dangerous man who can't handle nuclear codes and people are eating it up. Trump framed her as crooked but while people believe it, they simply don't care.

"

Xavderion wrote:

As per Dilbert guy, Trump is losing the persuasion game. Hillary framed him as a racist sexist dangerous man who can't handle nuclear codes and people are eating it up. Trump framed her as crooked but while people believe it, they simply don't care.

What's funny about that is...

Liberal guy: Don't you see that Trump was talking with Bush like some kind of sexual predator?

Me: Who cares? All men talk like that with other guys. Don't you see that Clinton is serial liar who constant lives in a legal and ethical gray area?

Liberal guy: Who cares? All politicians are like that. Plus, why do you believe that O'Keefe guy anyway? He selects from the raw footage content that delivers a presentation which wears its bias on its sleeve.

Me: Who cares? All media are like that.

It would be nice if we had higher standards for both Presidents and journalists... but if we only can raise standards for one of them, I'd choose President.

ARGGHHNooOOooOo my Mom just sent in her absentee ballot (to a battleground state, no less!) and she voted for Hillary "Liar Hawk" Clinton. NO oo Oo O oO o OOo !1!

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

You don't even believe that, we won't have to speculate for long though.

<3 how the Hillary Clinton thread is derailed by Mr. Trump, kind of like how the Clinton Campaign is distracted by Mr. Trump IRL. :)

Everyone is so distracted by Mr. Trump that we're going to end up with President Clinton, does that make you happy? The DNC fought to push him ahead in the Republican primaries for a reason, a real opponent like Kasich would have exposed Clinton's weakness and put her away for good. Instead she runs against a buffoon and we have to deal with her for, most likely, the next 8 years.

Trump's supporter base has a lot of enthusiasm. But the campaign itself is behind the curve in terms of organization and message. To ensure a win, Trump's campaign needs to:

Start running lots of ads (they need to hammer the message home).

Showcase Trump as being presidential - with thought and understanding placed before action.

Emphasize that Hillary is the one more likely to get us into a nuclear war by showing her Bomb Iran speeches and Trump proclaiming that he would follow the same nuclear doctrine that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan and everyone else has followed.

Mobilize his supporters. The campaign needs to let everyone know that if they don't show up, Hillary WILL win, and that this may be their last chance to prevent a permanent oligarchy.

"

LostForm wrote:

Just a pondering:


So Hillary starts with campaigns as a 'Goldwater Girl'. And summarily switches parties. Eventually she is working for the prosecution team, working very hard if ineffectively to make it hard on Nixon, who is ultimately found to be a crook even with the power and tools of the executive office.

Fast forward to Hillary post SoS duties, you don't think that there are aspiring lawyers of all manner working very hard if ineffectively for the investigative teams to make it difficult for Clinton? Why was her outcome different ?

Three primary possibilities come to mind:

1) the prosecuting team fears the aftermath of President Hillary after a failed prosecution. They may think their chances are good of conviction, but worry about the slight chance of failure and the chance that the president could simply render a pardon.

2)The prosecuting team (or decision makers of) are corrupt and in league with Hillary.

3)The prosecuting team feels that the crimes are committed and that they could easily win. However, they do not feel that the level of the crimes compares to the stakes of presidency. Under this scenario, if Hillary were just an ex secretary of state not running for anything, she would already be charged with numerous crimes.

IMO - it's a mix of 2 and 3. The fact that #2 is even a possibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the GOP. They could have and should have intervened with a special prosecutor and have seized Hillary's server with a warrant long ago.

The ineptitude on all sides is perfect evidence that competency does not scale with job responsibility.

^ FBI anon said that too many very important people are in it with Hillary. That's why nobody wants to prosecute, the whole crooked building would fall apart and utter chaos would ensue.

.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

O'Keefe hits Hilary with clear proof of a felony. But it's a law which few people understand, fewer care about (hell, I'm not even sure that should be illegal) and probably won't gain any more attention than last time. Remember last time, with deleting the emails? Yeah, nothing happened.

Anyway, at least three felonies now that anyone with reading comprehension and the law in front of them can clearly see she's guilty of.

As per Dilbert guy, Trump is losing the persuasion game. Hillary framed him as a racist sexist dangerous man who can't handle nuclear codes and people are eating it up. Trump framed her as crooked but while people believe it, they simply don't care.

The latest update from "Dilbert Guy":

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party

"

Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.

I’ll say that again.

As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.

Intentionally.

As I often say, I don’t know who has the best policies. I don’t know the best way to fight ISIS and I don’t know how to fix healthcare or trade deals. I don’t know which tax policies are best to lift the economy. I don’t know the best way to handle any of that stuff. (And neither do you.) But I do have a bad reaction to bullies. And I’ve reached my limit.

I hope you have too. Therefore…

I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms.

I don’t defend Trump’s personal life. Neither Trump nor Clinton are role models for our children. Let’s call that a tie, at worst.

The bullies are welcome to drown in their own bile while those of us who want a better world do what we’ve been doing for hundreds of years: Work to make it better while others complain about how we’re doing it.

Today I put Trump’s odds of winning in a landslide back to 98%. Remember, I told you a few weeks ago that Trump couldn’t win unless “something changed.”

Something just changed.

=^[.]^=

.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

So Americans with Mexican heritage apparently don't factor into Dilbert Guy's analysis of turning Americans against each other. In other words it only matters if you turn white Americans against each other.

There are people who have immigrated here from Mexico legally. There are people who have immigrated here from Mexico illegally. Trump's policies have nothing against the former; if anything, he's working to justify the extra time and effort they've taken to do things the right way. People who have followed the rules have nothing to fear.

You, on the other hand, are assuming that, because people with Mexican heritage have Mexican heritage, they'd favor people coming into the United States illegally. If you ask me, assuming someone's political beliefs based on their ethnicity is pretty darn racist.

In short, the only people Trump is targeting with his policies are criminals who broke the law to come here, and those who defend them. It's pretty unpopular to call them criminals, and pretty popular to defend them, these days; it's like the word "illegal" doesn't carry its proper pejorative connotation anymore, and immigration law is something to be mocked. I actually can entertain the notion that immigration law might deserve some mockery, that it maybe should be easier on both the immigrant and on government budgets. But whatever our immigration law becomes, I would insist that Americans respect that law enough that government enforces it, rather than permitting or even advocating widespread lawlessness.

.