Hillary Clinton: What happened

1111214161720

Comments

  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,570
    JimmyV said:
    If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

    I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

    Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

    IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.
    but it isn't necessary anymore....it was necessary when there wasn't instant news.  
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 11,174
    JimmyV said:
    If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

    I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

    Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

    IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.
    but it isn't necessary anymore....it was necessary when there wasn't instant news.  

    Not sure what you mean here. Instant news doesn't change us from being a large geographic country with diverse political and economic priorities. The EC protects against candidates simply running up the score on the coasts or in the deep south and declaring victory.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,570
    JimmyV said:
    JimmyV said:
    If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

    I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

    Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

    IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.
    but it isn't necessary anymore....it was necessary when there wasn't instant news.  

    Not sure what you mean here. Instant news doesn't change us from being a large geographic country with diverse political and economic priorities. The EC protects against candidates simply running up the score on the coasts or in the deep south and declaring victory.
    Sure it does...it puts the candidate right in front of you regardless of where they are.  They campaign that way.

    If Clinton just campaigned in CA, NY, etc. tRump would have been all over that.  My guess is that going to popular vote would actually force the candidates to visit each state MORE frequently.  


    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,771
    Carlos Danger gets 21 months in the clink  
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,205
    edited October 5
    This was great, really enjoyed it. Thank you, Hillary. :)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-notes-hillary-clinton_us_59d5c75ee4b0cde45872e445?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    And yes, thank heavens we didn't end up with an emotional and unstable president because that would have been a nightmare.




    Post edited by Kat on
    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    Kat said:
    This was great, really enjoyed it. Thank you, Hillary. :)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-notes-hillary-clinton_us_59d5c75ee4b0cde45872e445?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    And yes, thank heavens we didn't end up with an emotional and unstable president because that would have been a nightmare.




    If this keeps up over the next 2 election cycles expect many thank you(s) from republicans.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • JC29856 said:
    Kat said:
    This was great, really enjoyed it. Thank you, Hillary. :)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-notes-hillary-clinton_us_59d5c75ee4b0cde45872e445?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    And yes, thank heavens we didn't end up with an emotional and unstable president because that would have been a nightmare.




    If this keeps up over the next 2 election cycles expect many thank you(s) from republicans.
    They might as well say thank you now.  I immediately thought of this after watching it. 27-30 especially.



    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 17,205
    Id still vote for her today & twice on Sunday intead of the Orange bafoon , the man is a disgrace !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,771
    Miley crying and writing a thank you note to Hillary on Fallon's show ... a thank you note?  Thanks for having no personality and somehow losing to an orange repugnant clown?  

    Let us remind Miley of how election night went for Hillary ...


  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,771
    Hillary hid away instead of focusing and spending time in six key states because she thought she had it in the bag. Worst campaign ever.

    Maybe the next dem candidate will think about having some cheese curds and a PBR with the so called deplorables instead of hanging out with Clooney in Hollywood.   

    No Thank You, Hillary.  
  • https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertainment/celebrity/trump-jr-feuds-with-kimmel-‘you’re-probably-due-for-a-change’/ar-AAt23ht?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp
    Trump Jr. and other Republicans have called on Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to return past donations from Weinstein in the wake of the harassment allegations. A number of Democrats, including Schumer, have returned donations.
    "Weird, Hillary has been really quiet about Harvey Weinstein," he tweeted. "You would think she would be all Over this."
    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
  • LizardLizard So CalPosts: 11,809
    Kat said:
    This was great, really enjoyed it. Thank you, Hillary. :)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-notes-hillary-clinton_us_59d5c75ee4b0cde45872e445?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    And yes, thank heavens we didn't end up with an emotional and unstable president because that would have been a nightmare.




    D'oh..... no shit eh??

    Is it over yet? #ITMFA
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,399
    Wait. Some Democrats in America are hypocrites as well?!?! And Jr. is a hypocrite for caring about Weinstein, but condoning his father?!? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertainment/celebrity/trump-jr-feuds-with-kimmel-‘you’re-probably-due-for-a-change’/ar-AAt23ht?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp
    Trump Jr. and other Republicans have called on Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to return past donations from Weinstein in the wake of the harassment allegations. A number of Democrats, including Schumer, have returned donations.
    "Weird, Hillary has been really quiet about Harvey Weinstein," he tweeted. "You would think she would be all Over this."
    so Trump is accused, and he's elected president. Weinstein is accused, and the dem's are responsible for returning money he gave them? so then shouldn't trump give back the presidency?
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,720
    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertainment/celebrity/trump-jr-feuds-with-kimmel-‘you’re-probably-due-for-a-change’/ar-AAt23ht?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp
    Trump Jr. and other Republicans have called on Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to return past donations from Weinstein in the wake of the harassment allegations. A number of Democrats, including Schumer, have returned donations.
    "Weird, Hillary has been really quiet about Harvey Weinstein," he tweeted. "You would think she would be all Over this."
    so Trump is accused, and he's elected president. Weinstein is accused, and the dem's are responsible for returning money he gave them? so then shouldn't trump give back the presidency?
    Yes please.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 29,009
    edited October 25
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    omg


    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    chinese-happy.jpg
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,265
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 29,009
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.

