Hillary won more votes for President

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

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?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"?
Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
sabotage. you'd vote for who you'd want to go against your candidate, which really doesn't make sense. in canada, the party chooses their own leader, not the voters. that would be like saying the liberals should have a say in who the conservative leader will be.

edit: I had no idea in certain states you could actually do this. how bizarre.
Doesn't this contribute to the us vs them, winner vs loser mentality that is destroying politics today? Let's say you're not a registered party member; you are undecided, independent, whatever. These undecided voters go to the primaries and are able to vote for the best R and D that they think will do the best job. Then politicians would actually tack towards the middle in the primary, instead of catering to the far extremes of their base. We might actually get some elected officials who understand they represent all their constituents. People who are able to listen and compromise. Instead, it's become winner take all. Politics is not a sports contest.

I just don't think it would work out that way. I think they'd still pander to their base and hope that not enough people from the other party come out to vote agains them in the primary. But who knows.

again, I think it would work better if you weren't registered with any party whatsoever. there's none of that shit in Canada. of course, if you are part of a union, then that generally means you vote NDP, but other than that, there is no official party membership unless you work for them.

parties choose their own leaders internally. no 2 year primary/election bullshit. 6 week election cycle and you're done. Canadians were so sick and tired of this last one, as pjsoul said, it was longer than any other election cycle in history. 2 months plus.

JC29856 · October 2016

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

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?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"?
Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.

Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along.
Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!

please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.

mrussel1 · October 2016

JC29856 said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

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?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"?
Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.

Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along.
Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.

1950 midterms.

BS44325 · 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.

The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!

mrussel1 · October 2016

BS44325 said:

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.
The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!

Them's fightin' words. If we can handle the Sox, we can handle your bats... although the Sox went cold and the Jays have heated up. I was talking to Hillary and she told me that she thinks that being able to throw Kluber games 1, 4 and 7 will be a real advantage for the Tribe. She thinks we just need a quality start from one other guy and we can win it. I'm just repeating what she says.

JC29856 · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

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?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"?
Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.

Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along.
Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.
1950 midterms.

1950 mids point 1...next

mrussel1 · October 2016

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

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?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"?
Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.

Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along.
Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.
1950 midterms.
1950 mids point 1...next

Got nothing else...

rgambs · October 2016

JC29856 said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

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?
Three... for the last several elections, certainly this century.
The electorate has to endure 800 days of campaigning and only 6 hours of "debate"?
Yakoff Smirnoff
There were about 15 GOP debates and several Democratic ones. There are three debates with the finalists.
In many states voters can only vote in the party primary to which they are registered. Why bother watching a GOP primary "debate" if I have no vote since I'm registered Dem and vice versa?
Well I don't know... but it doesn't make sense to be able to vote in both primaries.
Why not?
The primary exists for party members to select their nominee. Why would a party want others playing a role in that? It isn't meant to be a general election for all registered voters.

Sometimes, primaries mean jack shit to the parties (see Washington State Democratic primary), and it is just a formality or an appeasement to voters who think they have a voice, since the actual selection of their delegates takes place at the caucuses.
Does it matter that 40% of registered voters are not registered "dem" or "gop"?
Yeah it matters, they ought to get over themselves and register with the party that most closely represents their beliefs when important elections come along.
Perhaps if those 40% were less concerned with a cuddlebear candidate that makes them feel warm and snuggly inside we would be looking at a Sanders vs Kasich election and the country would be a hell of alot better off!
please list the unimportant elections since 1950? So Indy voters have some reference.

That's for them to decide, but then again, I don't think it is them who is doing the complaining, I think it's Democrats with sour grapes that Bernie lost.

mrussel1 · October 2016

BS44325 said:

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.
The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!

Oh yeah, the other big news is the Tribe just signed Doyle Alexander. You're fucked.

rssesq · October 2016

I will not lose my faith
It's an inside job today
I know this one thing well
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-question-to-clinton-camp-in-advance/ar-BBxiOOr?li=BBmkt5R

PJ_Soul · October 2016

JC29856 said:
MR I certainly don't expect you to defend the democracy but your good a defending. No need to reply as I hope this latest discussion opens more eyes.

*you're

Boxes&Books · October 2016

rssesq said:
I will not lose my faith
It's an inside job today
I know this one thing well
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-question-to-clinton-camp-in-advance/ar-BBxiOOr?li=BBmkt5R

wow.
Boy I used love listening to Donna Brazile speak so eloquently about Obama.

This is cheating, right? Even if it's just one question. Is that not an advantage?

Anyone?

JC29856 · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

rssesq said:
I will not lose my faith
It's an inside job today
I know this one thing well
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-question-to-clinton-camp-in-advance/ar-BBxiOOr?li=BBmkt5R
wow.
Boy I used love listening to Donna Brazile speak so eloquently about Obama.

This is cheating, right? Even if it's just one question. Is that not an advantage?

Anyone?

Nah "both sides"

BS44325 · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

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.
The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!
Oh yeah, the other big news is the Tribe just signed Doyle Alexander. You're fucked.

Ha! Noooooooooo!

BS44325 · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

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.
The Indians are going to get their asses kicked! How about that attack!
Them's fightin' words. If we can handle the Sox, we can handle your bats... although the Sox went cold and the Jays have heated up. I was talking to Hillary and she told me that she thinks that being able to throw Kluber games 1, 4 and 7 will be a real advantage for the Tribe. She thinks we just need a quality start from one other guy and we can win it. I'm just repeating what she says.

We have 4 great starters so we don't have to worry about shit like that. I just booked my hotel in Cleveland for games 6 and 7*.

*if necessary

Boxes&Books · October 2016

Camp Clinton E-mails

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440980/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-emails

Gern Blansten · October 2016

tonifig8 said:

rssesq said:
I will not lose my faith
It's an inside job today
I know this one thing well
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-question-to-clinton-camp-in-advance/ar-BBxiOOr?li=BBmkt5R
wow.
Boy I used love listening to Donna Brazile speak so eloquently about Obama.

This is cheating, right? Even if it's just one question. Is that not an advantage?

Anyone?

"Here's one that worries me about HRC," wrote Brazile in the email.

Palmieri wrote back: "Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it."

Brazile shouldn't have done that. No doubt.

But look at Palmieri's answer....

JC29856 · October 2016

Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.

Boxes&Books · October 2016

Message from Brother West:

"You know, I’ve never been tied to one party or one candidate or even one institution. And that’s true even with one church as a Christian. I’m committed to truth and justice. I know you are, too.

I came late to the Green Party, but right on time; I was a tireless supporter and surrogate for Brother Bernie Sanders … he was the standard-bearer for truth and justice during the primary at a national level, at a highly visible level. Maybe you supported him, too.

But once he endorsed Hillary Clinton, I had to endorse Jill and Ajamu.

Why? Because Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal disaster.

What I mean by neoliberal disaster is someone who generates a mass incarceration regime, who deregulates banks and markets, who promotes chaos of regime change in Libya, supports military coups in Honduras, undermines some of the magnificent efforts in Haiti of working people, and so forth.

She’s an imperialist. She’s a militarist. She could take us into war with Russia. She could take us into war with Iran. I believe she’s dangerous in terms of her neoliberal ideology—not as a woman, because I’m supporting, of course, my dear sister Jill Stein.

Jill is not a spoiler. You know, a lot of people use that term "spoiler."

But truth is, If Hillary Clinton can’t make the case to progressives, she doesn’t deserve our vote."

Brother West is an honest man. Any thoughts

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

JC29856 said:
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.

I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.

Hillary won more votes for President

Comments

Categories