Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
thaiboxerken said:
Ensure, nothing. Encourage and influence, plenty. Instead, because Hillary is a strong candidate, there are fake scandals fabricated by the GOP quite often.
Click to expand...

Yet her performance in handling it lowers confidence in her ability to lead and make decisions in office. And it's hitting her among people in her own party. People may bite the bullet and vote for her anyway, but during the primaries it poses a risk when alternative candidates are available if they are more favorably viewed than she is
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the...the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

I guess the scandal wasn't Bush destroying all of the emails after his administration..................but a significant amount during it.
Click to expand...

Nothing there about destroying any servers. And note that the allegation is that some officials used RNC email addresses to conduct some non-campaign-related official business, not that they set up a private server in somebody's basement to conduct all official business. Nevertheless, what they did was clearly wrong, and if Bush had been running again it likely would have been a campaign issue. But he wasn't. Are you claiming that if they did it, it's okay for Hillary, or what?

Some more thoughts about HC's email:
Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle and a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA): “The setting up of and maintaining a private email network as the sole means to conduct official business by email, coupled with a failure to timely return email records into government custody, amount to actions plainly inconsistent with the federal record-keeping laws.”
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-everyone-knew-i-was-using-a-personal-email/
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the...the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

I guess the scandal wasn't Bush destroying all of the emails after his administration..................but a significant amount during it.
Click to expand...

reprinted from Media Matters

The hilarious thing is that the Hillary email scandal has shown just what a propaganda outfit media matters really is, what with Sid on its payroll and bragging to Hillary how he got pro-Hillary ******** published there.

No wonder they were so desperate to tamp down this scandal.:D
 
Speaking of Media Matters:

New York Times' Washington Bureau Shake-Up Follows Years Of Shoddy Clinton Reporting
The New York Times announced that current Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan was stepping down to become a political editor, and would be replaced by Washington Editor Elisabeth Bumiller. Ryan was bureau chief for less than two years, and during that time the paper published a series of flimsy and often inaccurate reports about presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, causing other media figures and their own public editor to heavily criticize the paper.
Click to expand...
The article goes on to support David Brock's claims with evidence:
Last Two Years Of Times Politics Coverage Featured Series Of Errors

THE CLINTON EMAILS: NON-EXISTENT FEDERAL LAWS AND A NON-EXISTENT CRIMINAL PROBE
Click to expand...
 
^ I'm sure that will buoy Slick Willamina's sinking poll figures!^:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The thing all you MM haters forget is Brock produces evidence along with his media critiques. The usual suspects on this forum rarely if ever address the evidence, instead you ad hom the messenger.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The thing all you MM haters forget is Brock produces evidence along with his media critiques. The usual suspects on this forum rarely if ever address the evidence, instead you ad hom the messenger.
Click to expand...

The evidence being citations to media matters, and that people are being mean to Hillary Clinton.

:D:D

It is *********** garbage, that exists only to support Hillary and the Clintons. Did you see Sid blumenthal bragging about it placing articles in it while on Hillary's payroll?

Cite it if you want, but don't get upset when people ridicule you for doing so.
 
16.5 said:
Cite it if you want, but don't get upset when people ridicule you for doing so.
Click to expand...

Shillaries are CLUELESS, to the double edged sword! I'm betting it's an age thing!:thumbsup::D:rolleyes::boxedin::jaw-dropp:covereyes:eye-poppi:eek:


Clown Car Indeed! Bwahaahaahaa...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh for pity's sake. There are links throughout this thread. :rolleyes:

LMGTFY
Click to expand...

The links you point to (that Google thing is clever, by the way) are about sleazy activities by Jeb Bush and several other state governors. The difference is that none of them ever handled classified secrets or negotiated with foreign powers. And they used private emails in addition to their official ones. Clinton was Secretary of State representing the United States around the world, and she conducted all of that work through a unique private email system in the basement of her home that she created and paid for to circumvent official record-keeping and public access requirements.

The stronger comparison to Clinton's situation would be the Bush administration's "loss" of millions of emails, which was also controversial at the time and resulted in multiple investigations. Even then, there were no allegations that classified material had been mishandled or potentially exposed, which is at the core of the Clinton issues. And Bush wasn't running for anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
 
Bob001 said:
The links you point to (that Google thing is clever, by the way) are about sleazy activities by Jeb Bush and several other state governors. The difference is that none of them ever handled classified secrets or negotiated with foreign powers. And they used private emails in addition to their official ones. ...
Click to expand...
Bush only released the emails he chose to. No different than Clinton.

Nothing has come of the supposed mishandling of classified emails. How long are you going to milk this non-event?
 
The Don said:
Firstly don't release any negative news about her - especially if it's true. Call off the attack dogs and give her an easy ride to the convention.

If there's any positive news about Hillary then try to get it on newswires.

Have GOP candidates and potentates "accidentally" slip into interview responses how concerned they are about Hillary and what a strong candidate she'd be.

On no account should they continue to attack Hillary because it is apparently driving down her support.
Click to expand...

Totally agree but way too machiavellian for US politics.

Let's face it, in the previous elections they convinced themselves of victory based upon biased reading of opinion polls i.e instead of embracing a poll which suggests your party is going to lose and working extra hard and motivating people to turn that result around, they would spin it so it would appear that they were going to win and then sit back and do nothing.

On this occasion, instead of working to make sure the 'weakest' candidate (in their eyes) actually gets the Dem nomination by stamping down wherever possible on negative reporting (and keeping those 'scandals' in reserve for the actual presidential contest) they seem to want a stronger Democrat (in their eyes) to be the contender.

Or it's just a lot of internet hot air trying to disguise a true fear that Clinton is gonna win the race.
 
uk_dave said:
Or it's just a lot of internet hot air trying to disguise a true fear that Clinton is gonna win the race.
Click to expand...

It could be that they are just so public-spirited that they think that Hillary would be such a bad and damaging president that they would rather eliminate her from the race early - even if this results in a GOP defeat at the polls than run the risk of her being the candidate. :rolleyes:

It could be that they just hate the woman so much that they cannot help themselves.

OTOH it could just be that Hillary could be a formidable opponent. Any candidate the GOP are likely to put up will not have her experience of high office (even ignoring her 8 years as FLOTUS) and her economic conservatism and relative military hawkishness makes her more difficult to attack than say, Barrie Sanders. She also has access to a well oiled political machine, is apparently ruthless in her pursuit of the White House and is apparently a canny political operator.

If I was the GOP candidate, I'd rather be up against someone as principled as Barrie Sanders who can easily be portrayed as an extremist socialist (even if by European standards he is still well right of centre) who does not have enough proper experience to be President.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom