Hillary won more votes for President

CM189191

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

pjalive21

Boxes&Books

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

We're not waiting on her to be charged, that seems to be some funny idea you guys fall back on. We want to hear her respond to general shit. Trump questioned her during the debate, but she said nothing. You guys on here have truck loads of excuses. She could have used one of the million you guys post, but she didn't. So let's cut the crap- we're not looking for her to be arrested, that would be great, but let's be serious. We just want to know which policy is accurate- we don't want to hear about trump - we want to hear her answer to questions just like everyone else.

So please save the whining.

pjalive21

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

We're not waiting on her to be charged, that seems to be some funny idea you guys fall back on. We want to hear her respond to general shit. Trump questioned her during the debate, but she said nothing. You guys on here have truck loads of excuses. She could have used one of the million you guys post, but she didn't. So let's cut the crap- we're not looking for her to be arrested, that would be great, but let's be serious. We just want to know which policy is accurate- we don't want to hear about trump - we want to hear her answer to questions just like everyone else.

So please save the whining.

why wouldn't you want her to answer the questions, admit the lies, and be charged? Doesn't have to be one or the other...I want it all

If this was you who did most of this stuff you would be thrown away in prison never to be see from again

I hope Chris Wallace grows a pair and beats her down with all the WikiLeaks information just like Trump has been lambasted by the media with the sexual assault allegations

Go Beavers

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

We're not waiting on her to be charged, that seems to be some funny idea you guys fall back on. We want to hear her respond to general shit. Trump questioned her during the debate, but she said nothing. You guys on here have truck loads of excuses. She could have used one of the million you guys post, but she didn't. So let's cut the crap- we're not looking for her to be arrested, that would be great, but let's be serious. We just want to know which policy is accurate- we don't want to hear about trump - we want to hear her answer to questions just like everyone else.

So please save the whining.

You want her to answer the questions because you're going to weigh what she says objectively against the accusations and actual facts?

Gern Blansten

pjalive21 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

We're not waiting on her to be charged, that seems to be some funny idea you guys fall back on. We want to hear her respond to general shit. Trump questioned her during the debate, but she said nothing. You guys on here have truck loads of excuses. She could have used one of the million you guys post, but she didn't. So let's cut the crap- we're not looking for her to be arrested, that would be great, but let's be serious. We just want to know which policy is accurate- we don't want to hear about trump - we want to hear her answer to questions just like everyone else.

So please save the whining.

why wouldn't you want her to answer the questions, admit the lies, and be charged? Doesn't have to be one or the other...I want it all

If this was you who did most of this stuff you would be thrown away in prison never to be see from again

I hope Chris Wallace grows a pair and beats her down with all the WikiLeaks information just like Trump has been lambasted by the media with the sexual assault allegations

That Wallace won't "beat her down" should tell you that a reputable journalist doesn't see the same bullshit that you see.

There is life outside of your bubble. Truth exists there.

JC29856

hillarysocialmediaplaybook.pdf

JimmyV

I tend to believe FBI Director Comey, who before now Republicans have never had a problem with. What she did does not warrant any criminal charge, but she and her team were extremely careless with classified info. That carelessness is a HUGE red flag for me because it calls into question her judgment. Her judgment is suspect, has been for years, and that more than anything else is the most important quality a President has to have. It is a travesty that there is no real option to her. She is going to win and she is going to be President.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

I tend to believe FBI Director Comey, who before now Republicans have never had a problem with. What she did does not warrant any criminal charge, but she and her team were extremely careless with classified info. That carelessness is a HUGE red flag for me because it calls into question her judgment. Her judgment is suspect, has been for years, and that more than anything else is the most important quality a President has to have. It is a travesty that there is no real option to her. She is going to win and she is going to be President.

That's fair....

Trump mentioned Petraeus again...the old "he didn't do anything worse then she did and look what they did to him"....it's the same misdirection. What Petraeus did is well documented. It is substantially different than the email issue. Like not even fucking close.

People make mistakes. I don't see the email issue as being that big of a mistake. I consider it more of an operational error. She really shouldn't have been allowed to use the personal server in the first place. But considering that her husband is an ex-President and quite a bit of security exists around that they clearly made an exception.

rssesq

How much is the foundation paying you for this defense? lmao

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I tend to believe FBI Director Comey, who before now Republicans have never had a problem with. What she did does not warrant any criminal charge, but she and her team were extremely careless with classified info. That carelessness is a HUGE red flag for me because it calls into question her judgment. Her judgment is suspect, has been for years, and that more than anything else is the most important quality a President has to have. It is a travesty that there is no real option to her. She is going to win and she is going to be President.

That's fair....

