2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

6,051 to 6,100 of 7,079 << first < prev | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:


Why would Comey be worried about leaks? Because Trump is keeping up the pressure, demanding justice. That is LEADERSHIP...

It may be called leadership, but to me it certainly doesn't sound like he wants justice. It looks exactly like he just wants her out of the way so he can grab power.

Shouting for someone to be imprisoned without a trial or even evidence is just sad. Doing so for obvious political gains is disgusting. And not questioning the motives of those shouting loudest is stupid.

:-(


Isn't threatening to jail your opposition if you win undemocratic?

Or threatening not to accept the results if you lose for that matter....

This election has devolved into a game show.


I don't think you are using the word "undemocratic" correctly.

Both sides have said stupid things and it has been a stupid reality show from the get go.

Saying he would jail her has nothing to do with democracy. Rather, it is more base on due process.

Saying he wont accept the results is pointless. It doesn't matter if he doesn't accept them as facts are fact. He will win or lose. Nothing he can do about it. Calling for a recount isn't something he can just do. If it is close or seems suspicious, he can apply for one though which is something that is permitted, even if it is annoying. Again, his statement has nothing to do with democracy. Besides, if Trump wins, how many people on Hillary's side would say it is rigged? There is stupid on both sides and only the stupid think there isn't.

Enjoy deciding on voting on either a giant douche or a turd sandwich. I'll be here shaking my head either way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:

I don't think you are using the word "undemocratic" correctly.

Both sides have said stupid things and it has been a stupid reality show from the get go.

Saying he would jail her has nothing to do with democracy. Rather, it is more base on due process.

Saying he wont accept the results is pointless. It doesn't matter if he doesn't accept them as facts are fact. He will win or lose. Nothing he can do about it. Calling for a recount isn't something he can just do. If it is close or seems suspicious, he can apply for one though which is something that is permitted, even if it is annoying. Again, his statement has nothing to do with democracy. Besides, if Trump wins, how many people on Hillary's side would say it is rigged? There is stupid on both sides and only the stupid think there isn't.

Enjoy deciding on voting on either a giant douche or a turd sandwich. I'll be here shaking my head either way.

He's not talking about a recount. As you say, there are standards and processes in place for that. He's not even talking about anything that he can do about it that will reverse the election. He's talking about it to fire up the base, make them angry, think the whole election was stolen by lying Crooked Hillary. What he hopes to get out of it is unclear - other than an excuse for losing.

What we get out of it is a good chunk of the Republican base voters who will believe Clinton stole the election and isn't really president. Since many Republican politicians will be beholden to the same crowd, that's a serious problem. A threat to us dealing with any of the real problems we face.

And lose the false equivalency. There will be some on Clinton's side saying the same if she loses - with considerably more justification considering how the polls and other data look, but she's not pushing it and there's no huge groundswell of conspiracy theory about it.

Trump's statements on jailing Clinton have said little about due process and much more about claiming guilt without any such process. Clinton's had due process - she's been investigated again and again, by the FBI, by multiple Congressional committees, etc. They've never found anything worth charging her over. Even the partisan committees can't.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Actually, there have been a significant number of Johnsonites taken from Clinton's camp. A lot of it is from Bernie-Or-Busters who were really just in the game because they didn't want a woman to be president.

Sorry, dude, but I just gotta say WTF?

They're real liberals, rather than third way blue dogs (like Clinton), but their objection to her is that she's a woman?

I don't know what you're smoking but it's some really good ****!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Actually, there have been a significant number of Johnsonites taken from Clinton's camp. A lot of it is from Bernie-Or-Busters who were really just in the game because they didn't want a woman to be president.

Sorry, dude, but I just gotta say WTF?

They're real liberals, rather than third way blue dogs (like Clinton), but their objection to her is that she's a woman?

I don't know what you're smoking but it's some really good ****!

So the "real liberals" are supporting the former Republican governor and general idiot who's all about dismantling progressive institutions?

It might not be because she's a woman, but I've got a hard time letting Johnson supporters claim the "real liberal" title by default.

And if you think sexism isn't playing a role in this race, you're living in a different country than I am.

Silver Crusade

Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Actually, there have been a significant number of Johnsonites taken from Clinton's camp. A lot of it is from Bernie-Or-Busters who were really just in the game because they didn't want a woman to be president.

Sorry, dude, but I just gotta say WTF?

They're real liberals, rather than third way blue dogs (like Clinton), but their objection to her is that she's a woman?

I don't know what you're smoking but it's some really good ****!

No no, Libertarians, not Liberals. I know, I used to make that mistake all the time.


It's not catnip, that's for sure.

We don't understand what cats see in it, we're not buzzed at all!


4 Out of 10 Doctors wrote:

It's not catnip, that's for sure.

We don't understand what cats see in it, we're not buzzed at all!

I used to think that, but then I realized I was making tea with cat-sized portions, so one afternoon I sat down and ate three pounds of it. It's a pretty fun high, but there's no reason to do it unless you want tell people you've been high on catnip, you know?


thejeff wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:

But saying it just paid off on Friday. There is no way James Comey wanted to open this can of worms. He either goes down in history as torpedoing Hillary’s presidential campaign, or the guy who tried to torpedo Hillary’s presidential campaign. The Republicans already hated his guts, now the Democrats do too*.

Reading his letter to Congress, it is obvious he did it because he had no choice. If he didn’t do it, someone under him was going to leak it, and it would look like a cover up.

Well, if that someone under him actually has anything he should go ahead and leak it, because currently it looks like nothing. Or at least it looks like they know nothing, certainly not enough to sink an election over. There are apparently some emails they found working on a different case. The FBI doesn't have a warrant for them yet. They haven't read them yet. They're apparently not from Clinton. They don't know yet if they're classified. They don't know yet if they're just different copies of emails they've already looked at. Basically, they know nothing. Comey's said they know nothing.

But he released it anyway. There's no reopening the investigation. There's no indictment coming. There's only what looks increasing like a blatant political act on the part of a partisan FBI director.

Hope that whistleblower leaks the real goods that'll finally take down Clinton soon. After all these years and all the scandals that haven't panned out, this one will do it for sure!

Edit: If it was not partisan interference, it was ineptitude. A serious blunder. The FBI (and the DoJ in general) has policies designed to prevent exactly this kind of impact on politics.

The Republicans had pegged Comey as being Obama's tool in closing the investigation earlier. Presumably he wanted to keep his chances at getting a sweet post-public berth open.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The Republicans had pegged Comey as being Obama's tool in closing the investigation earlier. Presumably he wanted to keep his chances at getting a sweet post-public berth open.

And Democrats had him pegged as partisan for smearing her while closing the investigation. But yeah, he may just be looking to his next job, instead of doing the one he has.


Jaçinto wrote:

I don't think you are using the word "undemocratic" correctly.

I meant attempting to intimidate your opponent with threats of jailing them should you win is not in the spirit of democracy. The reasons he cites are nonsense as all investigations against her have found nothing, if he jails her he'll be no different than democratically elected dictator.

I'm not American, but if I was I would've voted for Sanders.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The Republicans had pegged Comey as being Obama's tool in closing the investigation earlier. Presumably he wanted to keep his chances at getting a sweet post-public berth open.

And Democrats had him pegged as partisan for smearing her while closing the investigation. But yeah, he may just be looking to his next job, instead of doing the one he has.

Keep in mind that most people in Washington view public service as the revolving door to the upper echelons of a corporate ladder.


cmastah wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:

I don't think you are using the word "undemocratic" correctly.

I meant attempting to intimidate your opponent with threats of jailing them should you win is not in the spirit of democracy. The reasons he cites are nonsense as all investigations against her have found nothing, if he jails her he'll be no different than democratically elected dictator.

I'm not American, but if I was I would've voted for Sanders.

He's echoing the Populist sentiments held by many that Clinton belongs in jail... for being Clinton. Me being the half-Translyvanian I am, am of the opinion that someone who can get away with all she's been peggged for, is the kind of mega-genius I want at the helm.

Keep in mind that Poltifact gave Clinton a considerably higher score than Sanders for the believability, honesty, and accuracy of her statements


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... it may help to remember that many Republicans simply assume she's guilty. Possibly because that's what they've been told over and over. If she "gets off", that's only more evidence of how powerful and nefarious she is. The fact that she hasn't been convicted of a crime is basically immaterial to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm impressed, Dicey.