    Figures this non news would bring our conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks




    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,049
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.

    Figures this non news would bring our conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks




    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    The Republican spin machine is in overdrive as trump brilliantly displays his unfitness for the Office. His racist base will always be there for him. The independents and blue dog Dems not so much. Ship is a sinking.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,049
    7Xs X 4Xs Follow the money.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.
    I have a nice tweet for you in about 24hours... You will enjoy it!!
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 29,009
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.

    Figures this non news would bring our conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks




    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    The Republican spin machine is in overdrive as trump brilliantly displays his unfitness for the Office. His racist base will always be there for him. The independents and blue dog Dems not so much. Ship is a sinking.

    Two republican senators are warning us that our republican president is a danger to our democracy.....but....but the dems paid for opposition research (which happens to be be true)! Look at the new shiny object that we ignored back in January!
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    edited October 25
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.

    Figures this non news would bring our conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks




    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    Non-news?  Seems like a lot of news outlets, including CNN, think it is pretty newsworthy right now.  I’m no fan of Trump, but I think it’s great that the Clintons are finally getting exposed too.  I guess Russian collusion is fine with some around here as long as it was the dems doing it?
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 29,009
    edited October 25
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.

    Figures this non news would bring our conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks




    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    Non-news?  Seems like a lot of news outlets, including CNN, think it is pretty newsworthy right now.  I’m no fan of Trump, but I think it’s great that the Clintons are finally getting exposed too.  I guess Russian collusion is fine with some around here as long as it was the dems doing it?


    Did you ignore this when CNN reported it in January?


    And it seems like you are confused about the collusion thing...

    chinese-happy.jpg
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.

    Figures this non news would bring our conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks




    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    Non-news?  Seems like a lot of news outlets, including CNN, think it is pretty newsworthy right now.  I’m no fan of Trump, but I think it’s great that the Clintons are finally getting exposed too.  I guess Russian collusion is fine with some around here as long as it was the dems doing it?


    Did you ignore this when CNN reported it in January?


    And it seems like you are confused about the collusion thing...

    Are you keeping up?  This has a lot more to do with than just that dossier. Starting to show a long history of Clinton collusion with Russia and the Clinton foundation being heavily funded (bribed?) by Russians.  As is said so many times here...”follow the money”.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,205
    I'm sure not glad she's not the president. She would have been great and actually supported our Constitution. 
    Since the collection of opposition research is a long tradition with politicians, her organization collecting it is no big deal at all...just like it's no big deal who the Republican was who initially contracted with Fusion to collect the data on trump. It'll be interesting when that identity is revealed though. ) What's more important is, is the stuff in the dossier accurate? What's real and what isn't?
    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,265
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    JC29856 said:
    Speaking of New York

    And so the worm turns. Make that worms.

    Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

    Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

    The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

    News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

    The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

    The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

    In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

    Anybody surprised? Me neither.


    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/



    Nope, Clinton’s have been chasing dirty money for years.  Not surprised at all, glad she is not the President.

    Figures this non news would bring our conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks




    Top link on Drudge right now. GET.YOUR.NEWS.FROM.BETTER.SOURCES.


    CNN reported this exact same thing in January.....they also reported, accurately, that it was originally ordered and funded by a GOP donor and after Trump secured the nomination it was picked up by the dems in mid summer 2016. Wow--politics!


    The dossier is real. It has been corroborated. The fact that republicans and democrats paid for it means nothing. What's in it means everything.

    Non-news?  Seems like a lot of news outlets, including CNN, think it is pretty newsworthy right now.  I’m no fan of Trump, but I think it’s great that the Clintons are finally getting exposed too.  I guess Russian collusion is fine with some around here as long as it was the dems doing it?
    Is that a joke? How were you able to type that without breaking into fits of laughter?
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    Kat said:
    I'm sure not glad she's not the president. She would have been great and actually supported our Constitution. 
    Since the collection of opposition research is a long tradition with politicians, her organization collecting it is no big deal at all...just like it's no big deal who the Republican was who initially contracted with Fusion to collect the data on trump. It'll be interesting when that identity is revealed though. ) What's more important is, is the stuff in the dossier accurate? What's real and what isn't?
    As well as “are the rumors about the uranium one deal benefiting the Clinton foundation true”.  Lots of truths starting to surface.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
Sign In or Register to comment.