Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Don said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

But the FBI investigation continues ...

Has Hillary been exonerated yet? LOL.
 
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...

I'm not assuming it; that's what I've been reading. If you have some evidence to refute that, I'd be willing to look at it.

Are you saying that CTR clearly identifies themselves?

The Don said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you're being attacked, you're already at war? In any case, Iraq was nowhere near being a threat to the US when Hillary voted for the war.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
I'm not assuming it; that's what I've been reading. If you have some evidence to refute that, I'd be willing to look at it.

Are you saying that CTR clearly identifies themselves?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything, I'm asking you to support your claims with evidence.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I'm not saying anything, I'm asking you to support your claims with evidence.
Click to expand...

OK, here's the evidence. I posted it earlier.

A Super PAC headed by a longtime Clinton operative is spending $1 million to hire online trolls to “correct” Bernie Sanders’ supporters on social media.

Correct The Record (CTR), which is operated by Clinton attack dog and new owner of Blue Nation Review David Brock, launched a new initiative this week called “Barrier Breakers 2016” for the purpose of debating supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders — or “Bernie Bros,” as they’re referred to in Correct the Record’s press official release — on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other social media platforms.

The “Barrier Breakers” will also publicly thank Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates and fans for supporting her campaign. The paid trolls are professional communicators, coming from public relations and media backgrounds.
Click to expand...
 
Axiom_Blade said:
OK, here's the evidence. I posted it earlier.
A Super PAC headed by a longtime Clinton operative is spending $1 million to hire online trolls to “correct” Bernie Sanders’ supporters on social media.

Correct The Record (CTR), which is operated by Clinton attack dog and new owner of Blue Nation Review David Brock, launched a new initiative this week called “Barrier Breakers 2016” for the purpose of debating supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders — or “Bernie Bros,” as they’re referred to in Correct the Record’s press official release — on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other social media platforms.

The “Barrier Breakers” will also publicly thank Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates and fans for supporting her campaign. The paid trolls are professional communicators, coming from public relations and media backgrounds.
Click to expand...

So you claimed:
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 believe the evidence you posted above somehow supports your claim ? :confused:
 
sunmaster14 said:
But the FBI investigation continues ...

Has Hillary been exonerated yet? LOL.
Click to expand...

The FBI is not in the business of exonerating anyone. They never exonerated MLK JR either. They investigate what they want until they either get enough evidence to charge someone or they get bored and move on to their next target of opportunity leaving the original case open indefinitely.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Perhaps if you're being attacked, you're already at war? In any case, Iraq was nowhere near being a threat to the US when Hillary voted for the war.
Click to expand...

I was just seeking to clarify your "war is always wrong" stance. It now seems that you have a more nuanced view, perhaps "war is often wrong" or "war is almost always wrong" would be a better way to characterise it.

If that is the case then, like most people, you have to try and assess each threat on its merits. I have been anti Iraq war throughout not least because I felt that the intelligence presented to support the case for military intervention lacked credibility. OTOH seeing Colin Powell, an ex-general with a great respect on both sides of the political divide going "all-in" to present the case did at least cause me to consider my position. If someone who was less anti-war and less suspicious of the intelligence gathering services (i.e. someone more in the political mainstream) did allow themselves to be persuaded IMO that hardly makes them either an idiot or a warmonger - YMMV.

In particular I'd like to remind people of what Tony Stark posted regarding Hillary's actual position regarding the vote (as opposed to the misrepresentations of that position being bandied about)....

Tony Start said:
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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a gung-ho warmonger to me. Neither does it look like flip-flopping of the worst kind if she subsequently says that the decision to go to war (in the face of evidence from the UN) was a poor one.
 
The Don said:
I was just seeking to clarify your "war is always wrong" stance. It now seems that you have a more nuanced view, perhaps "war is often wrong" or "war is almost always wrong" would be a better way to characterise it.

If that is the case then, like most people, you have to try and assess each threat on its merits. I have been anti Iraq war throughout not least because I felt that the intelligence presented to support the case for military intervention lacked credibility. OTOH seeing Colin Powell, an ex-general with a great respect on both sides of the political divide going "all-in" to present the case did at least cause me to consider my position. If someone who was less anti-war and less suspicious of the intelligence gathering services (i.e. someone more in the political mainstream) did allow themselves to be persuaded IMO that hardly makes them either an idiot or a warmonger - YMMV.