Trump mentioned Petraeus again...the old "he didn't do anything worse then she did and look what they did to him"....it's the same misdirection. What Petraeus did is well documented. It is substantially different than the email issue. Like not even fucking close.

People make mistakes. I don't see the email issue as being that big of a mistake. I consider it more of an operational error. She really shouldn't have been allowed to use the personal server in the first place. But considering that her husband is an ex-President and quite a bit of security exists around that they clearly made an exception.

Cliffy6745

Yawn

pjalive21

Gern Blansten said:

pjalive21 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

We're not waiting on her to be charged, that seems to be some funny idea you guys fall back on. We want to hear her respond to general shit. Trump questioned her during the debate, but she said nothing. You guys on here have truck loads of excuses. She could have used one of the million you guys post, but she didn't. So let's cut the crap- we're not looking for her to be arrested, that would be great, but let's be serious. We just want to know which policy is accurate- we don't want to hear about trump - we want to hear her answer to questions just like everyone else.

So please save the whining.

why wouldn't you want her to answer the questions, admit the lies, and be charged? Doesn't have to be one or the other...I want it all

If this was you who did most of this stuff you would be thrown away in prison never to be see from again

I hope Chris Wallace grows a pair and beats her down with all the WikiLeaks information just like Trump has been lambasted by the media with the sexual assault allegations

That Wallace won't "beat her down" should tell you that a reputable journalist doesn't see the same bullshit that you see.

There is life outside of your bubble. Truth exists there.

So someone that doesnt agree with you now lives in a bubble? have you ever thought, and i know its tough to do being a Hillary supporter, that you are wrong?

technically you would be living in the bubble not thinking outside of your own biases being a Hillary supporter...I gave her the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of all this nonsense but now have gone outside the "bubble" in my train of thought and completely believe she is guilty..the wikileaks stuff is damning and tho most of it pegs her campaign as guilty, you are a product of who you associate yourself with

Gern Blansten

pjalive21 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjalive21 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

We're not waiting on her to be charged, that seems to be some funny idea you guys fall back on. We want to hear her respond to general shit. Trump questioned her during the debate, but she said nothing. You guys on here have truck loads of excuses. She could have used one of the million you guys post, but she didn't. So let's cut the crap- we're not looking for her to be arrested, that would be great, but let's be serious. We just want to know which policy is accurate- we don't want to hear about trump - we want to hear her answer to questions just like everyone else.

So please save the whining.

why wouldn't you want her to answer the questions, admit the lies, and be charged? Doesn't have to be one or the other...I want it all

If this was you who did most of this stuff you would be thrown away in prison never to be see from again

I hope Chris Wallace grows a pair and beats her down with all the WikiLeaks information just like Trump has been lambasted by the media with the sexual assault allegations

That Wallace won't "beat her down" should tell you that a reputable journalist doesn't see the same bullshit that you see.

There is life outside of your bubble. Truth exists there.

So someone that doesnt agree with you now lives in a bubble? have you ever thought, and i know its tough to do being a Hillary supporter, that you are wrong?

technically you would be living in the bubble not thinking outside of your own biases being a Hillary supporter...I gave her the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of all this nonsense but now have gone outside the "bubble" in my train of thought and completely believe she is guilty..the wikileaks stuff is damning and tho most of it pegs her campaign as guilty, you are a product of who you associate yourself with

In your bubble it's damning....outside of the bubble it isn't. As of now there hasn't been anything of value. I read an article that questioned why Clinton didn't release her Goldman speeches earlier because they said it could have diffused the talk that she was hiding something.

I've been in the right wing bubble. I was a dittohead for years so I do know how powerful it can be.

rssesq

"when we left the white house we were broke"
"after running for pres, I was broke"
Nice digs Comrade.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house

Go Beavers

pjalive21 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjalive21 said:

tonifig8 said:

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

We're not waiting on her to be charged, that seems to be some funny idea you guys fall back on. We want to hear her respond to general shit. Trump questioned her during the debate, but she said nothing. You guys on here have truck loads of excuses. She could have used one of the million you guys post, but she didn't. So let's cut the crap- we're not looking for her to be arrested, that would be great, but let's be serious. We just want to know which policy is accurate- we don't want to hear about trump - we want to hear her answer to questions just like everyone else.

So please save the whining.

why wouldn't you want her to answer the questions, admit the lies, and be charged? Doesn't have to be one or the other...I want it all

If this was you who did most of this stuff you would be thrown away in prison never to be see from again

I hope Chris Wallace grows a pair and beats her down with all the WikiLeaks information just like Trump has been lambasted by the media with the sexual assault allegations

That Wallace won't "beat her down" should tell you that a reputable journalist doesn't see the same bullshit that you see.

There is life outside of your bubble. Truth exists there.

So someone that doesnt agree with you now lives in a bubble? have you ever thought, and i know its tough to do being a Hillary supporter, that you are wrong?

technically you would be living in the bubble not thinking outside of your own biases being a Hillary supporter...I gave her the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of all this nonsense but now have gone outside the "bubble" in my train of thought and completely believe she is guilty..the wikileaks stuff is damning and tho most of it pegs her campaign as guilty, you are a product of who you associate yourself with

Campaigns have always been dirty. I'm not sure why this go around people seem more disturbed by it. To me it's another sign of how some people have lost their objectivity.

JC29856

*For my question*, it's basically some variation of [not quite phrased right yet]: I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

Godfather.

by all rights she should be bared from the presidential race just over the Email issues.

Godfather.

JC29856

JC29856 said:

Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving.

From March confirmed Oct

JC29856

JC29856 said:

Hillary Clinton is the only Secretary of State to delete 31,830 emails, from her own private server and without government oversight. Thus, we haven't seen all her emails yet. In fact, there are over 30,000 emails that the FBI or Bryan Pagliano might have been able to access, but none of us will see these emails. Tim Black offers a brilliant analysis of the Pagliano breakthrough, from an IT perspective, in this segment of Tim Black TV.

So, when you read those wonderfully titled articles about what we've learned from 55,000 pages of Clinton's emails, remember that over 30,000 were deleted; without government or third-party oversight.

We may see these afterall

JC29856

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers.
It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure)
As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.

From March confirmed Oct

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

l

The bigger question is why is United Airlines charging $98.10 to $390.25 for flights to Chicago? What other city, other than Phoenix, did the flights originate from?

That was definitely my takeaway from this too. $98 for a flight to Chicago?? Wow!

PJ_Soul

CM189191 said:

pjalive21 said:

so we get to add inciting riots to Clinton's list of charges...i dont have enough popcorn for all this

Yes, we are all waiting for her to be charged with something. Anything. Any day now. Any. Day. Now.
..........anyyyyyyyyy...............daaaaaaaaaay...........nooooooooooooow.............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19m3GvtgNPM

JC29856

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

l

The bigger question is why is United Airlines charging $98.10 to $390.25 for flights to Chicago? What other city, other than Phoenix, did the flights originate from?

That was definitely my takeaway from this too. $98 for a flight to Chicago?? Wow!

Maybe checked bags or upgrade since that really matters. I'm guessing 3 instigators not 4.

rssesq

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

l

The bigger question is why is United Airlines charging $98.10 to $390.25 for flights to Chicago? What other city, other than Phoenix, did the flights originate from?

That was definitely my takeaway from this too. $98 for a flight to Chicago?? Wow!

Maybe checked bags or upgrade since that really matters. I'm guessing 3 instigators not 4.

pjalive21

Godfather. said:

by all rights she should be bared from the presidential race just over the Email issues.

Godfather.

lose any sort of security clearance for sure which would bar her from the presidential race...that is at a minimum

mrussel1

pjalive21 said:

Godfather. said:

by all rights she should be bared from the presidential race just over the Email issues.

Godfather.

lose any sort of security clearance for sure which would bar her from the presidential race...that is at a minimum

I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution.

pjalive21

mrussel1 said:

pjalive21 said:

Godfather. said:

by all rights she should be bared from the presidential race just over the Email issues.

Godfather.

lose any sort of security clearance for sure which would bar her from the presidential race...that is at a minimum

I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution.

How could you be president without a security clearance? What does that have to do with the constitution

if you know something i dont please enlighten me

JimmyV

pjalive21 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjalive21 said:

Godfather. said:

by all rights she should be bared from the presidential race just over the Email issues.

Godfather.

lose any sort of security clearance for sure which would bar her from the presidential race...that is at a minimum

I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution.

How could you be president without a security clearance? What does that have to do with the constitution

if you know something i dont please enlighten me

Seems like trying to disqualify ones political opponents would create quite the slippery slope. This time it's emails, next time it is something else, etc.

PJ_Soul

Agreed. I mean, if we're going down that road, they both should be disqualified (Trump for fraud). Then what?

mrussel1

pjalive21 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjalive21 said:

Godfather. said:

by all rights she should be bared from the presidential race just over the Email issues.

Godfather.

lose any sort of security clearance for sure which would bar her from the presidential race...that is at a minimum

I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution.

How could you be president without a security clearance? What does that have to do with the constitution

if you know something i dont please enlighten me

There are clear qualifications in the Con. regarding what are the qualifiers and disqualifiers for POTUS. Security clearance isn't in there. There is also no law to my knowledge that articulates it, or that had been through judicial review.