Hillary won more votes for President

PJ_Soul · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
I think you are misreading it quite badly. I didn't tell him not to reply to my messages. He's more than welcome to. Same with Free, same with you. I'll argue with anyone. I'll even take the other side for shits and giggles, so it doesn't bother me in the least. But I won't let ridiculous-ass conclusions, hyperbole, false equivalencies, ad-hominem attacks and strawmen arguments go unchecked. And if my arguments put people in a box and they get mad, so be it.

Kat · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:
"Stole" maybe is a bit of hyperbole. But what bothers me is that if someone stayed in my house and took a bunch of stuff with them when they left, even if they brought the stuff back I would be highly suspect of their character. Wouldn't any of you?
I understand Brian, but you probably would not have a team of people that do this for you. The Clintons, I'm sure, did not walk around with stickies and grabbing what they want as a free for all. If I were in their position, ex president and Senate elect, I'm probably not thinking about this at all. I tell my staff to itemize the gifts per protocol, and make sure it happens. A portion of the gifts were not intended for them, they were for the WH.

I'll bet it's not the first time a former President left the White House with items they thought were gifted to them personally but they were actually gifted to the White House. I wouldn't call it stealing for them either.

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.

telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.

JC29856 · October 2016

Kat said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:
"Stole" maybe is a bit of hyperbole. But what bothers me is that if someone stayed in my house and took a bunch of stuff with them when they left, even if they brought the stuff back I would be highly suspect of their character. Wouldn't any of you?
I understand Brian, but you probably would not have a team of people that do this for you. The Clintons, I'm sure, did not walk around with stickies and grabbing what they want as a free for all. If I were in their position, ex president and Senate elect, I'm probably not thinking about this at all. I tell my staff to itemize the gifts per protocol, and make sure it happens. A portion of the gifts were not intended for them, they were for the WH.
I'll bet it's not the first time a former President left the White House with items they thought were gifted to them personally but they were actually gifted to the White House. I wouldn't call it stealing for them either.

Likely, probably also likely that formers had to return stuff taken in error, unlikely that any formers turned Lincoln's room into a profit center.

The article I referenced does make it plausible that Clinton's didn't purposefully knowing steal WH stuff. I read it too quickly.

Boxes&Books · October 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.

Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?

JC29856 · October 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.

2 points.
1. Anyone is free to respond to any post but it comes off as trying to speak for someone else, bullyish and condescending in the sensev that they can't speak for themself. At least give that person the courtesy to respond first.
The stronger argument is... I'm just as guilty in assuming that MR response is only intended for me, the question asker.
2. Remember thou the Clinton's were bankrupt and heavily in debt when they left WH.

mrussel1 · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.
Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?

Feel free to chime in on the argument about the super pacs and polls. I would argue that there is zero nefarious evidence there. If you disagree, please say so and why.

JC29856 · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.
Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?

Don't forget about renovating Lincoln's room, which no other president ever considered touching, let alone turning it into airbnb.

JC29856 · October 2016

If you're the best, don't you want to beat the best? To be the best you have to beat the best, no fish stories, no granpa homeruns.
What's the saying build a better mousetrap? What if your mousetrap hasn't caught a mouse in 30 years....read this.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/

Boxes&Books · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.
Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?
Feel free to chime in on the argument about the super pacs and polls. I would argue that there is zero nefarious evidence there. If you disagree, please say so and why.

Hey you can't be asking people direct questions! haha...
I think you guys dug deep into that conversation, on a level that was beyond my understanding. Which was great because it became informative for me and hopefully for those who weren't as informed. At the end of the day you make a conclusion based on the facts and what you've gathered, then you make an informed decision, correct? I think that based on the discussion I can get behind JC's position. Why? Because if a Super PAC is giving millions of dollars to a company then they better see something in return. In the large scope that's sort of how things operate. There will be over a billion dollars invested in Clinton by the time this is over. I really doubt people are in the business of blowing a billion dollars. They're going to go after every angle to give them a slight advantage. So if they can get continuous favorability, even if it's only a fraction of an inch, then they're going to do what's necessary. Given everything we've seen from Clinton and the Dems lately it's hard to see them not doing things to manipulate the American public.

I'm 110% against CU. And I would like to see a new suit filed and eventually overturned. Anything that involves dirty money, such as Super PAC giving money, automatically raises red flags.
I think you guys are some of the brightest minds on the forum, so I say it was all due respect. Doesn't mean I wont challenge your comments or accept your comments as the truth.
Fair enough?

mrussel1 · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.
Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?
Feel free to chime in on the argument about the super pacs and polls. I would argue that there is zero nefarious evidence there. If you disagree, please say so and why.
Hey you can't be asking people direct questions! haha...
I think you guys dug deep into that conversation, on a level that was beyond my understanding. Which was great because it became informative for me and hopefully for those who weren't as informed. At the end of the day you make a conclusion based on the facts and what you've gathered, then you make an informed decision, correct? I think that based on the discussion I can get behind JC's position. Why? Because if a Super PAC is giving millions of dollars to a company then they better see something in return. In the large scope that's sort of how things operate. There will be over a billion dollars invested in Clinton by the time this is over. I really doubt people are in the business of blowing a billion dollars. They're going to go after every angle to give them a slight advantage. So if they can get continuous favorability, even if it's only a fraction of an inch, then they're going to do what's necessary. Given everything we've seen from Clinton and the Dems lately it's hard to see them not doing things to manipulate the American public.

I'm 110% against CU. And I would like to see a new suit filed and eventually overturned. Anything that involves dirty money, such as Super PAC giving money, automatically raises red flags.
I think you guys are some of the brightest minds on the forum, so I say it was all due respect. Doesn't mean I wont challenge your comments or accept your comments as the truth.
Fair enough?

Listen, my question was to you but if someone chimed in, I have no issue. And I like being challenged with real information, it allows me to bulletproof my arguments. It's why I read very conservative publications (not Breitbart, I mean real ones).
Regarding your point, you can come to any conclusion you want and that's your opinion. But I think you are misrepresenting one piece of it. The $300k by Priorities is not a donation. It's not funding. It was a fee for a service (I am presuming since they are listed under clients). What they got for their money was information andempirical data to allow them to better spend their ad money to influence the electorate. That's what they do.

Degeneratefk · October 2016

I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.

JC29856 · October 2016

Degeneratefk said:
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.

I agree, her supporters and those with ties to her whether or not they seek to benefit or otherwise should take your advice.

Gern Blansten · October 2016

Degeneratefk said:
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.

Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.

Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.

Boxes&Books · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.
Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?
Feel free to chime in on the argument about the super pacs and polls. I would argue that there is zero nefarious evidence there. If you disagree, please say so and why.
Hey you can't be asking people direct questions! haha...
I think you guys dug deep into that conversation, on a level that was beyond my understanding. Which was great because it became informative for me and hopefully for those who weren't as informed. At the end of the day you make a conclusion based on the facts and what you've gathered, then you make an informed decision, correct? I think that based on the discussion I can get behind JC's position. Why? Because if a Super PAC is giving millions of dollars to a company then they better see something in return. In the large scope that's sort of how things operate. There will be over a billion dollars invested in Clinton by the time this is over. I really doubt people are in the business of blowing a billion dollars. They're going to go after every angle to give them a slight advantage. So if they can get continuous favorability, even if it's only a fraction of an inch, then they're going to do what's necessary. Given everything we've seen from Clinton and the Dems lately it's hard to see them not doing things to manipulate the American public.

I'm 110% against CU. And I would like to see a new suit filed and eventually overturned. Anything that involves dirty money, such as Super PAC giving money, automatically raises red flags.
I think you guys are some of the brightest minds on the forum, so I say it was all due respect. Doesn't mean I wont challenge your comments or accept your comments as the truth.
Fair enough?
Listen, my question was to you but if someone chimed in, I have no issue. And I like being challenged with real information, it allows me to bulletproof my arguments. It's why I read very conservative publications (not Breitbart, I mean real ones).
Regarding your point, you can come to any conclusion you want and that's your opinion. But I think you are misrepresenting one piece of it. The $300k by Priorities is not a donation. It's not funding. It was a fee for a service (I am presuming since they are listed under clients). What they got for their money was information andempirical data to allow them to better spend their ad money to influence the electorate. That's what they do.

Correction, I misspoke- but ultimately it's the same idea, which is a Super PAC(red flags) giving money in exchange for services. I get the discussion gets deeper. I understand your points, which in my opionion should be enough to end the discussion, but this involves Clinton so now we're automatically questioning.

Maybe if we didn't have super pACS involved we wouldn't have this discussion. But then again campaigns would directly pay.

JC29856 · October 2016

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.

Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.

3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?

Gern Blansten · October 2016

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.

Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?

I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.

mrussel1 · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.
Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?
Feel free to chime in on the argument about the super pacs and polls. I would argue that there is zero nefarious evidence there. If you disagree, please say so and why.
Hey you can't be asking people direct questions! haha...
I think you guys dug deep into that conversation, on a level that was beyond my understanding. Which was great because it became informative for me and hopefully for those who weren't as informed. At the end of the day you make a conclusion based on the facts and what you've gathered, then you make an informed decision, correct? I think that based on the discussion I can get behind JC's position. Why? Because if a Super PAC is giving millions of dollars to a company then they better see something in return. In the large scope that's sort of how things operate. There will be over a billion dollars invested in Clinton by the time this is over. I really doubt people are in the business of blowing a billion dollars. They're going to go after every angle to give them a slight advantage. So if they can get continuous favorability, even if it's only a fraction of an inch, then they're going to do what's necessary. Given everything we've seen from Clinton and the Dems lately it's hard to see them not doing things to manipulate the American public.

I'm 110% against CU. And I would like to see a new suit filed and eventually overturned. Anything that involves dirty money, such as Super PAC giving money, automatically raises red flags.
I think you guys are some of the brightest minds on the forum, so I say it was all due respect. Doesn't mean I wont challenge your comments or accept your comments as the truth.
Fair enough?
Listen, my question was to you but if someone chimed in, I have no issue. And I like being challenged with real information, it allows me to bulletproof my arguments. It's why I read very conservative publications (not Breitbart, I mean real ones).
Regarding your point, you can come to any conclusion you want and that's your opinion. But I think you are misrepresenting one piece of it. The $300k by Priorities is not a donation. It's not funding. It was a fee for a service (I am presuming since they are listed under clients). What they got for their money was information andempirical data to allow them to better spend their ad money to influence the electorate. That's what they do.
Correction, I misspoke- but ultimately it's the same idea, which is a Super PAC(red flags) giving money in exchange for services. I get the discussion gets deeper. I understand your points, which in my opionion should be enough to end the discussion, but this involves Clinton so now we're automatically questioning.

Maybe if we didn't have super pACS involved we wouldn't have this discussion. But then again campaigns would directly pay.

Probably true. My guess is Clinton's campaign has their own polling team. I'm sure Obama and Romney did as well. I think Trump is using Conway's firm. Once you get past that, I think you end up going to third parties like this one.

JC29856 · October 2016

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:
I don't think Clinton needs to say another fucking word. Trump is doing a great job handing this election to her.
Bill Moyer posted today that he thinks they should drop that last debate. Of course neither Clinton nor Trump will want to be the first to drop out but I think it's a good idea.

Trump is making this process a fucking redneck joke.
3 "debates" isn't even enough, especially when other voices are shut out. I wonder what other countries do?
I don't disagree...except for this year. Trump has turned it into a fucking circus.

Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I'm curious to know how many "debates" there were in the past?

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:
Hillary and Bill are a team. Whatever Bill did she was fine with it.
Really? How do you know that? Source? I honestly have no idea what her real feelings are about Bill, what the deal is with their relationship, or what she thinks he did or didn't do. And frankly, I don't really care. I don't feel like it has an impact on her ability (or lackthereof) to be POTUS. Now of evidence came along telling us that she actively supported him raping someone or actively knows about it and doesn't care, that would be meaningful. But I have seen no evidence of that. Have you?
Well, I choose to believe the woman that accused Bill of assault, including the one Bill paid off in a settlement. I believe the victims' accounts that Hillary pressured them to not say anything. When Bill is caught having sex with an intern it isn't unrealistic to believe all the other stories. Hillary decided it was okay to stay with Bill and have her daughter continue to live in the same house (White House) where her dad was banging interns a few rooms away. If that doesn't say something about her character than I don't know what else to tell you. It is a political marriage. Ends justify the means.
Does Clinton's stealing $37k worth of white house furniture and wall decor speak to character? They actually stole more then returned most later.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Reading this whole thing, looks like there was no mal-intent at all. Funny that you use the verb 'stole' while Politifact specifically repudiated the use of that word.
Your doing it again!
no he's not. I read the article too, and was surprised at your mini-summary before the link. it wasn't accurate at all.
Question wasn't posed to him?

So your saying Clinton's didn't leave with stuff that weren't theirs? Okay I'll correct it...Clinton's borrowed some stuff from the white house, some they returned some they are still b borrowing.
If you want a personal Q&A or to quiz people, send them a PM.
How about if I wanted your input I'll ask with your quoted text, as I have done in the past.
I think you're starting to get under the skin of certain individuals. The details of the discussions are starting to get real and you're proving basic points, which doesn't appear to sit well with some.

Moderator friendly and informative. Those voters who are the fence should read what JC is posting.
telling people they shouldn't address a point unless spoken to first on a public message board is ludicrous. everyone needs to stop with the "getting under their skin" bullshit. it's weak. if people around here think that some of us turn off our computers in a rage and run down the street yelling "I HATE AMT!" you are out of your collective minds.

I highly doubt that people in the highest office in the land with that much money intended to steal anything that wasn't theirs. I'd say the same for obama, the bush family, the reagans, trump, everyone. it's ridiculous.
Weren't they flat broke when they left? Isn't that what Hillary stated, sorry I don't remember.

My comment was directed at JC - it was a general comment based on all of the work he's been putting in. The comment I made was inspired by russ's reply comment to JC's. It gets complicated, but ultimately JC is posting some excellent points with detailed evidence. I'm simply expressing my support. It's informative and goes a long ways.

The article regarding the Clinton's taking items from the white house was much to do about nothing. They took items they weren't suppose to- Some they returned, some they paid back, some they kept, some the white house sent back... . JC's point was that the CLinton's continue to demonstrate this odd behavior/characteristic that seems shady. Not a big deal, but it does support that shadiness behavior.

If you took items from a furnished apartment you were leasing what would happen?

but that's not what they did. they took stuff they were gifted while leasing that "apartment". they didn't realize at the time the gifts were for the house, not the occupants (apparently, I won't claim to know their intentions).

I just think people are using jaywalking to prove murder.

Hillary won more votes for President

Comments

Categories