In particular I'd like to remind people of what Tony Stark posted regarding Hillary's actual position regarding the vote (as opposed to the misrepresentations of that position being bandied about)....



That doesn't sound like a gung-ho warmonger to me. Neither does it look like flip-flopping of the worst kind if she subsequently says that the decision to go to war (in the face of evidence from the UN) was a poor one.
Click to expand...
Yeah and she would probably currently be the President of the United States if not for that.
 
It's time to start framing Clinton's Iraq war vote correctly. She didn't vote to invade Iraq. She voted to give said power to GW Bush. There is a difference. Maybe compared to the minority of Senators that voted to block such a move it doesn't look much different. But there is a difference.

I recall, and I'm sure I posted it here, at the time Bush was lying to everyone, I said I wasn't sure whether to trust Bush or not. Shortly after when all the evidence began to show a pattern of Bush lying I concluded he was lying. I'm willing to believe that others such as Clinton and the other Senators also went through a period of not knowing Bush was lying.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's time to start framing Clinton's Iraq war vote correctly. She didn't vote to invade Iraq. She voted to give said power to GW Bush. There is a difference. Maybe compared to the minority of Senators that voted to block such a move it doesn't look much different. But there is a difference.

I recall, and I'm sure I posted it here, at the time Bush was lying to everyone, I said I wasn't sure whether to trust Bush or not. Shortly after when all the evidence began to show a pattern of Bush lying I concluded he was lying. I'm willing to believe that others such as Clinton and the other Senators also went through a period of not knowing Bush was lying.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for you to rationalize Hillary's vote, there are plenty of people who evaluated the situation exactly and don't need to whine that they got outsmarted by George Bush.
 
Travis said:
The FBI is not in the business of exonerating anyone. They never exonerated MLK JR either. They investigate what they want until they either get enough evidence to charge someone or they get bored and move on to their next target of opportunity leaving the original case open indefinitely.
Click to expand...


Ditto.

There is no such thing as exoneration. The government either accuses someone of a crime or it doesn't. There's no Department of Declaring People Clean.

There has been no prosecution of Mrs. Clinton. Her detractors promise that it's coming any day now. They've been doing that since the 80's. It has yet to happen.
 
Loss Leader said:
...
There is no such thing as exoneration. The government either accuses someone of a crime or it doesn't. There's no Department of Declaring People Clean.
....
Click to expand...


That's not entirely true. The FBI will say an investigation has closed or ended, and if it doesn't say "so and so is clean," it will say something like it found no basis for prosecution.

Just Google "FBI closes:"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/source-fbi-formally-closes-anthrax-case/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-closes-probe-into-vanished-cruise-ship-honeymooner/
www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/ma...cle_d22fa60a-5969-5ea8-ae6f-e65fef062ca6.html
http://www.tampabay.com/features/hu...neals-lynching-without-naming-killers/2191344

What's most significant about the FBI investigation is that at least one person who worked for HC has been granted immunity. That means that FBI and his lawyers think he has information about real misconduct.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
So you claimed:
​

Do you believe the evidence you posted above somehow supports your claim ? :confused:
Click to expand...

Of course. Do you understand what "grassroots support" is?

Skeptic Ginger said:
It's time to start framing Clinton's Iraq war vote correctly. She didn't vote to invade Iraq. She voted to give said power to GW Bush. There is a difference. Maybe compared to the minority of Senators that voted to block such a move it doesn't look much different. But there is a difference.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't look like much of a difference at all. Everybody knew what Bush wanted to do. If someone repeatedly makes their intention of going to war clear, and you give that person war powers, then don't act all surprised if they go to war.

I recall, and I'm sure I posted it here, at the time Bush was lying to everyone, I said I wasn't sure whether to trust Bush or not. Shortly after when all the evidence began to show a pattern of Bush lying I concluded he was lying. I'm willing to believe that others such as Clinton and the other Senators also went through a period of not knowing Bush was lying.
Click to expand...

Well, it was crystal clear to me whether or not to trust Bush, and I could tell he was lying. So could lots and lots of other people. In fact, there was so much resistance to going to war, I began to think that it might not happen at all, even though it was so obvious that's what Bush wanted.

This is Democrat Party revisionism, plain and simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom