Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all. I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things.
I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist.
I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous.
honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?
Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband. The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million. I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding. I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.
Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.
Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.
Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all. I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things.
I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist.
I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous.
honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?
Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband. The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million. I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding. I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.
Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.
Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.
Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?
She has been thoroughly investigated and has not been found to have committed any crimes. Your personal opinion of whether she committed any crimes is not relevant, particularly when you’re operating on faulty information.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
After reading everything here you still believe all this?
You have to be willfully ignoring the facts, because the theory that the FBI helped Hillary has been gone through here at length and debunked. It was quite the opposite.
Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all. I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things.
I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist.
I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous.
honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?
Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband. The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million. I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding. I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.
Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.
Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.
Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?
She has been thoroughly investigated and has not been found to have committed any crimes. Your personal opinion of whether she committed any crimes is not relevant, particularly when you’re operating on faulty information.
So destroying evidence, and admitting to it, during an FBI investigation has not been founded and has no merit? I am not allowed to take those facts into consideration?
Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all. I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things.
I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist.
I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous.
honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?
Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband. The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million. I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding. I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.
Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.
Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.
Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?
She has been thoroughly investigated and has not been found to have committed any crimes. Your personal opinion of whether she committed any crimes is not relevant, particularly when you’re operating on faulty information.
So destroying evidence, and admitting to it, during an FBI investigation has not been founded and has no merit? I am not allowed to take those facts into consideration?
Those aren't the facts.
Listen to Act 1 in this link for a good breakdown on what actually happened.
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected.
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected.
That's one thing that I can;t understand. It is more than clear he and many others did want her to win. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was looking after himself and thought there'd be consequences for dismissing it the way he did, or he underestimated the impact it would have. Those are my 2 guesses anyway.
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected.
That's one thing that I can;t understand. It is more than clear he and many others did want her to win. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was looking after himself and thought there'd be consequences for dismissing it the way he did, or he underestimated the impact it would have. Those are my 2 guesses anyway.
he alerted congress he was investigating one of the two candidates TWO WEEKS prior to the election, (making everyone worry that if she won she'd be indicted-which in itself is funny, since a sitting president apparently can't be indicted) which goes against department policy/precedence. that doesn't sound to me like he wanted her to win.
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected.
That's one thing that I can;t understand. It is more than clear he and many others did want her to win. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was looking after himself and thought there'd be consequences for dismissing it the way he did, or he underestimated the impact it would have. Those are my 2 guesses anyway.
he alerted congress he was investigating one of the two candidates TWO WEEKS prior to the election, (making everyone worry that if she won she'd be indicted-which in itself is funny, since a sitting president apparently can't be indicted) which goes against department policy/precedence. that doesn't sound to me like he wanted her to win.
He's an open Hilary supporter. I remember him doing his book tour and basically saying that. Found some quotes from his book and interviews to refresh my memory, but he admits he did it because he thought Hilary was a shoe-in to win. And that he worried about how it would reflect on the FBI if he did not. And also admitted knowing what he knows now (that she lost) he would do it differently. So it seems he tried to brush off the investigation, but thinking no way Trump would win over her and how it would impact his career if he didn't follow through he decided to re-open it. Here are some of the quotes from the book I found. . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/james-comey-book-hillary-clinton-email-investigation
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected.
That's one thing that I can;t understand. It is more than clear he and many others did want her to win. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was looking after himself and thought there'd be consequences for dismissing it the way he did, or he underestimated the impact it would have. Those are my 2 guesses anyway.
he alerted congress he was investigating one of the two candidates TWO WEEKS prior to the election, (making everyone worry that if she won she'd be indicted-which in itself is funny, since a sitting president apparently can't be indicted) which goes against department policy/precedence. that doesn't sound to me like he wanted her to win.
He's an open Hilary supporter. I remember him doing his book tour and basically saying that. Found some quotes from his book and interviews to refresh my memory, but he admits he did it because he thought Hilary was a shoe-in to win. And that he worried about how it would reflect on the FBI if he did not. And also admitted knowing what he knows now (that she lost) he would do it differently. So it seems he tried to brush off the investigation, but thinking no way Trump would win over her and how it would impact his career if he didn't follow through he decided to re-open it. Here are some of the quotes from the book I found. . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/james-comey-book-hillary-clinton-email-investigation
if all of that is true, then he had no business being in that position.
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected.