Also, the last bunch of posts reminded me:

While holding aloft my "Stop Police Brutality" sign outside of the Radisson, intermingled with the Hillary staffers, we were all approached by three Trump supporters. One of them was pretty confrontational, standing in front of the Hillary staffers, insulting them, asking them where they went to school, etc., etc.

When he got to us, he looked at my sign and said, "You're protesting, huh? You voting for Trump?" I screwed up my face and said "F!$! no!" but before we could get into it, one of the NH Green Party members piped up about Jill Stein.

The Trumper turned his attention to them, and I didn't pay much attention to what they were talking about, but I did hear the Trumper get disgusted and loudly exclaim: "A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Hillary!"

Third party candidates get it from all sides, I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'm impressed, Dicey.

Also, the last bunch of posts reminded me:

While holding aloft my "Stop Police Brutality" sign outside of the Radisson, intermingled with the Hillary staffers, we were all approached by three Trump supporters. One of them was pretty confrontational, standing in front of the Hillary staffers, insulting them, asking them where they went to school, etc., etc.

When he got to us, he looked at my sign and said, "You're protesting, huh? You voting for Trump?" I screwed up my face and said "F*%* no!" but before we could get into it, one of the NH Green Party members piped up about Jill Stein.

The Trumper turned his attention to them, and I didn't pay much attention to what they were talking about, but I did hear the Trumper get disgusted and loudly exclaim: "A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Hillary!"

Third party candidates get it from all sides, I guess.

Those Trumpers really had no idea who Jill Stein is if they think she's taking votes from Trump. They should be down on their knees, thanking her for being in the race.


Actually, he knew exactly who Jill Stein was and seemed pretty well abreast of current affairs.

I took it as an example of the binary-thinking that pops up every four years around here: a vote for someone other than my candidate is a vote for my enemy.

Anyway, I'll double down on Citizen Cleaver's proffered bet and add that, actually, the polls for Brexit predicted a pretty neck-and-neck race, which is what ended up happening. The polls I've seen for the presidential election are nowhere near as close, although the latest 538 projections do have Hillary's chances dropping from the high eighties to around 75%.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Actually, he knew exactly who Jill Stein was and seemed pretty well abreast of current affairs.

If he was that abreast, he'd realise that the St3einer voter demographic is almost entirely Democrat. So she's mainly taking votes from Clinton. The same way Ralph Nader took almost all of his from Gore. Which is why the Republicans funded him.


And my Facebook feed reveals that both La Principessa's Anarcho-Syndicalist Guatemalan Playwright Friend and the Dominican Kid Who Runs the Leftie Group in Nearby Lawrence, MA/No On 2 Staffer are both heading out to Standing Rock.

[Clenched Fist Salute]

I'll be doubling down and doing overtime for the next two months.

:(

EDIT: Nevermind, it's some kind of slacktivist internet campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Actually, he knew exactly who Jill Stein was and seemed pretty well abreast of current affairs.

If he was that abreast, he'd realise that the St3einer voter demographic is almost entirely Democrat. So she's mainly taking votes from Clinton. The same way Ralph Nader took almost all of his from Gore. Which is why the Republicans funded him.

Yeah, I think he knew that.

Also, we already went over this: Nader took his votes, at least in Florida, equally from Gore and Bush and most of them claimed to be former Perot voters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The one who "self-financed" his entire primary campaign?

Also, the one who's losing big time and is far behind in the money race. Who knows he's losing and isn't bothering to put more of his own money into the game.

Spastic Puma wrote:

"Trump has shown us that you don’t need a billion dollars or more to run for President"

...
Really? REALLY? The guy who's a rich business man? The one who's entire identity revolves around making money and mastering the "art of the deal"? The guy who sticks his name on skyscrapers, steaks, vodka, etc. and whatever else he can (attempt) to make a profit off of? The one who owns his own private jets?

The guy who has used his own private real estate and transportation the entire campaign and paid for it using donation money so that it all gets funneled back into his company?

Wow. Just, wow.

Yes really. If you don't believe me, . Hillary Clinton has raised over $1 billion, Donald Trump has half of that.

I will agree he “self-financed” his entire primary campaign, he did it with $56 million of his money and all that press coverage.

You are going to see people follow this route first with congressional races, both at the state and the federal level. There the overall monetary needs are lower. From there it will only be a matter of time before someone tries it for governor and then eventually president once again. By that time they will need a lot less than the $500 million of capital to make a presidential run, relying even further on social media and the networks than Trump did.

As for “losing big time”, I already said this election is going to be close and I still say it will be close.

This still doesn't address the heart of my post. Trump's identity and claim to fame IS HIS WEALTH. He's a rich guy by anyone's definition.

You know it.
I know it.
Saying that Trump proves that you don't need to be rich to run for president is literally the most ludicrous example you could have chosen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
That's like arguing that a spark plug is the only thing that matters for a car. I mean, sure, if everything else is there, but that spark plug won't do jack if you're missing the engine block. To put it another way, Ohio and Florida matter because California and Texas are locked up.
Texas is locked up you say?
Given that the Libertarians have pretty much thrown in the towel, that 4 percent could pretty much lock it up for Trump. They sure as hell won't vote for a Democrat, and especially not a Clinton.

Sorry for such a late response (I don't peruse the forums on the weekends, generally). As a libertarian (the ideology, not the party), I will most likely end up voting for Clinton very, very begrudgingly, and followed shortly by a heavy amount of drinking. I don't predict this Friday will be terribly fun for me.


James H Kunstler:

Quote:
Over the weekend, the astounding news story broke that the FBI had not obtained a warrant to examine the emails on Weiner’s computer and other devices after three weeks of getting stonewalled by DOJ attorneys. What does it mean when the Director of the FBI can’t get a warrant in a New York minute? It must mean that the DOJ is at war with the FBI.
Quote:
Earlier this week, lawyers at the DOJ attempted to quash a parallel investigation of the Clinton Foundation. They must be out of their minds to think that story will go away. Isn’t it about time that a House or Senate committee subpoenaed Bill Clinton to testify under oath about his June airport meeting with Loretta Lynch. He doesn’t enjoy any special immunity in this case.

Note: Kunstler is the author of the excellent Geography of Nowhere books. For a long time, he was one of my favorite commentators, and I always enjoyed his clusterf#!$ nation blog, and eyesore-of-the-month architecture critiques. In the last few years however, has come out with some well, odd views on some subjects.

I think James Comey’s announcement was basically a bunch of nothing that everyone is making political hay with, to push their own interests. I also think Bill visiting Lynch's plane for a half hour while Hillary is under investigation is the exact type of thing that makes people not trust the Clintons. {Bill appointed Lynch a U.S. attorney in 1999} And before anyone tries - no, I don't believe they were talking about their grandkids while sitting on the runway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
So she's mainly taking votes from Clinton. The same way Ralph Nader took almost all of his from Gore.
Also, we already went over this: Nader took his votes, at least in Florida, equally from Gore and Bush and most of them claimed to be former Perot voters.

As an actual Floridian, I can't let Nader take the blame for this. Yes, Nader received 97K+ votes in Florida, and yes, Gore lost the state by 537 votes. But losing by a mere 537 votes is squarely on Gore/Lieberman, the DNC, and lazy Florida Dem voters. If they had run a better campaign and busted butt to GotV, they would have covered those 537 votes easily. Here's a free hint: if you're running as an actual Dem, don't pick a feckless prickly uncompromising Repub-in-Dem's-clothing !sshole like Lieberman as your running mate; if you do, you can't blame Nader for scooping up voters you deliberately steered Right away from.

Everything that happened afterwards was a sh!tshow, sure, but don't blame Nader for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our vehicles are a lot safer because of his efforts.

Silver Crusade

captain yesterday wrote:
Our vehicles are a lot safer because of his efforts.

*nods*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Our vehicles are a lot safer because of his efforts.

Sadly, regardless of vehicle, far too many Floridian drivers are unsafe at any speed.


Unreal.... HC is trying her damnest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

I'm like a teenager watching a soap opera... just what is in those damn emails!!! LOL


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Our vehicles are a lot safer because of his efforts.
Sadly, regardless of vehicle, far too many Floridian drivers are unsafe at any speed.

I can attest to this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
just what is in those damn emails!!! LOL

The emails are like those wrapped presents you find as an older kid that are hidden in your parents' closet or under their bed. When you finally get to open them Christmas morning, there might be a toy or game you wanted, but most of them are new socks or pajamas or underwear. And then there's always a handful of weird unexpected stuff from other relatives, like strange dollar-store candy or a young kids boardgame or a weird re-gifted book that you find a risotto recipe tucked in. The expectation never comes close to the reality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

Unreal.... HC is trying her damnest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

I'm like a teenager watching a soap opera... just what is in those damn emails!!! LOL

Nobody knows. Even Comey and the FBI don't know. Which is why it was so important they torpedo the election over them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hold Everything!

Once people see this shirt vest this election, and perhaps even the next election will be OVER!

Sing it for me, John Ashcroft!

I think I need to go drink until I pass out, or at least pour some gasoline on my eyes and ears...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like this one better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A comment on a Washington Post article about the emails:

Quote:

Today's GOP:

Candidate admits to past sexual assault, then 11 women step forward to substantiate it: "nothing to see here, move along."

GOP FBI director writes one-page letter saying "although I've yet to see a single one of these e-mails on Huma's laptop, we need to re-open the investigation". Today's GOP response: "She's *obviously* guilty, lock her up!"


Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
So she's mainly taking votes from Clinton. The same way Ralph Nader took almost all of his from Gore.
Also, we already went over this: Nader took his votes, at least in Florida, equally from Gore and Bush and most of them claimed to be former Perot voters.

As an actual Floridian, I can't let Nader take the blame for this. Yes, Nader received 97K+ votes in Florida, and yes, Gore lost the state by 537 votes. But losing by a mere 537 votes is squarely on Gore/Lieberman, the DNC, and lazy Florida Dem voters. If they had run a better campaign and busted butt to GotV, they would have covered those 537 votes easily. Here's a free hint: if you're running as an actual Dem, don't pick a feckless prickly uncompromising Repub-in-Dem's-clothing !sshole like Lieberman as your running mate; if you do, you can't blame Nader for scooping up voters you deliberately steered Right away from.

Everything that happened afterwards was a sh!tshow, sure, but don't blame Nader for it.

Yeaaaah, it seems like Democrats can be a bit too quick to blame "spoilers" and ignore lessons that need to be learned. Spoilers are only successful in an election when you produce a weak candidate.

It was sort of irritating on Samantha Bee's show when she claimed that Maine's terrible governor has won his last two elections because the Democratic Party kept getting "spoiled". If the Independent candidate is getting more votes than the Democrat, newsflash: They aren't the spoiler. The Democrat is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.

I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.


Old news is good news, it's completely safe to have an opinion on. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.
I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.

Or how many people will blow over the fact that I put "primary" in my link description and not care...


Hitdice wrote:
Old news is good news, it's completely safe to have an opinion on. :P

Well, it isn't old news. She just resigned 2 weeks ago because of the information coming out. It was in my newsfeed today. (Granted, anti-Dem stuff is slow in my newsfeed because I tend to have pro-Dem clicking habits.)


Caineach wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.
I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.

It's an interesting situation.

First off, Clinton should have sent an email back saying they in no way, no how, would accept that kind of aid and please don't send them that stuff.

Save the email and publish it (how's that for hidden emails) when the press jumps on it.

Secondly, the story is kind of weird. So, she was a CNN contributor, but when the entire DNC thing came down, she separated from CNN.

Now, both when she was at CNN and after, she didn't have access to those questions...

So...

How did she get them???

PS: Also, on that posting of Ashcroft singing...my ears do not thank you.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
So she's mainly taking votes from Clinton. The same way Ralph Nader took almost all of his from Gore.
Also, we already went over this: Nader took his votes, at least in Florida, equally from Gore and Bush and most of them claimed to be former Perot voters.

As an actual Floridian, I can't let Nader take the blame for this. Yes, Nader received 97K+ votes in Florida, and yes, Gore lost the state by 537 votes. But losing by a mere 537 votes is squarely on Gore/Lieberman, the DNC, and lazy Florida Dem voters. If they had run a better campaign and busted butt to GotV, they would have covered those 537 votes easily. Here's a free hint: if you're running as an actual Dem, don't pick a feckless prickly uncompromising Repub-in-Dem's-clothing !sshole like Lieberman as your running mate; if you do, you can't blame Nader for scooping up voters you deliberately steered Right away from.

Everything that happened afterwards was a sh!tshow, sure, but don't blame Nader for it.

