Hillary won more votes for President

CM189191 · November 2016

brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.

We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.

Kat · November 2016

tonifig8 said:
Why has the FBI Files thread been closed? There was no fighting or rules being broken on that thread.

A new thread was opened on the same topic and we can't merge that poll thread into the others so the others were closed since the conversation was moved. That's all. Use the existing threads. Just as with the Trump thread in the beginning, we don't need duplicate discussions. It's all about the candidate. The Hillary For President one will do just fine.

brianlux · November 2016

CM189191 said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.

I'm guessing you have been a Hillary supporter from the get go- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who prior to the convention where strongly critical of HRC and now are saying, "oh, she isn't so bad after all" and even strongly defending her. Please don't alter the content of what I'm asking here.

rgambs · November 2016

unsung said:
Probably better than the EPA that destroys rivers in Colorado.

Hahaha that one MAJOR screw-up must be getting tired from propping up your entire anti-EPA argument all the time.
I remember offering you 100$ dollars to swim in Bubbly Creek when you denied the need and usefulness of the EPA, I am glad you didn't take me up on that, the health risk isn't worth 1000$ (in gold, even lol), let alone 100$

Gern Blansten · November 2016

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government

She's got a vision folks....like it or not

On every dimension that counts, Clinton would make America more social democratic

rssesq · November 2016

Wake me up, when November ends. Giant Douche v. Shit Sandwich = a lose/lose for the people of the usa

CM189191 · November 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
CM189191 said:

brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.
I'm guessing you have been a Hillary supporter from the get go- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who prior to the convention where strongly critical of HRC and now are saying, "oh, she isn't so bad after all" and even strongly defending her. Please don't alter the content of what I'm asking here.

What's the point of running a campaign, if not to change people's minds? Hillary made her case, people listened, and decided to get behind her. Wasn't that the point of travelling around the country glad-handing for the last few months?

brianlux · November 2016

CM189191 said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.
I'm guessing you have been a Hillary supporter from the get go- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who prior to the convention where strongly critical of HRC and now are saying, "oh, she isn't so bad after all" and even strongly defending her. Please don't alter the content of what I'm asking here.
What's the point of running a campaign, if not to change people's minds? Hillary made her case, people listened, and decided to get behind her. Wasn't that the point of travelling around the country glad-handing for the last few months?

I'm not sure it was Hillary who changed the minds of the people I'm referring to. I think it was fear of not being able to change that which you have no control over (which has created a lot of cognitive dissonance) and a passionate dislike of Trump. Suddenly, for these people (not you), she is "not so bad".

CM189191 · November 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.
I'm guessing you have been a Hillary supporter from the get go- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who prior to the convention where strongly critical of HRC and now are saying, "oh, she isn't so bad after all" and even strongly defending her. Please don't alter the content of what I'm asking here.
What's the point of running a campaign, if not to change people's minds? Hillary made her case, people listened, and decided to get behind her. Wasn't that the point of travelling around the country glad-handing for the last few months?
I'm not sure it was Hillary who changed the minds of the people I'm referring to. I think it was fear of not being able to change that which you have no control over (which has created a lot of cognitive dissonance) and a passionate dislike of Trump. Suddenly, for these people (not you), she is "not so bad".

Unfortunately, this is a two way street
crooksandliars.com:8080/files/imagecache/post_large/images/16/10/trump_shirt_arrow.jpg"

CM189191 · November 2016

Vote early vote often!
www.vote.org/early-voting-calendar

PJ_Soul · November 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.
I'm guessing you have been a Hillary supporter from the get go- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who prior to the convention where strongly critical of HRC and now are saying, "oh, she isn't so bad after all" and even strongly defending her. Please don't alter the content of what I'm asking here.
What's the point of running a campaign, if not to change people's minds? Hillary made her case, people listened, and decided to get behind her. Wasn't that the point of travelling around the country glad-handing for the last few months?
I'm not sure it was Hillary who changed the minds of the people I'm referring to. I think it was fear of not being able to change that which you have no control over (which has created a lot of cognitive dissonance) and a passionate dislike of Trump. Suddenly, for these people (not you), she is "not so bad".