That's one thing that I can;t understand. It is more than clear he and many others did want her to win. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was looking after himself and thought there'd be consequences for dismissing it the way he did, or he underestimated the impact it would have. Those are my 2 guesses anyway.
he alerted congress he was investigating one of the two candidates TWO WEEKS prior to the election, (making everyone worry that if she won she'd be indicted-which in itself is funny, since a sitting president apparently can't be indicted) which goes against department policy/precedence. that doesn't sound to me like he wanted her to win.
He's an open Hilary supporter. I remember him doing his book tour and basically saying that. Found some quotes from his book and interviews to refresh my memory, but he admits he did it because he thought Hilary was a shoe-in to win. And that he worried about how it would reflect on the FBI if he did not. And also admitted knowing what he knows now (that she lost) he would do it differently. So it seems he tried to brush off the investigation, but thinking no way Trump would win over her and how it would impact his career if he didn't follow through he decided to re-open it. Here are some of the quotes from the book I found. . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/james-comey-book-hillary-clinton-email-investigation
if all of that is true, then he had no business being in that position.
Probably contributed to him being fired within a few months.
Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all. I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things.
I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist.
I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous.
honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?
Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband. The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million. I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding. I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.
Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.
Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.
Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?
She has been thoroughly investigated and has not been found to have committed any crimes. Your personal opinion of whether she committed any crimes is not relevant, particularly when you’re operating on faulty information.
So destroying evidence, and admitting to it, during an FBI investigation has not been founded and has no merit? I am not allowed to take those facts into consideration?
Those aren't the facts.
Listen to Act 1 in this link for a good breakdown on what actually happened.
Just listened to it, and they said nothing about what most people are bothered by. Her destroying evidence. She destroyed her server AFTER there was a subpoena to hand it over. That is the biggest red flag of all to me. She also physically destroyed devices used, while I don't think they determined if that was before the investigation or during, the whole bleachbit thing really makes me question why none of the devices in question were ever found. That podcast doesnt discuss any of that, and focuses mostly on why she had a private server to begin with. Stating it was because of her lack of knowledge of technology and not even know how to use a computer was her reason for having her own server. While I don;t know if I buy that, I have nothing to disprove it either. And the only defense I have ever seen to that is that Bleachbit is free software, not some expensive program that is difficult to use. But so what? If I shoot someone with a cheap bullet does that make it less of a murder than an expensive one? What does the cost of the software have to do with it, but that is the only defense I have ever seen with regards to it. I'd like more answers than that.
Post edited by mace1229 on
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,215
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
The length to which the repub party, RNC, NRA and Team Trump Treason and his ilk went to collude with and offer quid pro quos to the RUSSIANS is much more worrisome than the used car saleswoman destroying her server and an inept FBI getting her elected.
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
You live in a fantasy world.
What fantasy is that? Comey admitted to it in interviews and his book, there are text messages between high level FBI agents saying they won't "let" Trump become president. Comey also said Lynch instructed him not to use the word "investigation" because it sounds bad. Comey admitted to reopening the investigation only because he thought Hillary was a shoe-in and it would look bad for him if he didnt. So what fantasy is it where these people wanted Hilary to win, because that is exactly what happened?
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,215
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
You live in a fantasy world.
What fantasy is that? Comey admitted to it in interviews and his book, there are text messages between high level FBI agents saying they won't "let" Trump become president. Comey also said Lynch instructed him not to use the word "investigation" because it sounds bad. Comey admitted to reopening the investigation only because he thought Hillary was a shoe-in and it would look bad for him if he didnt. So what fantasy is it where these people wanted Hilary to win, because that is exactly what happened?
Sir,
Going public TWICE with matters relating to the Clinton email issue/investigation (in which nothing came of it), including days before the election and not going public with the, obviously, more serious investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign basically handed the presidency to Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. Case closed.
538, among others, has great reporting regarding the polling models taking drastic changes in the days after Comey announced he was reopening the investigation 10 days or so before the election. Choosing not to believe that and to, instead, go down the Sean Hannity rabbit hole is the fantasy world you're living in.
Mistakes were made by Comey and Strock and his chick may have had some bias...however this does NOTHING--ZIP--NADA to change the fact that the actions the FBI took public greatly benefited Trump and greatly damaged Clinton... which completely blows up your fantasy world conspiracy.
Not to mention the fact that you have Rudy Guilliani, Trump's own lawyer right now, telling Fox and Friends days before the election, that his sources in the FBI were telling him that they all wanted Trump to win and Hillary to lose.
just gonna say, I’d rather hang out with a higher percentage of Mexicans in our country than native borns in the good ol’ US of A.
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Philly I & II, 16
Denver 22
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,661
just gonna say, I’d rather hang out with a higher percentage of Mexicans in our country than native borns in the good ol’ US of A.
I can dig that Wobbie. I worked for my brother for a summer on his farm up in Washington one year. The Mexican migrant workers I worked alongside were cool. One of them asked me to cut his hair. I did the best I could but wasn't real confident about my work. But he was please and afterwards he pulled two six backs of Beer out of his cooler which we polished off to much laughter. Good times!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
^^^^^ Are we, as a nation and the greatest in the world, this heartless? DHS buses need covered windows? What are we hiding and why? Are we that afraid? What’s on that bus? Doesn’t matter to the 7 year old, she’ll never know. Proud?
And where the fuck are the evangelical and “religious” folks? When will the Catholic Church condemn this policy? “Christian conservative compassion?” Oxymoronic.
just gonna say, I’d rather hang out with a higher percentage of Mexicans in our country than native borns in the good ol’ US of A.
What if the Mexicans are native born....? Lol. I do agree somewhat, though. When I was younger, almost all of my best friends were from low income Mexican families (plentiful in the town I grew up in). Most of the “well off” or kids from really wealthy families were entitled little shits at the school I went to and always seemed to get special treatment by the teachers and coaches. I remember some of my friends getting made fun of for their clothes or shoes by said “shits”. Fuck them, and they didn’t get the awesome breakfast burritos that my Mexican friends would bring me . Still friends with most of them to this day. On the subject of immigration, they would get upset by the “border hoppers” as they felt it reflected poorly on their culture...
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
You live in a fantasy world.
What fantasy is that? Comey admitted to it in interviews and his book, there are text messages between high level FBI agents saying they won't "let" Trump become president. Comey also said Lynch instructed him not to use the word "investigation" because it sounds bad. Comey admitted to reopening the investigation only because he thought Hillary was a shoe-in and it would look bad for him if he didnt. So what fantasy is it where these people wanted Hilary to win, because that is exactly what happened?
Sir,
Going public TWICE with matters relating to the Clinton email issue/investigation (in which nothing came of it), including days before the election and not going public with the, obviously, more serious investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign basically handed the presidency to Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. Case closed.
538, among others, has great reporting regarding the polling models taking drastic changes in the days after Comey announced he was reopening the investigation 10 days or so before the election. Choosing not to believe that and to, instead, go down the Sean Hannity rabbit hole is the fantasy world you're living in.
Mistakes were made by Comey and Strock and his chick may have had some bias...however this does NOTHING--ZIP--NADA to change the fact that the actions the FBI took public greatly benefited Trump and greatly damaged Clinton... which completely blows up your fantasy world conspiracy.
Not to mention the fact that you have Rudy Guilliani, Trump's own lawyer right now, telling Fox and Friends days before the election, that his sources in the FBI were telling him that they all wanted Trump to win and Hillary to lose.
I never disputed that. It was very damaging. But what is also true is that Comey is an open Hilary supporter and has admitted that he re-opened the investigation thinking that there was no possible way that Trump would win. And knowing the impact that it had now he would do it differently. Those are his words, not my beliefs about it. So I don't see how that is a fantasy or a rabbit hole. I never said the investigation didn't hurt Hilary, just that Comey only did it not realizing the damage it would cause. The only statement of yours I am unfamiliar with is the last one, and even if true there were still others who stated they won't "let" Trump win. But that doesn't change the fact on anything Comey said (which is what I believe you were calling the fantasy-rabbit hole). He wanted Hilary to win and would not have opened the investigation if he realized how much damage it would do. His words.
Post edited by mace1229 on
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,215
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
You live in a fantasy world.
What fantasy is that? Comey admitted to it in interviews and his book, there are text messages between high level FBI agents saying they won't "let" Trump become president. Comey also said Lynch instructed him not to use the word "investigation" because it sounds bad. Comey admitted to reopening the investigation only because he thought Hillary was a shoe-in and it would look bad for him if he didnt. So what fantasy is it where these people wanted Hilary to win, because that is exactly what happened?
Sir,
Going public TWICE with matters relating to the Clinton email issue/investigation (in which nothing came of it), including days before the election and not going public with the, obviously, more serious investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign basically handed the presidency to Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. Case closed.
538, among others, has great reporting regarding the polling models taking drastic changes in the days after Comey announced he was reopening the investigation 10 days or so before the election. Choosing not to believe that and to, instead, go down the Sean Hannity rabbit hole is the fantasy world you're living in.
Mistakes were made by Comey and Strock and his chick may have had some bias...however this does NOTHING--ZIP--NADA to change the fact that the actions the FBI took public greatly benefited Trump and greatly damaged Clinton... which completely blows up your fantasy world conspiracy.