Everything you said is true, but the only way Nader can't be pegged for at least PART OF THE BLAME, would be to show evidence that he was a neutral influence, i.e. did he take away as many votes from the Republican side as he did from the Democrat. And the answer is going to be... NO. Nader's voters generally align more towards the Democratic take on issues than the Republicans. Ergo.. he was going to wind up taking more votes away from the Democrats. The Republicans knew this and so they funneled money into his campaign, which he deliberately accepted. I would say it's quite probable that in Florida Nader took at least 600 more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and I'd warrant the figure is larger than that.


All-in-all, Gore and Nader share the blame for that mess. Actually, there was probably voting fraud going on there, so maybe Gore, Nader and Bush should share it. :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
All-in-all, Gore and Nader share the blame for that mess. Actually, there was probably voting fraud going on there, so maybe Gore, Nader and Bush should share it. :P

That I can fully agree with. The myriad faults of the Gore campaign were lampshaded hilariously on Doonesbury, from renderings of the Gore Bot to Gore trying to figure out if this was a week to praise Clinton or bury him in his campaign strategy.

I'd leave out blaming Bush. It was after all his JOB to win the race.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.
I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.

It's an interesting situation.

First off, Clinton should have sent an email back saying they in no way, no how, would accept that kind of aid and please don't send them that stuff.

Save the email and publish it (how's that for hidden emails) when the press jumps on it.

Secondly, the story is kind of weird. So, she was a CNN contributor, but when the entire DNC thing came down, she separated from CNN.

Now, both when she was at CNN and after, she didn't have access to those questions...

So...

How did she get them???

She was a vice-chair of the DNC while she was a CNN contributor. When she became chair, she stopped being a CNN contributor, but that was after these debates/questions.

I suspect this kind of thing happens more often than we think. There's a lot of crossover between media figures and political consultants and campaigns. CNN hired Corey Lewandowski when he left Trump's campaign but was still getting severance pay and was still under Trump's standard "Don't say anything bad about me" contract.

We're getting glimpses into the nastier parts of the Clinton campaign because Wikileaks is targeting her, but that doesn't mean the others are clean. Just they haven't been exposed.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
All-in-all, Gore and Nader share the blame for that mess. Actually, there was probably voting fraud going on there, so maybe Gore, Nader and Bush should share it. :P

That I can fully agree with. The myriad faults of the Gore campaign were lampshaded hilariously on Doonesbury, from renderings of the Gore Bot to Gore trying to figure out if this was a week to praise Clinton or bury him in his campaign strategy.

I'd leave out blaming Bush. It was after all his JOB to win the race.

Yes, but with allegations of fraud, I think he might have gone a bit far on that front. Maybe not. Nothing was proven, after all.


Nothing found in Hillary's emails? No, I watched some of the congressional hearing. They found stuff. She released stuff that was labeled confidential. She just claimed she didn't notice. So, now ignorance is an excuse? From what I saw, the FBI said there was wrongdoing but they did not believe they could get anyone willing to prosecute, so they dropped it. That's not saying she did nothing wrong in any way. That's saying yeah, she did some shady stuff but meh, whatever.

For people saying it is all the hate is just because she is a woman, then wow. No. Look up stuff outside the echo chambers. Look into stuff outside of TYT and CNN. It is about being against someone for being a scumbag, and yes Trump is also a scumbag. People are saying both are trash but Hillary is getting media protection from being more publicly known as trash.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The instructions for changing the toilet paper rolls at the Pentagon are probably labelled "confidential." It is literally the lowest level of classification possible.

Carelessness != criminality.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
All-in-all, Gore and Nader share the blame for that mess. Actually, there was probably voting fraud going on there, so maybe Gore, Nader and Bush should share it. :P

That I can fully agree with. The myriad faults of the Gore campaign were lampshaded hilariously on Doonesbury, from renderings of the Gore Bot to Gore trying to figure out if this was a week to praise Clinton or bury him in his campaign strategy.

I'd leave out blaming Bush. It was after all his JOB to win the race.

Can I blame Jeb Bush for his attempts to throw the state to his brother? And his Secretary of the State, Katherine Harris, for doing the dirty work. Mostly voter purges and the like?

6,051 to 6,100 of 7,079 << first < prev | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards