• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
lolz, look at people sticking up for the the grossly dishonest sleazebag.
sure she voted to attack Iraq, sure her husband attacked Iraq, man the shillaries are ridiculous
Click to expand...

It puzzles me that you think this kind of comment would add value to the forum, or that it would help in swaying people to your line of thinking.

As examples of what appears to me to be rabid partisanship on either side, you and Tony Stark continue to leave posts like this, usually filled with sarcasm or snark or passive aggression that, to me, undermines your credibility, and I have to try to look past your displays of emotion to try and see your point.

Sunmaster, imo, does make an effort to keep his arguments rational and keep insult out of it.

Of course it's entirely possible that you have given up trying to convince people on this forum that any of your arguments against Hillary Clinton or the Democratic party are actually valid, which is understandable because the tide seems to be against you. For my part, it's exactly the voices that are against the tide which keep this forum valuable and interesting.
 
TofuFighter said:
It puzzles me that you think this kind of comment would add value to the forum, or that it would help in swaying people to your line of thinking.

As examples of what appears to me to be rabid partisanship on either side, you and Tony Stark continue to leave posts like this, usually filled with sarcasm or snark or passive aggression that, to me, undermines your credibility, and I have to try to look past your displays of emotion to try and see your point.

Sunmaster, imo, does make an effort to keep his arguments rational and keep insult out of it.

Of course it's entirely possible that you have given up trying to convince people on this forum that any of your arguments against Hillary Clinton or the Democratic party are actually valid, which is understandable because the tide seems to be against you. For my part, it's exactly the voices that are against the tide which keep this forum valuable and interesting.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, quality post, I will make a note of it.

any comments about the several articles I have posted over the last few days? How about the New York Times article? anything substantive to add at all?? anything? I mean you MUST have seen them, right????

Right?

Solid post tho
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Thanks man, quality post, I will make a note of it.
any comments about the several articles I have posted over the last few days? How about the New York Times article? anything substantive to add at all?? anything? I mean you MUST have seen them, right????
Right?
Solid post tho
Click to expand...

You're right. My mistake.
 
16.5 said:
New York Times reports that Canadian Partnership Shielded Identities of Donors to Clinton Foundation.

Whole sordid tale is here:

Aides to former President Bill Clinton helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.

They offer an excuse about tax benefits that is as pathetic as Hillary's convenience fable on her emails.

I think we have all gone well past the appearance of impropriety, and there is Hillary on the campaign trail giving canned speeches before canned crowds and ducking the press.

She wants to be President?????
Click to expand...

TofuFighter said:
You're right. My mistake.
Click to expand...

No problem, we all have an off night once in a while.

I bumped my post on the New York Times article from yesterday. any thoughts about the article?
 
Foolmewunz said:
The short-term polling suggests they haven't found the poop with the right amount of adhesion. FoundationGate has done nothing. It's been the top of the news in the right wing blogosphere and getting prominent play in the MSM for several weeks and there were piecemeal reports/comments before the Uranium Commies came along. Yet Fox, the note Hillary sympathizers, have Hillary back up to where she was in December, favored by 62% of Dems as the party's nominee.
Click to expand...
Whether or not she's the nominee seems to be in little doubt at the moment... but one of the reasons I'm skeptical especially this early on has to do with 2008 since back then even, she was a front runner and Obama bypassed her almost out of the blue. It shows that these primary races are as reliant on dynamics as they are on what affects the trust factor in the candidates.

It worth noting though that these scandals put a dent in her trustworthiness among voters. Whether that translates literally into loss of votes, probably not going to matter for her at the moment given how the democratic primaries are looking, at least not unless something major happens. I'm waiting to see whether there's a long term, trend... because it likely won't be any single factor that affects her bid, but a multitude of them and longer term polling trends that say if the general results are positive or negative.

Again though I need to see trends... predicting her political "demise" is kinda pointless when most poll trends aren't revealing much more than what's already known about her political position.
 
Last edited:
Remember when the Bush Administration ran their emails through an RNC server and then, toward the end of Bush's term, they deleted the emails and produced none of them to be archived and conservatives didn't bat an eye?

Ah, good times.


eta: a link for those who don't remember.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Remember when the Bush Administration ran their emails through an RNC server and then, toward the end of Bush's term, they deleted the emails and produced none of them to be archived and conservatives didn't bat an eye?

Ah, good times.


eta: a link for those who don't remember.
Click to expand...

Nope I don't remember that.

On another note Newt Gingrich thinks that Clinton won't get the nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...e_republicans_should_worry_about_sanders.html
 
Upchurch said:
Remember when the Bush Administration ran their emails through an RNC server and then, toward the end of Bush's term, they deleted the emails and produced none of them to be archived and conservatives didn't bat an eye?

Ah, good times.


eta: a link for those who don't remember.
Click to expand...

The amazing thing is that this "scandal" is all over the right wing talk airwaves, and they seem to think that someone cares.


I don't even like Hilary, but her email habits are not going to influence my voting decision in the least.


Maybe it's just that I have a little bit of a flashback to my days of dealing with classified documents. I didn't do it very long. I remember being all excited when I finally got to get a look at my very first classified document. No email in those days. I signed for it. I carried it to my office. I opened the safe. I locked the door. I opened the envelope. I read it and.....to my surprise, I found out I had written it.....which left me in a bit of a dilemma, because the original of it was still sitting on the computer in the unclassified, unsecured, lab.....and I didn't even call security to have the computer properly cleaned.

Well, I just blew it. Now I'll never be President. If I ever try, Sean Hannity will be all over this story, alerting the American public, who will undoubtedly turn on me for my malfeasance. I might as well just go to work tomorrow.
 
Meadmaker said:
The amazing thing is that this "scandal" is all over the right wing talk airwaves, and they seem to think that someone cares.
....
Click to expand...
You'd think that by the gazillionth time the GOPers were
OUTRAGED!!!the flock would get attenuated to the nonsense.

But I suppose that requires half a brain.

What annoys me is how easily they manage to get talking points on the mainstream news.

Nothing has happened. There was no scandal about emails getting into the wrong hands. Nothing about what could have been done in Benghazi, nothing about the quid pro quos of the Clinton Foundation getting something from Hillary in the deal when she was Sec of State.

There is nothing here but the GOPs drooling, "wolf", yet again.
 
Cute tricks at the "fair and balanced" news network. They had a (cough) neutral panel on discussing why Hillary was toast. The participants were pollsters and each had next to their name, "Former pollster for....." and it was a big-name Dem like Clinton or Carter.

They're pollsters, people! They make polls for a living. If David Duke pays the tariff, they do a poll. If Cindy Sheehan can afford them, they'll do the polling.

(Just a comment on the not-very-subtle manipulations over at Fox. They really go out of their way to slant the "news".)
 
I'll tell ya, it ain't looking good for Hillary, when Bernie is beating her in any poll.

But we're a long ways out, don't kid yourself.
 
Fudbucker said:
I'll tell ya, it ain't looking good for Hillary, when Bernie is beating her in any poll.

But we're a long ways out, don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...
Silly boy, wait and see. There is no there there on the email scandal. Benghazi is already a lost GOP dream.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom