A new substitute for sexual assault, first it was "infidelity" now its "relationship".
Bob Schieffer: “How have we come to this? This is supposed to be a campaign for the most powerful office of the land. Here we’re marching in women into the hall who supposed to have some relationship with one of the candidate’s spouses. What’s that supposed to prove?”
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
Interesting. I read the WikiLeaks with that Abe Lincoln story. The Abe Lincoln story is in the WikiLeaks.
So is part of a WikiLeaked speech where she says this to Wall Street about her fiscal policy, praising the Simpson Bowles plan that the radicalized flanks of each party rejected, at the peril of our economy: 1. We'll cut spending 2. We'll increase revenue 3. We'll incentivize job growth. Makes sense as an economic policy to me. What right wing Republican is against that? That's a Wikileaks I can get behind.
There was another WikiLeak where she tells those good-for-nothing bankers that before the housing bubble even burst, she was speaking out against their practices and nobody listened. She hopes in the future they will hold themselves to a higher standard, that our democracy depends on their transparency and trustworthiness, that it's taken a long time to recover and that politicians should have done a better job with the American people in the beginning to explain what was happening. It was hardly a pandering moment. To me, it read like she was taking them to task.
The last one I remember reading was that she wished she didn't have to fundraise obnoxious amounts, but she's not fool enough to lose a race because she's been outspent by an opponent under the Wild West of Citens Umited campaigning. Sounds like practical strategy to me.
So, I've read enough today of what was leaked to see that there really is a whole lot of nothing, that as usual people are pulling crap out of context. No crimes committed, Clinton saying things to Wall Street I've heard her say in open air.
My question is . . . If Julian Assange is so awesome at hacking, why can't he produce full speeches that reveal something more than a story about Abe Lincoln??? I keep hearing these Wikileaks are going to take down Clinton. So far, not. I like Clinton even more after reading them in their entirety.
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
This was a missed opportunity and her team should be ashamed of themselves for not providing her with a better response to this question she knew might come up. In the moment my wife and I came up with the same response, and I was able to articulate it in real time... What she should have said was: Yes, I have public and private position on many issues. My private position is that of my own beliefs and convictions and my public position is the one that I am best able to determine is the will of the electorate. It is not my job as an elected representative to enact my own will in government, it is my job to enact the will of those whom I represent. Bam. Lost opportunity.
The other big lost opportunity is when Trump says things like, "30 years, why didn't you get all that done already" and "why haven't you defeated ISIS", "I will beat ISIS so fast" and yada yada She needs to say flat out to the people: "Do not let Trump convince you that these issues are as simple as he makes them out to be." "Trump isn't the only smart person, believe it or not, and if geopolitics were as simple as he thinks they are, we wouldn't have any problems to begin with" and "One person in the Senate does not have the power to enact all of the laws and fix all of the problems in the way they see fit, in fact, the Constitution is designed to prevent that very thing from happening, which would essentially be a dictatorship."
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
Interesting. I read the WikiLeaks with that Abe Lincoln story. The Abe Lincoln story is in the WikiLeaks.
So is part of a WikiLeaked speech where she says this to Wall Street about her fiscal policy, praising the Simpson Bowles plan that the radicalized flanks of each party rejected, at the peril of our economy: 1. We'll cut spending 2. We'll increase revenue 3. We'll incentivize job growth. Makes sense as an economic policy to me. What right wing Republican is against that? That's a Wikileaks I can get behind.
There was another WikiLeak where she tells those good-for-nothing bankers that before the housing bubble even burst, she was speaking out against their practices and nobody listened. She hopes in the future they will hold themselves to a higher standard, that our democracy depends on their transparency and trustworthiness, that it's taken a long time to recover and that politicians should have done a better job with the American people in the beginning to explain what was happening. It was hardly a pandering moment. To me, it read like she was taking them to task.
The last one I remember reading was that she wished she didn't have to fundraise obnoxious amounts, but she's not fool enough to lose a race because she's been outspent by an opponent under the Wild West of Citens Umited campaigning. Sounds like practical strategy to me.
So, I've read enough today of what was leaked to see that there really is a whole lot of nothing, that as usual people are pulling crap out of context. No crimes committed, Clinton saying things to Wall Street I've heard her say in open air.
My question is . . . If Julian Assange is so awesome at hacking, why can't he produce full speeches that reveal something more than a story about Abe Lincoln??? I keep hearing these Wikileaks are going to take down Clinton. So far, not. I like Clinton even more after reading them in their entirety.
Couple questions Who said Assange is the hacker? Where are you hearing that this leaks will take down Clinton? Assange and wiki, the horses mouth never said that.
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
Interesting. I read the WikiLeaks with that Abe Lincoln story. The Abe Lincoln story is in the WikiLeaks.
So is part of a WikiLeaked speech where she says this to Wall Street about her fiscal policy, praising the Simpson Bowles plan that the radicalized flanks of each party rejected, at the peril of our economy: 1. We'll cut spending 2. We'll increase revenue 3. We'll incentivize job growth. Makes sense as an economic policy to me. What right wing Republican is against that? That's a Wikileaks I can get behind.
There was another WikiLeak where she tells those good-for-nothing bankers that before the housing bubble even burst, she was speaking out against their practices and nobody listened. She hopes in the future they will hold themselves to a higher standard, that our democracy depends on their transparency and trustworthiness, that it's taken a long time to recover and that politicians should have done a better job with the American people in the beginning to explain what was happening. It was hardly a pandering moment. To me, it read like she was taking them to task.
The last one I remember reading was that she wished she didn't have to fundraise obnoxious amounts, but she's not fool enough to lose a race because she's been outspent by an opponent under the Wild West of Citens Umited campaigning. Sounds like practical strategy to me.
So, I've read enough today of what was leaked to see that there really is a whole lot of nothing, that as usual people are pulling crap out of context. No crimes committed, Clinton saying things to Wall Street I've heard her say in open air.
My question is . . . If Julian Assange is so awesome at hacking, why can't he produce full speeches that reveal something more than a story about Abe Lincoln??? I keep hearing these Wikileaks are going to take down Clinton. So far, not. I like Clinton even more after reading them in their entirety.
Couple questions Who said Assange is the hacker? Where are you hearing that this leaks will take down Clinton? Assange and wiki, the horses mouth never said that.
Let me restate: If *the hackers* are so awesome, why can't they give Assange something more substantial to post?
I can't even believe you've asked the second question. But to answer, spend an hour or two each morning watching Washington Today on C-Span. There's not a morning that goes by without a caller screaming about Hillary being a crook and the WikiLeaks proving it. Last night post debate, it was every other caller.
I know I'm being lazing here and not reading back several pages but why are we talking about Bill Clinton here? Other than of how he might influence this election or if Hillary wins how he might affect the presidency, why is Bill up on stage here?
And I wonder about this- other than in the technical, legal sense, are Hillary and Bill even a couple any more?
This is only slightly about Bill anymore. Hillary now has to answer for her victim shaming. This is now about her actions. The Clinton campaign opened this can of worms. Trump has to anwer for his actions and Hillary has to answer for her's.
You're incorrect here. Trump dropped his nuclear bomb. Done. But this is old news to everyone and has been litigated in the press 20 years ago. The tape is still the story of the day. Last night did not earn Trump one new vote.
I didn't know rape and rape victims had a limitations statute or an expiration date. Imagine a rape counselor telling the victim, your rape happened 20 years ago, it's old news, move on.
There's not in New York, where Trump raped a 13 year old. Too bad the hearing isn't scheduled until 12/16. Hopefully they are able to move the date up.
It's a civil suit, which I belive doen't have a statute of limitations. Criminal charges have a limit in most states.
I know I'm being lazing here and not reading back several pages but why are we talking about Bill Clinton here? Other than of how he might influence this election or if Hillary wins how he might affect the presidency, why is Bill up on stage here?
And I wonder about this- other than in the technical, legal sense, are Hillary and Bill even a couple any more?
This is only slightly about Bill anymore. Hillary now has to answer for her victim shaming. This is now about her actions. The Clinton campaign opened this can of worms. Trump has to anwer for his actions and Hillary has to answer for her's.
You're incorrect here. Trump dropped his nuclear bomb. Done. But this is old news to everyone and has been litigated in the press 20 years ago. The tape is still the story of the day. Last night did not earn Trump one new vote.
I didn't know rape and rape victims had a limitations statute or an expiration date. Imagine a rape counselor telling the victim, your rape happened 20 years ago, it's old news, move on.
There's not in New York, where Trump raped a 13 year old. Too bad the hearing isn't scheduled until 12/16. Hopefully they are able to move the date up.
It's a civil suit, which I belive doen't have a statute of limitations. Criminal charges have a limit in most states.
I know I'm being lazing here and not reading back several pages but why are we talking about Bill Clinton here? Other than of how he might influence this election or if Hillary wins how he might affect the presidency, why is Bill up on stage here?
And I wonder about this- other than in the technical, legal sense, are Hillary and Bill even a couple any more?
This is only slightly about Bill anymore. Hillary now has to answer for her victim shaming. This is now about her actions. The Clinton campaign opened this can of worms. Trump has to anwer for his actions and Hillary has to answer for her's.
You're incorrect here. Trump dropped his nuclear bomb. Done. But this is old news to everyone and has been litigated in the press 20 years ago. The tape is still the story of the day. Last night did not earn Trump one new vote.
I didn't know rape and rape victims had a limitations statute or an expiration date. Imagine a rape counselor telling the victim, your rape happened 20 years ago, it's old news, move on.
There's not in New York, where Trump raped a 13 year old. Too bad the hearing isn't scheduled until 12/16. Hopefully they are able to move the date up.
It's a civil suit, which I belive doen't have a statute of limitations. Criminal charges have a limit in most states.
Everything but murder I believe...
That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't totally sure since in my state the legislature voted to remove the limit on rape cases.
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
Interesting. I read the WikiLeaks with that Abe Lincoln story. The Abe Lincoln story is in the WikiLeaks.
So is part of a WikiLeaked speech where she says this to Wall Street about her fiscal policy, praising the Simpson Bowles plan that the radicalized flanks of each party rejected, at the peril of our economy: 1. We'll cut spending 2. We'll increase revenue 3. We'll incentivize job growth. Makes sense as an economic policy to me. What right wing Republican is against that? That's a Wikileaks I can get behind.
There was another WikiLeak where she tells those good-for-nothing bankers that before the housing bubble even burst, she was speaking out against their practices and nobody listened. She hopes in the future they will hold themselves to a higher standard, that our democracy depends on their transparency and trustworthiness, that it's taken a long time to recover and that politicians should have done a better job with the American people in the beginning to explain what was happening. It was hardly a pandering moment. To me, it read like she was taking them to task.
The last one I remember reading was that she wished she didn't have to fundraise obnoxious amounts, but she's not fool enough to lose a race because she's been outspent by an opponent under the Wild West of Citens Umited campaigning. Sounds like practical strategy to me.
So, I've read enough today of what was leaked to see that there really is a whole lot of nothing, that as usual people are pulling crap out of context. No crimes committed, Clinton saying things to Wall Street I've heard her say in open air.
My question is . . . If Julian Assange is so awesome at hacking, why can't he produce full speeches that reveal something more than a story about Abe Lincoln??? I keep hearing these Wikileaks are going to take down Clinton. So far, not. I like Clinton even more after reading them in their entirety.
Couple questions Who said Assange is the hacker? Where are you hearing that this leaks will take down Clinton? Assange and wiki, the horses mouth never said that.
Let me restate: If *the hackers* are so awesome, why can't they give Assange something more substantial to post?
I can't even believe you've asked the second question. But to answer, spend an hour or two each morning watching Washington Today on C-Span. There's not a morning that goes by without a caller screaming about Hillary being a crook and the WikiLeaks proving it. Last night post debate, it was every other caller.
If the "Russian" hackers had the transcripts and turned them over to wiki I'm sure they would be released. Advice- don't rely too much on callers and pundits, that's entertainment.
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
Interesting. I read the WikiLeaks with that Abe Lincoln story. The Abe Lincoln story is in the WikiLeaks.
So is part of a WikiLeaked speech where she says this to Wall Street about her fiscal policy, praising the Simpson Bowles plan that the radicalized flanks of each party rejected, at the peril of our economy: 1. We'll cut spending 2. We'll increase revenue 3. We'll incentivize job growth. Makes sense as an economic policy to me. What right wing Republican is against that? That's a Wikileaks I can get behind.
There was another WikiLeak where she tells those good-for-nothing bankers that before the housing bubble even burst, she was speaking out against their practices and nobody listened. She hopes in the future they will hold themselves to a higher standard, that our democracy depends on their transparency and trustworthiness, that it's taken a long time to recover and that politicians should have done a better job with the American people in the beginning to explain what was happening. It was hardly a pandering moment. To me, it read like she was taking them to task.
The last one I remember reading was that she wished she didn't have to fundraise obnoxious amounts, but she's not fool enough to lose a race because she's been outspent by an opponent under the Wild West of Citens Umited campaigning. Sounds like practical strategy to me.
So, I've read enough today of what was leaked to see that there really is a whole lot of nothing, that as usual people are pulling crap out of context. No crimes committed, Clinton saying things to Wall Street I've heard her say in open air.
My question is . . . If Julian Assange is so awesome at hacking, why can't he produce full speeches that reveal something more than a story about Abe Lincoln??? I keep hearing these Wikileaks are going to take down Clinton. So far, not. I like Clinton even more after reading them in their entirety.
Couple questions Who said Assange is the hacker? Where are you hearing that this leaks will take down Clinton? Assange and wiki, the horses mouth never said that.
Let me restate: If *the hackers* are so awesome, why can't they give Assange something more substantial to post?
I can't even believe you've asked the second question. But to answer, spend an hour or two each morning watching Washington Today on C-Span. There's not a morning that goes by without a caller screaming about Hillary being a crook and the WikiLeaks proving it. Last night post debate, it was every other caller.
If the "Russian" hackers had the transcripts and turned them over to wiki I'm sure they would be released. Advice- don't rely too much on callers and pundits, that's entertainment.
I appreciate your advice. I know it was offered with such sincerity. I'm doing just fine, however, with the way I access information in this world. I really don't need your help.
To many of you to reply too. Let me get this straight you guys are afraid that a psycho path candidate is going to beat your queen because he has a bunch of deplorable supporters backing him? Am I getting that right? All this fear and pissing your pants because there are a few hundred former berniebros out there who are not voting for Clinton? All this fear because some rapist hiding in an embassy is leaking information about the DNC? Remember Clinton won by more then 4 million votes! You got this in the bag fellas. C'mon guys- you have nothing to fear and are only wasting your time responding to my post. Just hit the shadow block button and bam! Presto!! Your panties will remain clean for the rest of the day. Works like magic
Governor Scott in Florida has said that he will not allow the registration deadline to be extended beyond the normal date of next Tuesday. What's your take on it? Is it a form of voter suppression since it's believed that last many of the later registrations are normally younger voters who vote Democratic? I don't know if I really have an opinion on it. When the storm passes in a couple of days, there's still time to register by Tuesday. Then again, this is an act of God type scenario that can be given some wiggle room.
Governor Scott is an asshole. That's my take on it.
There was plenty of time to register. Why extend something 5 days when people have had probably 2 years to register?
idunno maybe because there is a hurricane?
So? Was this hurricane around for the last 2 years or something?
This is real simple, Scott couldn't have taken the opportunity to extend the registration due to an emergency. He decided to take the opposite approach, which made it more difficult for people to register, and subsequently vote. If Scott were truly concerned about encouraging citizens to exercise their right to vote, Florida would allow Same Day Registration on Election Day.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.
Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.
You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
Say it 'ain't so.
Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.
I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.
Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.
You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
Say it 'ain't so.
Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.
This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.
Yeah...I was wondering who feelwings he trying to hurt. Bernie lost, Bernie a loser in every thread.
I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.
Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.
You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
Say it 'ain't so.
Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.
This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.
Yeah...I was wondering who feelwings he trying to hurt. Bernie lost, Bernie a loser in every thread.
I thought it was kind of funny the first 1000 times, but then I realized this was a grown man. Shit.
Hey man keep up the great fucking work on those leaks and fighting for liberty. Your post go a long way and many of the info is shared and passed around to inform others.
I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.
Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.
You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
Say it 'ain't so.
Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.
This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.
Yeah...I was wondering who feelwings he trying to hurt. Bernie lost, Bernie a loser in every thread.
I thought it was kind of funny the first 1000 times, but then I realized this was a grown man. Shit.
Hey man keep up the great fucking work on those leaks and fighting for liberty. Your post go a long way and many of the info is shared and passed around to inform others.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.
I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.
Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.
You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
Say it 'ain't so.
Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.
This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.
Add idiot to the list of names I've been called but it's kind of telling how you guys who continually insult those of us with differing views get all up in arms when presented with facts. What of my statement is not factual? You infer that I think all Bernie bros are losers too? That's on you. Glad I made you laugh.
Yup, you guys are going to save the republic, with all you're freedom fighting and shit. Shedding light on all the darkness about our democracy, changing a mind at a time. Pretty soon it's gonna be a movement. Can't wait to watch the revolution on my phone.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.
I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying... If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive. Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.
Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much. Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.
I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying... If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive. Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.
I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.
Comments
Bob Schieffer:
“How have we come to this? This is supposed to be a campaign for the most powerful office of the land. Here we’re marching in women into the hall who supposed to have some relationship with one of the candidate’s spouses. What’s that supposed to prove?”
Putin Russia
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton’s campaign responded to the disclosure of excerpts of her paid speech transcripts by vaguely suggesting that the emails could have been doctored or manipulated in some way.
But responding to a question tonight about one of the remarks she was said to have made, Clinton effectively confirmed its authenticity. Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about one of the quotes released by Wikileaks on Friday, that Clinton told a housing trade group that she maintains a “public and private position on certain issues.”
First, Clinton asserted that she was simply discussing Abraham Lincoln, and how the Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln showed how the tactic of deceiving the public about a policy position is sometimes “strategic.” She continued: “I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it,” Clinton said.
If she wants to clear that up, there’s an easy way to do it: release the full transcripts of the paid speeches.
Moments later, she pivoted and attacked the source of the emails, suggesting that the emails were from the Russian government and that “we don’t even know it’s accurate information.”
So is part of a WikiLeaked speech where she says this to Wall Street about her fiscal policy, praising the Simpson Bowles plan that the radicalized flanks of each party rejected, at the peril of our economy:
1. We'll cut spending
2. We'll increase revenue
3. We'll incentivize job growth.
Makes sense as an economic policy to me. What right wing Republican is against that? That's a Wikileaks I can get behind.
There was another WikiLeak where she tells those good-for-nothing bankers that before the housing bubble even burst, she was speaking out against their practices and nobody listened. She hopes in the future they will hold themselves to a higher standard, that our democracy depends on their transparency and trustworthiness, that it's taken a long time to recover and that politicians should have done a better job with the American people in the beginning to explain what was happening. It was hardly a pandering moment. To me, it read like she was taking them to task.
The last one I remember reading was that she wished she didn't have to fundraise obnoxious amounts, but she's not fool enough to lose a race because she's been outspent by an opponent under the Wild West of Citens Umited campaigning. Sounds like practical strategy to me.
So, I've read enough today of what was leaked to see that there really is a whole lot of nothing, that as usual people are pulling crap out of context. No crimes committed, Clinton saying things to Wall Street I've heard her say in open air.
My question is . . . If Julian Assange is so awesome at hacking, why can't he produce full speeches that reveal something more than a story about Abe Lincoln??? I keep hearing these Wikileaks are going to take down Clinton. So far, not. I like Clinton even more after reading them in their entirety.
In the moment my wife and I came up with the same response, and I was able to articulate it in real time... What she should have said was:
Yes, I have public and private position on many issues. My private position is that of my own beliefs and convictions and my public position is the one that I am best able to determine is the will of the electorate. It is not my job as an elected representative to enact my own will in government, it is my job to enact the will of those whom I represent.
Bam.
Lost opportunity.
The other big lost opportunity is when Trump says things like, "30 years, why didn't you get all that done already" and "why haven't you defeated ISIS", "I will beat ISIS so fast" and yada yada
She needs to say flat out to the people:
"Do not let Trump convince you that these issues are as simple as he makes them out to be." "Trump isn't the only smart person, believe it or not, and if geopolitics were as simple as he thinks they are, we wouldn't have any problems to begin with" and "One person in the Senate does not have the power to enact all of the laws and fix all of the problems in the way they see fit, in fact, the Constitution is designed to prevent that very thing from happening, which would essentially be a dictatorship."
Who said Assange is the hacker?
Where are you hearing that this leaks will take down Clinton?
Assange and wiki, the horses mouth never said that.
I can't even believe you've asked the second question. But to answer, spend an hour or two each morning watching Washington Today on C-Span. There's not a morning that goes by without a caller screaming about Hillary being a crook and the WikiLeaks proving it. Last night post debate, it was every other caller.
www.headstonesband.com
Advice- don't rely too much on callers and pundits, that's entertainment.
www.headstonesband.com
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.
http://hartresearch.com/team/geoff-garin/
http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/filings/1096176/SB/
Learn something new everyday.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/donald-trumps-support-falls-in-wake-of-lewd-video-new-poll-says-1476115225
Hey man keep up the great fucking work on those leaks and fighting for liberty. Your post go a long way and many of the info is shared and passed around to inform others.
Much appreciated
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.
-mod friendly