Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Recorded conversation or email between the org and members.

First, it would help to establish who was working for ctr through a paycheck or something.
Click to expand...

And how are you going to get a paycheck linking them? Why would they possibly reveal that?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Taking. George W. Bush. At his word. Seriously...
:dl:
Click to expand...
I also took Bush at his word, so I consider this a personal attack.

If she were being honest, that is some of the rankest incompetence I've ever heard of, and I wouldn't dream of voting for anybody that stupid.
Click to expand...
She voted with the majority of Democrat senators, including John Kerry and Joe Biden. Do you think they were also either dishonest or shared a 'rankest incompetence and stupidity'?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/5-things-weve-learned-abo_b_9772408.html
Click to expand...
5 things we've learned from the Huffington Post:-

1. Blog posts are the same as actual news.

2. Misleading headlines are OK so long as you quietly change them after the damage is done.

3. To provide balance, write an occasional 'positive' article which is actually a hit-piece like all the others.

4. Facts? We don't need no stinking facts. It's the narrative that counts. ;)

5. Being in the tank for Bernie isn't partisan - it's your patriotic duty!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Am I the only one who has not fallen for the CTR must be evil? How is it evil to have a social media response team?

Seems like a necessary tool in today's world.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with having a social media response team, as long as they're open and honest about who they are. The reason why CTR is controversial is that they are pretending to just be ordinary folks with strong opinions about Hillary, when they are actually paid shills. It's astroturfing, plain and simple.

sunmaster14 said:
Not only that, it doesn't bode well for transparency in a potential Hillary administration.
Click to expand...

Why stop after the election? With CTR, she can create the illusion of grassroots support for anything she wants.
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
There's nothing wrong with having a social media response team, as long as they're open and honest about who they are. The reason why CTR is controversial is that they are pretending to just be ordinary folks with strong opinions about Hillary, when they are actually paid shills. It's astroturfing, plain and simple.

Why stop after the election? With CTR, she can create the illusion of grassroots support for anything she wants.
Click to expand...
Right, the candidate who just clinched the nomination with 5 to30% leads in the last 3 of 4 states and is 1,000 delegates ahead of Sanders has no real grassroots support. :rolleyes:

Your premise is because an army of social media hacks spontaneously attacked Clinton, an organized response team is somehow inferior. Well that's a matter of opinion.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Your premise is because an army of social media hacks spontaneously attacked Clinton, an organized response team is somehow inferior. Well that's a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

No, my premise is that hiring people pretending to be grassroots support is crooked. It's crooked when corporations do it, and it's crooked when Hillary Clinton does it.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
No, my premise is that hiring people pretending to be grassroots support is crooked. It's crooked when corporations do it, and it's crooked when Hillary Clinton does it.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence that CTR are in fact "pretending to be grassroots support" or are you just assuming it because it fits your desired narrative?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Sure, you have a right to defend yourself. What you and I mean by "defense" are probably different things.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you are modifying your "war is always wrong" stance ?

For example, the country in which I live is invaded by a foreign power, is it wrong for my country to declare war to allow the military to be mobilised to engage with the enemy ?

How about if the enemy is massing on the borders, can we make a preemptive strike to try to dissuade them or do we have to wait until they invade to defend ourselves ?

What about if the enemy invades a mutual neighbour (and ally), can we declare war to step in and help defend that ally (and possibly prevent an invasion of our country) or do we have to wait for our ally to surrender and for our own country to be invaded ?

Unless one keeps to the absolute position of "war is always wrong under any circumstance" - which is one that understand that the Society of Friends takes - then there's some kind of continuum.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Do you have evidence that CTR are in fact "pretending to be grassroots support" or are you just assuming it because it fits your desired narrative?
Click to expand...

There will be no evidence.

Clinton vs Trump a certainty, with an equally certain result. Winners are grinners.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I also took Bush at his word, so I consider this a personal attack.

She voted with the majority of Democrat senators, including John Kerry and Joe Biden. Do you think they were also either dishonest or shared a 'rankest incompetence and stupidity'?
Click to expand...

Option Two, definitely two.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
She voted with the majority of Democrat senators, including John Kerry and Joe Biden. Do you think they were also either dishonest or shared a 'rankest incompetence and stupidity'?
Click to expand...

Noztradamus said:
Option Two, definitely two.
Click to expand...

I disagree with Noztradamus' assessment that it was incompetence and stupidity that led the majority of Democratic Party senators to believe the intelligence produced by their own government. The Bush administration and the intelligence services invested a lot of time, effort and political capital in ensuring that the intelligence was believable.

Colin Powell who, IMO was well regarded by most people on both sides of the house, was crucial to the intelligence being accepted. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who were wavering who were personally convinced by Colin Powell's presentation.

I wasn't personally swayed but that's because of my own biases. If WMD had been found and if they did present a threat then those biases would have prevented me believing perfectly reliable intelligence. If anything my level of incompetence and stupidity was higher than those people who allowed themselves to be persuaded by trusted and apparently highly principled people.
 
re: Hillary's Iraq war vote.

She said on her speech on the floor of the Senate that she hoped that force would be used only as a last resort, if diplomacy failed. Of course, that is not what happened.

After that vote, the UNSC passed a resolution giving Saddam one last chance to comply and let weapons inspectors in. He did comply and the inspectors found no evidence of WMDs. Cheney/Bush decided to invade anyway.
 
Last edited:
Hillary Clinton just yesterday had another large electoral victory.

Gee whiz! I wonder when she is going to realize that "Hillary Clinton is Done"!
 
So after her sweeping 60/40 victories and 194 additional delegates is Clinton done yet?
 
It's a year and a few days since the OP and I had forgotten how the orignal thread started.

The now banned Elfgrinder3000 posted some Breibart "revelations" that Hillary, Hillary and Bill or the Clinton Foundation had received $145m in possibly dirty money and that this revelation would bring the Hillary campaign to a juddering halt. Apparently this is not the case, can't say the same for Elfgrinder3000 though.

OP said:
Apparently the hedge fund backing a uranium mine gave 145 Million dollars to Hillary Clinton. This was a Russian company who wanted to get a deal done and donated to the Clinton machine.

This uranium company was able to get a favorable deal under Hillary Clinton's state department.

This was uncovered and now Hillary is restating her tax returns.

What POS gets 145 Million dollars from a foreign company? How stupid is Hillary? How corrupt and above the law must this moron feel? She is done she won't even be able to run for president my prediction is she resigns or worse ends up in Jail.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...te-department/
Click to expand...

I guess, that like so many allegations against the Clintons, it amounted to nothing much and said more about her opponents than it did about her.
 
catsmate said:
So after her sweeping 60/40 victories and 194 additional delegates is Clinton done yet?
Click to expand...

Bernie has her just where he wants her - clearly visible in front ;)

Remember, the quicker you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up :boggled:

In any case this must be exactly what the GOP wants because they have been assuring us that Bernie would be so much harder to beat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom