Hillary won more votes for President

rgambs

JimmyV said:

It requires a huge leap of faith to take up the Clinton camp's position on this. With Trump and Cruz looming on the other side...the leap is too large for me. As Democrats double down on this it feels increasingly like we are heading towards a bad end.

The insider support for Clinton is baffling. If she gets the nomination and then is indicted it will be a disaster. Even if she doesn't get indicted she is a much hated, scandal ridden candidate.
The DNC would have done better with almost anyone, but they are all in for Clinton. It makes very little sense.

JC29856

rgambs said:

JimmyV said:

It requires a huge leap of faith to take up the Clinton camp's position on this. With Trump and Cruz looming on the other side...the leap is too large for me. As Democrats double down on this it feels increasingly like we are heading towards a bad end.

The insider support for Clinton is baffling. If she gets the nomination and then is indicted it will be a disaster. Even if she doesn't get indicted she is a much hated, scandal ridden candidate.
The DNC would have done better with almost anyone, but they are all in for Clinton. It makes very little sense.

Sure seems like she been fairly confident about being the nominee for the last 8 years.
She certainly not naive to think the "Ken Starrs" wouldn't be snooping.

mrussel1

rgambs said:

JimmyV said:

It requires a huge leap of faith to take up the Clinton camp's position on this. With Trump and Cruz looming on the other side...the leap is too large for me. As Democrats double down on this it feels increasingly like we are heading towards a bad end.

The insider support for Clinton is baffling. If she gets the nomination and then is indicted it will be a disaster. Even if she doesn't get indicted she is a much hated, scandal ridden candidate.
The DNC would have done better with almost anyone, but they are all in for Clinton. It makes very little sense.

How is it baffling? She has spent 30 years building a network of contacts, contributors, resources, etc. You don't build networks in your job every day? You don't leverage those networks when you need them?

I'm sure you've all seen the latest Trump v Sanders/Clinton in the WSJ/NBC poll. Both of them clobber Trump. So even as a 'much hated, scandal ridden candidate', she kills Trump. And negative ads are not going to hurt Hillary materially. She's been lambasted by right wing media and ads for years.

Now here's some more interesting info from ABC

JC29856

Nope nothing here...carry on towards the nomination.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/uproar-over-hillarys-role-honduran-coup-grows-her-campaign-denies-any-connection

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Nope nothing here...carry on towards the nomination.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/uproar-over-hillarys-role-honduran-coup-grows-her-campaign-denies-any-connection

I suggest you don't vote for her.

JC29856

How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — Benjamin Netanyahu and finally get back at Bill for his encounters with that women.

I will do everything I can to enhance our strategic partnership and strengthen America’s security commitment to Israel, ensuring that it always has the qualitative military edge to defend itself. That includes immediately dispatching a delegation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to meet with senior Israeli commanders. I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the Oval Office for some revenge sex in my first month of office.

Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/#ixzz42SYFYDOI

JC29856

Hillary speaking at the AIPAC conference in DC later this month.

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

JimmyV said:

It requires a huge leap of faith to take up the Clinton camp's position on this. With Trump and Cruz looming on the other side...the leap is too large for me. As Democrats double down on this it feels increasingly like we are heading towards a bad end.

The insider support for Clinton is baffling. If she gets the nomination and then is indicted it will be a disaster. Even if she doesn't get indicted she is a much hated, scandal ridden candidate.
The DNC would have done better with almost anyone, but they are all in for Clinton. It makes very little sense.

How is it baffling? She has spent 30 years building a network of contacts, contributors, resources, etc. You don't build networks in your job every day? You don't leverage those networks when you need them?

I'm sure you've all seen the latest Trump v Sanders/Clinton in the WSJ/NBC poll. Both of them clobber Trump. So even as a 'much hated, scandal ridden candidate', she kills Trump. And negative ads are not going to hurt Hillary materially. She's been lambasted by right wing media and ads for years.

Now here's some more interesting info from ABC

How many of us would be able to so successfully leverage our personal and professional networks in a quest for higher office while under investigation by the FBI? Not many, right? That is what is baffling.

JC29856

The American public deserves to read the words of a $250,000 Shakespearean speech.

JC29856

Yup...
https://youtu.be/L6PRUIdCors

brianlux

Things are getting interesting.

JC29856

Nope, no pattern here

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.
Mr. Clinton personally pocketed a record $750,000 speech fee from Ericsson, one of the firms at the center of the sanctions debate.

JC29856

Nope nothing wrong here...
Mr. Clinton’s Swedish fundraising shell escaped public notice, both because its incorporation papers were filed in Stockholm — some 4,200 miles from America’s shores — and the identities of its donors were lumped by Mr. Clinton’s team into the disclosure reports of his U.S.-based charity, blurring the lines between what were two separate organizations incorporated under two different countries’ laws.
But there is growing evidence that the Clintons did not run certain financial activities involving foreign entities by the State Department, such as the Swedish fundraising arm and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative based in Canada, or disclose on her annual ethics form the existence of a limited liability corporation that Mr. Clinton set up for his personal consulting work.

The ethics agreement the Clintons signed in 2009 with the State Department stated that if a foreign government chose to “elect to increase materially its commitment, or should a new contributor country elect to support” Mr. Clinton’s charitable causes, “the Foundation will share such countries and the circumstances of the anticipated contribution with the State Department designated agency ethics official for review.”

JC29856

Talk about a speech, knute rocknean speech!

The telecommunications giant Ericsson didn’t make any contributions to the Swedish fundraising entity set up by Mr. Clinton, but it did pay the former president a record $750,000 for a speech in Hong Kong in November 2011, just weeks after Mrs. Clinton released the first sanctions list that excluded Ericsson and other Swedish firms.

Bentleyspop

JC29856 said:

Nope, no pattern here

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.
Mr. Clinton personally pocketed a record $750,000 speech fee from Ericsson, one of the firms at the center of the sanctions debate.

Thought I would help you out since you forgot to post a link for attribution for an article from June, 2015. That was published in a very right wing conservative "newspaper"....

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/?page=all

JC29856

Bentleyspop said:

JC29856 said:

Nope, no pattern here

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.
Mr. Clinton personally pocketed a record $750,000 speech fee from Ericsson, one of the firms at the center of the sanctions debate.

Thought I would help you out since you forgot to post a link for attribution for an article from June, 2015. That was published in a very right wing conservative "newspaper"....

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/?page=all

I have a questions for the board...if a fact is presented from a "right wing" or "left wing" publication, does it make it any less of a fact/true statement?

Example...Billy received $750,000 from Ericsson, is this only true if it is reported by a "center wing" publication?

When replies need to mention that this article came from a right wing conservative newspaper aren't they implying that the reader may not be smart enough or may be an idiot by not being able to comprehend editorial opinion from facts?

JC29856

Another question but this is real not rhetorical...why did Hillary have to rush and send Chelsea an email about Bengazi? What was Chelsea capacity at the time... that with all that was going on at the moment the Sec of State had to hurry and email her daughter?

JC29856

JC29856 said:

Another question but this is real not rhetorical...why did Hillary have to rush and send Chelsea an email about Bengazi? What was Chelsea capacity at the time... that with all that was going on at the moment the Sec of State had to hurry and email her daughter?

"Diane Reynolds"

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Another question but this is real not rhetorical...why did Hillary have to rush and send Chelsea an email about Bengazi? What was Chelsea capacity at the time... that with all that was going on at the moment the Sec of State had to hurry and email her daughter?

I'm sure if you read the transcripts from the five or however many investigations teh GOP has funded, you can find the answer.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Bentleyspop said:

JC29856 said:

Nope, no pattern here

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.
Mr. Clinton personally pocketed a record $750,000 speech fee from Ericsson, one of the firms at the center of the sanctions debate.

Thought I would help you out since you forgot to post a link for attribution for an article from June, 2015. That was published in a very right wing conservative "newspaper"....

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/?page=all

I have a questions for the board...if a fact is presented from a "right wing" or "left wing" publication, does it make it any less of a fact/true statement?

Example...Billy received $750,000 from Ericsson, is this only true if it is reported by a "center wing" publication?

When replies need to mention that this article came from a right wing conservative newspaper aren't they implying that the reader may not be smart enough or may be an idiot by not being able to comprehend editorial opinion from facts?

It may be a fact that Ericsson paid 750k for a speech, but Wash Times (which is a notorious rag) attributed that it was because of this sanctions list. That is assumptive, accusatory and possibly not factual. So yes, it absolutely matters the context in which something is written. Is Ericsson under investigation by the DOJ? What about the FTC? They do brisk business in the US. These are important details that an investigative piece would explore.

If you recall last week, you strategically cut and paste paragraphs from the LA Times and NY Times that supported your position, but excluded paragraphs that immediately followed that reflected a different position. Those are real newspapers with real journalist. So yeah, it matters.

Not trying to be a dick, for real, but you practice confirmation bias pretty heavily.