Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maya22 said:
What is a ghost money dark money created document?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Dude! Read the *********** thread.


Oh OK, Hillary is in bed with a dark money super PAC that is exploiting a huge campaign finance loophole and who set up a corporate lobbyist to ghost write an article that was rewritten by the Super PAC with zero attribution.

Hillary is Huge on campaign finance reform, tho!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Dude! Read the *********** thread.


Oh OK, Hillary is in bed with a dark money super PAC that is exploiting a huge campaign finance loophole and who set up a corporate lobbyist to ghost write an article that was rewritten by the Super PAC with zero attribution.

Hillary is Huge on campaign finance reform, tho!
Click to expand...

Please provide your proof of this allegation. Articles so far given show that the Op Ed was ghost written by the Mayors first Campaign manager, and that all CTR did was provide editing (mostly to references and date corrections from the looks of the images I have seen) and that than CNN itself further fact checked and edited it.

Where is your evidence that CTR set up the whole thing? Your allegations keep getting more and more conspiratorial with less and less evidence.
 
16.5 said:
Dude! Read the *********** thread.


Oh OK, Hillary is in bed with a dark money super PAC that is exploiting a huge campaign finance loophole and who set up a corporate lobbyist to ghost write an article that was rewritten by the Super PAC with zero attribution.

Hillary is Huge on campaign finance reform, tho!
Click to expand...

Everyone's huge on campaign finance reform, but has their PACs neatly set-up to take advantage of Citizens United and its broad brush allowances.

One Super PAC spokesperson mouthed my sentiments.

“I do appreciate the irony,.All things being equal, we would rather not be doing this. On the other hand, we want to see our candidate as president.”

And that's a butter-wouldn't-melt-in-your-mouth statement from the head of a PAC! "Hey, in a perfect world we wouldn't need to do this, but while we're allowed to, we're gonna because, well, the other guys are doing it."
 
16.5 said:
The fact that the dark money PAC was editing it is of course a concern, and demonstrates that they scurry around in the shadows.

The claim that they didn't ghost write it seems like bunk too:



although a corporate lobbyist working with a dark money Pac to create an OpEd piece published under the name of some political whore supporting Hillary and attacking her opponent just screams:

DEMOCRACY.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
Please provide your proof of this allegation. Articles so far given show that the Op Ed was ghost written by the Mayors first Campaign manager, and that all CTR did was provide editing (mostly to references and date corrections from the looks of the images I have seen) and that than CNN itself further fact checked and edited it.

Where is your evidence that CTR set up the whole thing? Your allegations keep getting more and more conspiratorial with less and less evidence.
Click to expand...

Literally a few posts above. Literally.

But hey, Hillary is actively working with a dark money super pac to place a ghost written and edited oped with zero attribution, which openly bragged about deleting a sentence that would have "defended Bernie."

Yeah, it is getting more conspiratorial, unfortunately not exactly in the way Shillaries had hoped.
 
16.5 said:
Literally a few posts above. Literally.
Click to expand...

Another claim you can't back up.

But hey, Hillary is actively working with a dark money super pac to place a ghost written and edited oped with zero attribution, which openly bragged about deleting a sentence that would have "defended Bernie."
Click to expand...

Repeating yourself doesn't make things true.

Yeah, it is getting more conspiratorial, unfortunately not exactly in the way Shillaries had hoped.
Click to expand...

Ad Hominems noted.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Another claim you can't back up.



Repeating yourself doesn't make things true.



Ad Hominems noted.
Click to expand...

You mean the exact quote from theintercept that I linked a couple of days ago and has been linked a half dozen times since then doesn't meet your standards for back up? Have you read that article and clicked on the links yet? Do you know what correct the record is and how they are bragging about coordinating with the Hillary campaign?

Let me know how tiny you need the facts that everyone else knows already cut up and spoon fed to you.

I mean everything I have written is confirmed by posts and links on this page.

Everything except Hillary 2016! Yay!
 
16.5 said:
You mean the exact quote from theintercept that I linked a couple of days ago and has been linked a half dozen times since then doesn't meet your standards for back up? Have you read that article and clicked on the links yet?
Click to expand...

I have read it several times, it doesn't say what you claim it does.
 
16.5 said:
Sure it doesn't. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

it states that [the article] was primarily written by a corporate lobbyist, and was edited by Correct the Record.

It never states that CTR "set up [Tharon Johnson] to ghost write [the] article"

Nor does it say that CTR "rewrote it"

But, sure keep lying.
 
PhantomWolf said:
No, it doesn't.

it states that [the article] was primarily written by a corporate lobbyist, and was edited by Correct the Record.

It never states that CTR "set up [Tharon Johnson] to ghost write [the] article"

Nor does it say that CTR "rewrote it"

But, sure keep lying.
Click to expand...

Huh, lets nail down what we agree with! Correct the record is a dark money super pac that Hillary is in bed with and the oped was ghost written and published with zero attribution, and that they deleted a sentence that CNN had objected to that defended Bernie. Agreed! It seems we disagree with just how much the dark money super pac that Hillary is in bed with rewrote the propaganda.

Let me shed a little light on that with a famous old story. A guy walks up to a girl at a bar and offers her a million bucks to sleep with him...she agrees... He says wait, how about ten bucks instead... She gets mad and asks what he thinks she is a whore? He says, we have already established what you are, now we are just haggling over the price.

Hillary's already in bed with the dark money, you are just haggling over the price.

Last time I checked, the article actively promoted by Brock's gang has zero attribution. Yeah, Hillary is really going to go after citizens United and campaign finance reform. Lolz! Hillary release the transcripts yet?
 
16.5 said:
Huh, lets nail down what we agree with! Correct the record is a dark money super pac that Hillary is in bed with and the oped was ghost written and published with zero attribution, and that they deleted a sentence that CNN had objected to that defended Bernie. Agreed! It seems we disagree with just how much the dark money super pac that Hillary is in bed with rewrote the propaganda.

Let me shed a little light on that with a famous old story. A guy walks up to a girl at a bar and offers her a million bucks to sleep with him...she agrees... He says wait, how about ten bucks instead... She gets mad and asks what he thinks she is a whore? He says, we have already established what you are, now we are just haggling over the price.

Hillary's already in bed with the dark money, you are just haggling over the price.

Last time I checked, the article actively promoted by Brock's gang has zero attribution. Yeah, Hillary is really going to go after citizens United and campaign finance reform. Lolz! Hillary release the transcripts yet?
Click to expand...

Oooh, "Dark Money", cue eerie theramin music. Are Bernie's PAC buddies "dark money"? Basically all PACs are dark money because they're set up so that contributing entities don't have to be revealed.

But "Dark Money" sounds so much worse, right? Never use a neutral term when you control the language of the debate. Spooky-sounding sound bytes and phrases are so much more useful to the propagandist.

It's a PAC. Get over it. And you still haven't proved any of your speculation, either about the army of Shillary Robots marching through Reddit, or that the narrative for the speech is remotely close to your fantasy.
 
16.5 said:
:eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Why does this surprise you? Bob the Coward has made it abundantly clear that he opposes Hillary for ideological reasons, which corruption or the lack of it cannot change. His argument has been with a specific allegation of yours about specific conduct, not about the suitability of Clinton, which I rather suspect he considers to be nil if not negative.
 
16.5 said:
Huh, lets nail down what we agree with! Correct the record is a dark money super pac
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Correct the Record is a super PAC which discloses it's donors.

dark money super pac refers to 501(c)(4) - non-profits who don't disclose donors.
 
Let me ask you something, guys: I see a lot of threads like "Hillary is done", "Sanders is done", "Trump is done" etc, in all of them, posters very passionately trying to put the final verdict on who's gonna win and who's gonna lose.... Now I'm no expert on this subject but wouldn't you say that, with still 6 more months left with this whole race, that maybe it's a bit early to make any final verdicts?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Let me ask you something, guys: I see a lot of threads like "Hillary is done", "Sanders is done", "Trump is done" etc, in all of them, posters very passionately trying to put the final verdict on who's gonna win and who's gonna lose.... Now I'm no expert on this subject but wouldn't you say that, with still 6 more months left with this whole race, that maybe it's a bit early to make any final verdicts?
Click to expand...

It may be too early to say that those making definitive projections were too early.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Let me ask you something, guys: I see a lot of threads like "Hillary is done", "Sanders is done", "Trump is done" etc, in all of them, posters very passionately trying to put the final verdict on who's gonna win and who's gonna lose.... Now I'm no expert on this subject but wouldn't you say that, with still 6 more months left with this whole race, that maybe it's a bit early to make any final verdicts?
Click to expand...

From my side, it's been mostly done for the fun of it. I called, very early, against Trump. I thought he was nothing more than clown shoes—large, funny looking, distracting, but mostly useless. I would never have thought he would do as well as he's done, nor would I have believed, six months ago, that he could have secured the nomination. I called for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Wow!

On the other hand, while I liked Sanders and Clinton for the Democratic side and felt that it would always come down to them. On that side, it's been nice to see my prediction come true. I'm not a political pundit, but I think of myself as at least an average, reasonably informed citizen. So it's nice to see that I can read the tea leaves to that extent.

All in all, it's like choosing sides for a Super Bowl. It's only fun/interesting if you have some skin in the game. :D
 
RobRoy said:
It's only fun/interesting if you have some skin in the game. :D
Click to expand...

Sadly, while we get no say in the matter, the rest of the world does have "skin in the game" because whoever the next PotUS is, it will greatly affect us because of Trade and other things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom