Hillary won more votes for President

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

do any of these media or political endorsements have any significant impact on the voting public? has anyone been able to quantify its effect, if any?

I dunno. Kim Kardashian has "endorsed" Hillary now. Maybe that will be the key to Clinton's success!

haha, I was more meaning endorsements from politically affiliated entities.

Lol, I know. I don't think there is any way of really knowing this right now. Maybe post-election polls would say more. But my guess is that Bernie's endorsement probably brought a lot of voters over to Hillary, despite what Free says. I know some are of course refusing, but I seriously doubt a majority will at the end of the day. I think that was one of her most powerful endorsements. Not to mention the Obamas. And then there are the defectors like the Bushes and the Mark Cuban types. Yeah, I think these kind of people's endorsements, especially the Republican ones, would certainly make most critical thinkers who were humouring the idea of voting Trump reconsider (the non-critical thinkers sure won't be changing their minds. I doubt it would matter if God himself came down from the Heavens and told them to vote Hillary, lol). But as to your actual question... besides being able to see what famous people are doing or people we know personally, no, I don't think there is any reliable way to know one way or the other before election day.

a girlfriend on facebook was one of the hardcore bernie supporters that will now not vote. I don't get it.

a vote not cast in apathy is a vote cast for insanity!

PJ_Soul

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/clinton-email-reddit-james-comey-228832?cmpid=sf

Remember all that reddit bullshit about the guy trying to cover up an email address....here's why

The FBI concluded that a computer technician working on Clinton's email was not engaged in an illicit cover-up when he asked on the Reddit website for a tool that could delete a "VIP" email address throughout a large file, FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday.
Republican lawmakers have suggested that the July 2014 Reddit post from a user believed to be Platte River Networks specialist Paul Combetta showed an effort to hide Clinton's emails from investigators.
However, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Comey said FBI agents concluded that all the computer aide was trying to do was replace Clinton's email address so it wouldn't be revealed to the public.
"Our team concluded that what he was trying to do was when they produced emails not have the actual address but have some name or placeholder instead of the actual dot-com address in the 'From:' line," Comey said.
Raising the issue with Comey, Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said he believed it was obviously part of a cover-up.
"This clearly demonstrates an action to destroy evidence by people operating Clinton's private server and her staff," Goodlatte said.
In the 2014 Reddit post, user "Stonetear" described "a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file."
The posting continued: "Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out."
Comey said he wasn't sure whether the FBI knew about the Reddit posting when prosecutors granted Combetta immunity to get statements from him about what transpired. However, he added that such a deletion wouldn't automatically be considered an effort to destroy evidence.
"Not necessarily ... It would depend what his intention was and why he wanted to do it," the FBI director said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/clinton-email-reddit-james-comey-228832#ixzz4LZJxMY5v
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

now shut up....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLumK87nGxE

mrussel1

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/clinton-email-reddit-james-comey-228832?cmpid=sf

Remember all that reddit bullshit about the guy trying to cover up an email address....here's why

The FBI concluded that a computer technician working on Clinton's email was not engaged in an illicit cover-up when he asked on the Reddit website for a tool that could delete a "VIP" email address throughout a large file, FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday.
Republican lawmakers have suggested that the July 2014 Reddit post from a user believed to be Platte River Networks specialist Paul Combetta showed an effort to hide Clinton's emails from investigators.
However, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Comey said FBI agents concluded that all the computer aide was trying to do was replace Clinton's email address so it wouldn't be revealed to the public.
"Our team concluded that what he was trying to do was when they produced emails not have the actual address but have some name or placeholder instead of the actual dot-com address in the 'From:' line," Comey said.
Raising the issue with Comey, Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said he believed it was obviously part of a cover-up.
"This clearly demonstrates an action to destroy evidence by people operating Clinton's private server and her staff," Goodlatte said.
In the 2014 Reddit post, user "Stonetear" described "a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file."
The posting continued: "Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out."
Comey said he wasn't sure whether the FBI knew about the Reddit posting when prosecutors granted Combetta immunity to get statements from him about what transpired. However, he added that such a deletion wouldn't automatically be considered an effort to destroy evidence.
"Not necessarily ... It would depend what his intention was and why he wanted to do it," the FBI director said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/clinton-email-reddit-james-comey-228832#ixzz4LZJxMY5v
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

now shut up....

American public: we believe it, we really do, honest, trust us.

Oh. it's done. Cool. Let me shut up. Thanks for posting this germ (former berniebro, turned into Clinton's biggest fanboy)
I can now vote for Clinton.

It's Gern, not germ.

rssesq

no fat shaming goin on ova here
HUBBA HUBBA, lmao

JC29856

rssesq said:

no fat shaming goin on ova here
HUBBA HUBBA, lmao

Old friends

Gern Blansten

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/james-comey-not-weasels-clinton-email-228835?cmpid=sf

FBI Director James Comey is passionately defending the integrity of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email setup, arguing that critics are unfair to suggest that agents were biased or succumbed to political pressure.
“You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels,” Comey declared Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. “We are honest people and … whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done.”

The normally stoic FBI chief grew emotional and emphatic as he rejected claims from Republican lawmakers that the FBI was essentially in the tank for Clinton when it recommended that neither she nor any of her aides be prosecuted in connection with the presence of classified information on Clinton’s private email server. He acknowledged he has “no patience” for such allegations.

“I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. We do not carry water for one side or the other — that’s hard for people to see because so much of our country, we see things through sides. … We are not on anybody’s side,” Comey said. “This was done exactly the way you would want it to do to be done.”
It was at least Comey’s third appearance on Capitol Hill since the Clinton email probe was closed, but the FBI director’s assurances did not seem to satisfy House Republicans, who said the decision not to prosecute Clinton or her aides smacked of favoritism.
“I would be in big trouble, and I should be in big trouble, if I did something like that,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). “There seems to be different strokes for different folks. I think there’s a heavy hand coming from someplace else.”
Comey insisted there is no double standard, though he said there would be serious consequences — short of criminal prosecution — if FBI personnel handled classified information as Clinton and her aides did.
“Mary or Joe, if they did this in the FBI, would not be prosecuted,” the FBI director said. “They’d be in big trouble, but they would not be prosecuted. That wouldn’t be fair.”
Republicans suggested there were numerous potential targets of prosecution in the case and repeatedly questioned prosecutors’ decisions to grant forms of immunity to at least five people in connection with the probe.
“You cleaned the slate before you even knew. … You gave immunity to people that you were going to need to make a case if a case was to be made,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department’s decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.
“Laptops don’t go to the Bureau of Prisons,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills.”
The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.
“Anytime you know you’re subpoenaing a laptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer’s practice of law, you know you’re getting into a big megillah,” Comey said.
Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton’s July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe.
“I don’t think there’s any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation,” said Rep. John Ratliffe (R-Ill.), a former U.S. attorney in Texas. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.
“If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this,” Comey said. “The decision was made after that because I didn’t know what was going to happen during the interview. She would maybe lie in the interview in a way we could prove.”
Comey also said it wasn’t the FBI’s role to dictate who could or couldn’t act as Clinton’s lawyers. “I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of the interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer,” the FBI chief said, while acknowledging he’d never encountered such a situation before.
Ratliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness.
Comey did say there was no chance of charges against Mills or Samuelson by the time of the Clinton interview.
“We had already concluded we did not have prosecutable case against Cheryl Mills or Heather Samuelson at that point. If we they were targets of our investigation, maybe we would have canceled the interview,” the FBI director said. ‘Frankly, our focus was on the subject. The subject at that point was Hillary Clinton.”
Despite the second-guessing from Republicans, Comey said he remained convinced that prosecution wasn’t even remotely appropriate given the facts.
“As painful as this is for people, this was not a close call,” he said. “This was done by pros in the right way.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/james-comey-not-weasels-clinton-email-228835#ixzz4LZd4sxl3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

rssesq

and they only talked about grandkids and golf while on the tarmac. lmao
CORRUPT BILLARY

Boxes&Books

rssesq said:

and they only talked about grandkids and golf while on the tarmac. lmao
CORRUPT BILLARY

Let's be real. What else can they possibly talk about?

But Enough about reality. Let's get back to policy.

Go Beavers

If you want to debate trustworthiness, don't deny Trumps record, as limited info as we have on him. It seems like the near continual stream of lies out of his mouth should factor into trust. I may be talking crazy, though.

rssesq

peas in a pod, both lie like Persian rugs but one has been doing it while on the govment till for years and years.

rssesq

rssesq said:

peas in a pod, both lie like Persian rugs but one has been doing it while on the govment till for years and years.

Even this kid knows the deal
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/colin-kaepernick-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-are-proven-liars-215536317.html

mrussel1

rssesq said:

rssesq said:

peas in a pod, both lie like Persian rugs but one has been doing it while on the govment till for years and years.

Even this kid knows the deal
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/colin-kaepernick-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-are-proven-liars-215536317.html

Tiresome. Pick a person and vote. Or don't vote. Who the fuck cares.

rssesq

do u kid, don't worry bout mine. r u mad bro? BTW, sincere condolences, lol

mrussel1

rssesq said:

do u kid, don't worry bout mine. r u mad bro? BTW, sincere condolences, lol

Sincere condolences? About what? I'm not mad, you just add zero value to the conversation.

Hey, you still figuring out if you would violate your ethical obligation like you think Hillary should have back when she was practicing law. Wondering.... oh yeah, you won't answer.

rssesq

I shant rep pedos. or Jeffrey's. LMAO
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/08/pedophile-pleaded-the-fifth-when-asked-if-he-was-friends-with-bill-clinton/

rssesq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59RSLhdGWQM

CM189191

rssesq said:

I shant rep pedos. or Jeffrey's. LMAO
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/08/pedophile-pleaded-the-fifth-when-asked-if-he-was-friends-with-bill-clinton/

This Jeffrey?

"Defendant Epstein then attempted to strike me about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at me that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who took my virginity, not Defendant Trump . . .

Defendant Trump stated that I shouldn’t ever say anything if I didn’t want to disappear like Maria, a 12-year-old female that was forced to be involved in the third incident with Defendant Trump and that I had not seen since that third incident, and that he was capable of having my whole family killed."

That the one?

rssesq

Dat da one.
like I said, this 2 party system has given us some real winners to select from.
Good night And Good luck America

mrussel1

rssesq said:

Dat da one.
like I said, this 2 party system has given us some real winners to select from.
Good night And Good luck America

See ya! Can't wait for the next value add post.

BS44325

Victim shaming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/enabler-or-family-defender-how-hillary-clinton-responded-to-husbands-accusers/2016/09/28/58dad5d4-6fb1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html