Those are some pretty presumptuous conclusions there Brian. I think many people really have considered facts and really had their minds changed by reality. Many are realizing that the email "scandal" that upset them so isn't actually as big a scandal as they were lead to believe. The FBI thing hurt Clinton's campaign short term, but I think it may have also had a positive impact on the campaign overall, because it really got people examining just what the fuck Hillary did that was so wrong they're supposed to hate her to their core.... and they are finding that the whole thing more seems like an overwrought witch hunt. They are realizing that Clinton isn't as bad as so many people have been duped into believing for so long.
That said, strategic voting is also a perfectly valid thing to do, and it doesn't deserve these negative labels that you and Free and couple others like to put on it. To vote for someone to prevent someone much worse from winning is just smart and practical and truly what they consider the right thing to do, not cowardly, as some are trying to make it seem.

Boxes&Books · November 2016

PJ_Soul said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.
I'm guessing you have been a Hillary supporter from the get go- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who prior to the convention where strongly critical of HRC and now are saying, "oh, she isn't so bad after all" and even strongly defending her. Please don't alter the content of what I'm asking here.
What's the point of running a campaign, if not to change people's minds? Hillary made her case, people listened, and decided to get behind her. Wasn't that the point of travelling around the country glad-handing for the last few months?
I'm not sure it was Hillary who changed the minds of the people I'm referring to. I think it was fear of not being able to change that which you have no control over (which has created a lot of cognitive dissonance) and a passionate dislike of Trump. Suddenly, for these people (not you), she is "not so bad".
Those are some pretty presumptuous conclusions there Brian. I think many people really have considered facts and really had their minds changed by reality. Many are realizing that the email "scandal" that upset them so isn't actually as big a scandal as they were lead to believe. The FBI thing hurt Clinton's campaign short term, but I think it may have also had a positive impact on the campaign overall, because it really got people examining just what the fuck Hillary did that was so wrong they're supposed to hate her to their core.... and they are finding that the whole thing more seems like an overwrought witch hunt. They are realizing that Clinton isn't as bad as so many people have been duped into believing for so long.
That said, strategic voting is also a perfectly valid thing to do, and it doesn't deserve these negative labels that you and Free and couple others like to put on it. To vote for someone to prevent someone much worse from winning is just smart and practical and truly what they consider the right thing to do, not cowardly, as some are trying to make it seem.

Where is your source? Where did you read or hear about people feeling duped?
Sounds like a nice pro-clinton speech.

lukin2006 · November 2016

tonifig8 said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:

CM189191 said:

brianlux said:
I'm still fascinated by the support being thrown to Hillary- by people who previously were against her- who either are voting for "lesser of two evils" or now somehow are convinced that all the things they didn't like about Hillary are "not so bad after all"- I believe this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
We get it, she's not perfect. Yes, she has some flaws. And in spite of the constant fishing expeditions, some people think she's ~~not so bad after all~~ very qualified for the position. In fact, every time there's a new accusation, I learn something more about Hillary that makes me like her more.
Fact is, if Jesus Christ himself were running, the Right would smear him for running around with hookers and open an investigation into Temple-gate.
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's using critical thinking to see past the political theater.
I'm guessing you have been a Hillary supporter from the get go- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who prior to the convention where strongly critical of HRC and now are saying, "oh, she isn't so bad after all" and even strongly defending her. Please don't alter the content of what I'm asking here.
What's the point of running a campaign, if not to change people's minds? Hillary made her case, people listened, and decided to get behind her. Wasn't that the point of travelling around the country glad-handing for the last few months?
I'm not sure it was Hillary who changed the minds of the people I'm referring to. I think it was fear of not being able to change that which you have no control over (which has created a lot of cognitive dissonance) and a passionate dislike of Trump. Suddenly, for these people (not you), she is "not so bad".
Those are some pretty presumptuous conclusions there Brian. I think many people really have considered facts and really had their minds changed by reality. Many are realizing that the email "scandal" that upset them so isn't actually as big a scandal as they were lead to believe. The FBI thing hurt Clinton's campaign short term, but I think it may have also had a positive impact on the campaign overall, because it really got people examining just what the fuck Hillary did that was so wrong they're supposed to hate her to their core.... and they are finding that the whole thing more seems like an overwrought witch hunt. They are realizing that Clinton isn't as bad as so many people have been duped into believing for so long.
That said, strategic voting is also a perfectly valid thing to do, and it doesn't deserve these negative labels that you and Free and couple others like to put on it. To vote for someone to prevent someone much worse from winning is just smart and practical and truly what they consider the right thing to do, not cowardly, as some are trying to make it seem.
Where is your source? Where did you read or hear about people feeling duped?
Sounds like a nice pro-clinton speech.

agreed....

Boxes&Books · November 2016

Peter Kadzik (the current assistant attorney general of DoJ) was attorney to Mark Rich! He lobbied Podesta (then white house chief of staff) for the pardon that Bill Clinton eventually granted. He also was attorney to Podesta in the Lewinsky affair. Podesta recommended Kadzik to the Obama administration for his current job. Podesta assisted Kadzik's son in finding a job in the current Clinton campaign. Kadzik has also donated to (earlier?) Hillary Clinton campaigns.

From: *Peter Kadzik*
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Subject: Heads up
To: John Podesta

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails.

Boxes&Books · November 2016

layers and layers and layers of corruption or simply coincedences?

Current FBI Director James Comey sat on the board of banking giant HSBC.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213
The same Banking Giant that launders drug cartel money. And has been caught, charged and fined for doing so.
https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/news/company/24989264/glencore-gallops-higher-as-liberum-bullish-on-china-s-coal-policy
HSBC is also responsible for many of Glencore's investments. Again, Glencore was founded by the criminal Marc Rich, who paid for a pardon by former President Bill Clinton. A pardon which was investigated by James Comey, who sat on the board of HSBC, which laundered drug cartel money, and did business with a company that worked intimately with drug traffickers. Comey found "No evidence of criminal activity."
Why are the Saudi's, Qatar, and the Democrats interested in Glencore?
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Glencore-Seeks-To-Offset-Weak-Year-With-Iran-Libya-Oil-Trading.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/21/glencore-trade-iran-supplier-nuclear
http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/tag/glencore/
http://time.com/4055466/glencore/
http://m.4-traders.com/GLENCORE-PLC-8017494/news/Glencore-Yemen-crude-exports-resume-at-a-trickle-from-Ash-Shihr-Oil-Terminal-22861238/
Glencore is a trading company. They trade lots of things.
Once Gadaffi fell in 2011, they began trading Libyan oil again.
They trade Yemen's oil
They trade Iraqi oil.
Once the Iran deal was hitched, they began trading Iranian copper.
In 2012 and 2013, they were caught trading aluminum to Iran's nuclear program(which was against international law at the time).
And as Time reads, government policy since 2008 has made it so Glencore could sit back and make "EASY MONEY"

Wikileaks has shown us Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Glencore investors TIED to Joule Unlimited and John Podesta, and thus in multiple directions James Comey,
Qatar Gave Bill Clinton $1 million for a 5 minute meeting in 2011
$1 million for a five minute meeting in 2011, Gadaffis fall in 2011, Saudi Arabia invests $400 million into Glencore in 2011, Glencore begin trading Libyan Oil in 2011.

Boxes&Books · November 2016

Hilliary Clinton has said repeatedly, I made a mistake lets move on... Comey based on new evidence (that contradicts statements made by Hilliarys camp) reopens the case, lets wait before we move on.
Hilliary Clinton has said repeatedly, Trump has ties to Russia Russia Russia... FBI investigates and concludes Trump has no ties to Russia

If at any point evidence presents itself that Trump is tied to Russia Russia Russia, then the FBI can reopen the investigation and announce it publicly.

Furthermore, Hilliary has said Russia Russia Russia has hacked the US per 17 intelligence agencies/sources without a drop of proof pudding.

Boxes&Books · November 2016

So far the FBI has opened the vault and has/have released files relating to Hillary Clinton's emails, The William J Clinton Foundation and Vince Foster.

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

https://vault.fbi.gov/william-j.-clinton-foundation

https://vault.fbi.gov/vincent-foster

Boxes&Books · November 2016

Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015
Emails from March 2nd and 3rd...but we are going to have to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later..
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41841

“Did you have any idea of the depth of this story?” Podesta asked campaign manager Robby Mook late on March 2, 2015, the day the New York Times revealed that Clinton had exclusively used a private account as secretary.

“Nope,” Mook replied early the next day. “We brought up the existence of emails in [research] this summer but were told that everything was taken care of.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html

Boxes&Books · November 2016

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2098

Need to read attachments... How to get around election law to raise big $ thru super pac

CM189191 · November 2016

tonifig8 said:
So far the FBI has opened the vault and has/have released files relating to Hillary Clinton's emails, The William J Clinton Foundation and Vince Foster.

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

https://vault.fbi.gov/william-j.-clinton-foundation

https://vault.fbi.gov/vincent-foster

Yes, in response to FOIA requests filed ages ago. FBIs timing is a little curious though....

Hillary won more votes for President

Comments

Quick Links

Categories