Not to mention the fact that you have Rudy Guilliani, Trump's own lawyer right now, telling Fox and Friends days before the election, that his sources in the FBI were telling him that they all wanted Trump to win and Hillary to lose.
I never disputed that. It was very damaging. But what is also true is that Comey is an open Hilary supporter and has admitted that he re-opened the investigation thinking that there was no possible way that Trump would win. And knowing the impact that it had now he would do it differently. Those are his words, not my beliefs about it. So I don't see how that is a fantasy or a rabbit hole. I never said the investigation didn't hurt Hilary, just that Comey only did it not realizing the damage it would cause. The only statement of yours I am unfamiliar with is the last one, and even if true there were still others who stated they won't "let" Trump win. But that doesn't change the fact on anything Comey said (which is what I believe you were calling the fantasy-rabbit hole). He wanted Hilary to win and would not have opened the investigation if he realized how much damage it would do. His words.
Sir, Jim Comey IS A REPUBLICAN. He has never said he is a Hillary supporter. And he never said he reopened the investing because he thought "there was no possible way" Trump would win. That's a Trump administration talking point. It is not advisable to use Trump administration talking points as facts...because they are usually lies. Here is good reading on the subject: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/13/james-comey-clinton-investigation-poll-numbers-522958
Fact-check: Comey didn’t say he reopened Clinton investigation because of poll numbers
In his book he says he was concerned about making her an illegitimate president by not revealing this to the public. But in hindsight, he did that to Trump by not revealing that investigation. He made big mistakes during that election. He should've just revealed both investigations. But, ultimately, the actions he and the FBI did and did not take publicly directly benefited Trump and likely got him into the White House. If the FBI had wanted Hillary to win, they would have let the public know that Russia was interfering in the election with the intent on helping Trump win. That would've been leaked out one way or the other. They didn't do that. The whole argument is nonsense.
I'm surprised you didn't know about the Giuliani story. It was a big deal in the weeks leading up to the election....and it flies directly into the face of Trump's narrative that the FBI wanted Hillary to win.
To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.
You live in a fantasy world.
What fantasy is that? Comey admitted to it in interviews and his book, there are text messages between high level FBI agents saying they won't "let" Trump become president. Comey also said Lynch instructed him not to use the word "investigation" because it sounds bad. Comey admitted to reopening the investigation only because he thought Hillary was a shoe-in and it would look bad for him if he didnt. So what fantasy is it where these people wanted Hilary to win, because that is exactly what happened?
Sir,
Going public TWICE with matters relating to the Clinton email issue/investigation (in which nothing came of it), including days before the election and not going public with the, obviously, more serious investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign basically handed the presidency to Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. Case closed.
538, among others, has great reporting regarding the polling models taking drastic changes in the days after Comey announced he was reopening the investigation 10 days or so before the election. Choosing not to believe that and to, instead, go down the Sean Hannity rabbit hole is the fantasy world you're living in.
Mistakes were made by Comey and Strock and his chick may have had some bias...however this does NOTHING--ZIP--NADA to change the fact that the actions the FBI took public greatly benefited Trump and greatly damaged Clinton... which completely blows up your fantasy world conspiracy.
Not to mention the fact that you have Rudy Guilliani, Trump's own lawyer right now, telling Fox and Friends days before the election, that his sources in the FBI were telling him that they all wanted Trump to win and Hillary to lose.
I never disputed that. It was very damaging. But what is also true is that Comey is an open Hilary supporter and has admitted that he re-opened the investigation thinking that there was no possible way that Trump would win. And knowing the impact that it had now he would do it differently. Those are his words, not my beliefs about it. So I don't see how that is a fantasy or a rabbit hole. I never said the investigation didn't hurt Hilary, just that Comey only did it not realizing the damage it would cause. The only statement of yours I am unfamiliar with is the last one, and even if true there were still others who stated they won't "let" Trump win. But that doesn't change the fact on anything Comey said (which is what I believe you were calling the fantasy-rabbit hole). He wanted Hilary to win and would not have opened the investigation if he realized how much damage it would do. His words.
So you blame Comey because he secretly wanted Clinton to win? That applies to most sane people, so I'm not sure that it's the criticism that you hope it to be. The only material issue is that he took no actions directly to make it more likely that she won, and in fact took actions that made it less likely.
Also, he is now "openly" a Clinton supporter, but was not during that time period, so hard to call that "open" in that context.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?
You have to be willfully ignoring the facts, because the theory that the FBI helped Hillary has been gone through here at length and debunked. It was quite the opposite.
Listen to Act 1 in this link for a good breakdown on what actually happened.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/601/master-of-her-domain-name
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
I remember him doing his book tour and basically saying that. Found some quotes from his book and interviews to refresh my memory, but he admits he did it because he thought Hilary was a shoe-in to win. And that he worried about how it would reflect on the FBI if he did not. And also admitted knowing what he knows now (that she lost) he would do it differently. So it seems he tried to brush off the investigation, but thinking no way Trump would win over her and how it would impact his career if he didn't follow through he decided to re-open it.
Here are some of the quotes from the book I found. . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/james-comey-book-hillary-clinton-email-investigation
Cheers,
HFD
She destroyed her server AFTER there was a subpoena to hand it over. That is the biggest red flag of all to me. She also physically destroyed devices used, while I don't think they determined if that was before the investigation or during, the whole bleachbit thing really makes me question why none of the devices in question were ever found.
That podcast doesnt discuss any of that, and focuses mostly on why she had a private server to begin with. Stating it was because of her lack of knowledge of technology and not even know how to use a computer was her reason for having her own server. While I don;t know if I buy that, I have nothing to disprove it either.
And the only defense I have ever seen to that is that Bleachbit is free software, not some expensive program that is difficult to use. But so what? If I shoot someone with a cheap bullet does that make it less of a murder than an expensive one? What does the cost of the software have to do with it, but that is the only defense I have ever seen with regards to it. I'd like more answers than that.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Going public TWICE with matters relating to the Clinton email issue/investigation (in which nothing came of it), including days before the election and not going public with the, obviously, more serious investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign basically handed the presidency to Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. Case closed.
538, among others, has great reporting regarding the polling models taking drastic changes in the days after Comey announced he was reopening the investigation 10 days or so before the election. Choosing not to believe that and to, instead, go down the Sean Hannity rabbit hole is the fantasy world you're living in.
Mistakes were made by Comey and Strock and his chick may have had some bias...however this does NOTHING--ZIP--NADA to change the fact that the actions the FBI took public greatly benefited Trump and greatly damaged Clinton... which completely blows up your fantasy world conspiracy.
Not to mention the fact that you have Rudy Guilliani, Trump's own lawyer right now, telling Fox and Friends days before the election, that his sources in the FBI were telling him that they all wanted Trump to win and Hillary to lose.
just gonna say, I’d rather hang out with a higher percentage of Mexicans in our country than native borns in the good ol’ US of A.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
https://apple.news/A3fMXpYoGSzmqDEXnL9bFiQ
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
How would anyone know that she was falling ill unless the father/daughter told someone?
If the father or daughter didn't say anything how is anyone to know something was wrong?
If they did say something then there is a problem.
On the subject of immigration, they would get upset by the “border hoppers” as they felt it reflected poorly on their culture...
But what is also true is that Comey is an open Hilary supporter and has admitted that he re-opened the investigation thinking that there was no possible way that Trump would win. And knowing the impact that it had now he would do it differently. Those are his words, not my beliefs about it. So I don't see how that is a fantasy or a rabbit hole. I never said the investigation didn't hurt Hilary, just that Comey only did it not realizing the damage it would cause.
The only statement of yours I am unfamiliar with is the last one, and even if true there were still others who stated they won't "let" Trump win. But that doesn't change the fact on anything Comey said (which is what I believe you were calling the fantasy-rabbit hole). He wanted Hilary to win and would not have opened the investigation if he realized how much damage it would do. His words.
Jim Comey IS A REPUBLICAN. He has never said he is a Hillary supporter. And he never said he reopened the investing because he thought "there was no possible way" Trump would win. That's a Trump administration talking point. It is not advisable to use Trump administration talking points as facts...because they are usually lies. Here is good reading on the subject:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/13/james-comey-clinton-investigation-poll-numbers-522958
Fact-check: Comey didn’t say he reopened Clinton investigation because of poll numbers
In his book he says he was concerned about making her an illegitimate president by not revealing this to the public. But in hindsight, he did that to Trump by not revealing that investigation. He made big mistakes during that election. He should've just revealed both investigations. But, ultimately, the actions he and the FBI did and did not take publicly directly benefited Trump and likely got him into the White House.If the FBI had wanted Hillary to win, they would have let the public know that Russia was interfering in the election with the intent on helping Trump win. That would've been leaked out one way or the other. They didn't do that. The whole argument is nonsense.
I'm surprised you didn't know about the Giuliani story. It was a big deal in the weeks leading up to the election....and it flies directly into the face of Trump's narrative that the FBI wanted Hillary to win.
Also, he is now "openly" a Clinton supporter, but was not during that time period, so hard to call that "open" in that context.