Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fudbucker said:
Oh, I've admitted to strongly disliking Hillary. However, my reasons are not partisan, nor am I slavishly devoted to Bernie. Some Hillary supporters, on the other hand, seem convinced she can do no wrong. Have you made any criticism of Hillary (or even agreed with any) in this sub-forum?
Click to expand...

Right, your one-sided criticisms aren't partisan, but anyone else's are. I don't think I've made any criticism of Sanders, Cruz, Trump, Kasich, Clinton, or any other candidate this year other than Rubio. Yet, to you, only the lack of criticism of Clinton indicates that I am a partisan?
 
wareyin said:
Right, your one-sided criticisms aren't partisan, but anyone else's are.
Click to expand...

Partisan criticisms of Clinton are partisan. An example would be claiming she murdered Vince Foster. My complaints about her aren't partisan. It's the same thing that inspired millions of people to vote for Bernie: Iraq, Libya, history of lying, speeches to Goldman Sachs, etc.

I don't think I've made any criticism of Sanders, Cruz, Trump, Kasich, Clinton, or any other candidate this year other than Rubio. Yet, to you, only the lack of criticism of Clinton indicates that I am a partisan?
Click to expand...

Have you been defending Sanders, Cruz, Trump, Kasich, Rubio against attack, like you do Hillary?
 
Page 76, just in time for the weekend—Is Hillary Clinton done yet?

If the thread goes to another page over the weekend, can I have a volunteer to post the question while I'm gone?
 
Fudbucker said:
Partisan criticisms of Clinton are partisan. An example would be claiming she murdered Vince Foster. My complaints about her aren't partisan. It's the same thing that inspired millions of people to vote for Bernie: Iraq, Libya, history of lying, speeches to Goldman Sachs, etc.
Click to expand...

Your criticisms of Clinton are partisan. An example is the Fox news talking point about "criminal" investigation. Other examples: "history of lying", "speeches to Goldman Sachs", "terrible candidate" who bests everyone else, etc.

Fudbucker said:
Have you been defending Sanders, Cruz, Trump, Kasich, Rubio against attack, like you do Hillary?
Click to expand...

Has anyone been attacked for such partisan reasons other than Clinton? Has anyone other than Trump been attacked at all on these forums? One doesn't need to defend those that aren't attacked.
 
wareyin said:
Your criticisms of Clinton are partisan. An example is the Fox news talking point about "criminal" investigation. Other examples: "history of lying", "speeches to Goldman Sachs", "terrible candidate" who bests everyone else, etc.
Click to expand...

LOL, Seriously? Are you going to argue Clinton doesn't have a history of lying? Remember sniper fire? Leaving White House dead broke? Applying to Marines? State Dept. IG report? The Politifact list of false statements made by Clinton is two pages long now: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

And she is a terrible candidate who had no business giving speeches to a Wall Street bank that has paid billions in penalties for their part in taking down the economy. Here's how the notoriously Right-Wing Rolling Stone magazine described Goldman Sachs:

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."

But it's partisan to criticize Clinton for taking millions of GS money. Sure.

And she is a terrible candidate. She fended off a challenge by an old white jewish socialist with no money nor name recognition and is up against a certifiable loon.

Again, here's what Fox News Rolling Stone had to say about Clinton:

"If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.

They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...essons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609?page=2

I know, I know, RS needs to be added to the vast right-wing conspiracy.



Has anyone been attacked for such partisan reasons other than Clinton? Has anyone other than Trump been attacked at all on these forums? One doesn't need to defend those that aren't attacked.
Click to expand...

Obviously, when any and all criticism of the Dear Leader are "partisan attacks", you, as a loyal Hillary supporter, must rush to her defense.
 
Fudbucker said:
LOL, Seriously? Are you going to argue Clinton doesn't have a history of lying? Remember sniper fire? Leaving White House dead broke? Applying to Marines? State Dept. IG report? The Politifact list of false statements made by Clinton is two pages long now: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

And she is a terrible candidate who had no business giving speeches to a Wall Street bank that has paid billions in penalties for their part in taking down the economy. Here's how the notoriously Right-Wing Rolling Stone magazine described Goldman Sachs:

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."

But it's partisan to criticize Clinton for taking millions of GS money. Sure.

And she is a terrible candidate. She fended off a challenge by an old white jewish socialist with no money nor name recognition and is up against a certifiable loon.

Again, here's what Fox News Rolling Stone had to say about Clinton:

"If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.

They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...essons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609?page=2

I know, I know, RS needs to be added to the vast right-wing conspiracy.





Obviously, when any and all criticism of the Dear Leader are "partisan attacks", you, as a loyal Hillary supporter, must rush to her defense.
Click to expand...
Repeating your partisan criticisms does not make them any less partisan.
 
Bernie Sanders had no money?

Objectively false. He spent more money on the primary than any candidate, Democrat or Republican.
 
Fudbucker said:
LOL, Seriously? Are you going to argue Clinton doesn't have a history of lying? Remember sniper fire? Leaving White House dead broke? Applying to Marines? State Dept. IG report? The Politifact list of false statements made by Clinton is two pages long now: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
Click to expand...

Length of the list is the wrong metric. Compared to most other politicians, she has a higher percentage of things rated true or mostly true and she has almost none that are pants-on-fire. Yes, she has lied. She's a career politician. I don't like that she lies, but since there's no candidate that doesn't lie I have to look at the relative merits. She's been around a long time so there are plenty of items on the list but again, *percentage wise* she's honest (for a presidential candidate).
 
The utter contempt Hillary has toward the FBI and EmailGate

There is zero doubt Hillary Clinton broke the law. Furthermore, the president of the United States is complicit.

Obama received no less than 18 emails from Clinton from her private email address, and he replied to at least two of them.

Read more:
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-utter-contempt-hillary-has-toward-the-fbi-and-emailgate (June 13, 2016)
Click to expand...


Crooked Hillary was using a private server, which at the very least was setup as an end run around the Freedom of Information Act; a clear violation of the law.

And President Obama knew about it, yet he turned a blind eye. Why? Was it done with his authorization?

According to the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, Clause 5:

The President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."​

Circa 1789, "President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to that duty."" -- Wikipedia
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Crooked Hillary was using a private server, which at the very least was setup as an end run around the Freedom of Information Act; a clear violation of the law.

And President Obama knew about it, yet he turned a blind eye. Why? Was it done with his authorization?

According to the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, Clause 5:

The President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."​

Circa 1789, "President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to that duty."" -- Wikipedia
Click to expand...
So you are going with a conspiracy theory involving the President when it comes out that that there are going to be no charges against her.

Exactly as I knew.
 
Tony Stark said:
So you are going with a conspiracy theory involving the President when it comes out that that there are going to be no charges against her.

Exactly as I knew.
Click to expand...

Personally, I like the Judge Janine CT. She's got it from reliable sources that Hillary forwarded a Super Top Secret, No Really We Mean So Secret It Would Uncurl Your Hair email to Obama. She's threatened him with "If I'm going down, you're going down".

Frankly, I'd think that anyone in the government, whether threatened or not, would be worried about that, and it's not the threat of being railroaded but the reality that there were all sorts of loopholes that numerous officials took advantage of and that if Hillary's "guilty" then a whole lot of people are going to be looking over the shoulder for the next few years.
 
Clinton Email Scandal: Imminent Document Leak Enough To Indict Her

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims his "upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton" are enough to indict her, according to a recent interview with British ITV News.

But no matter how damaging the emails are, Assange believes the FBI will give Clinton a pass.

If that happens, then the FBI will have committed a criminal offense. Letting a politician escape indictment simply because he or she has power and status is an outrage that every American should strongly condemn.

While we won't be surprised with a decision not to indict, it would nevertheless be demoralizing. If the law doesn't apply to those with political power, then the law is a farce and our politicians are more like kings and queens than citizen lawmakers. Revolutions have started for less than that.

Read more:
http://www.investors.com/politics/c...-imminent-document-leak-enough-to-indict-her/ (June 17, 2016)
Click to expand...


Well, I respectfully disagree with Julian Assange and believe Crooked Hillary will be indicted.

Whereupon she'll receive a full pardon from President Obama.

Headline: "King rescues Queen from the gallows."
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Well, I respectfully disagree with Julian Assange and believe Crooked Hillary will be indicted.

Whereupon she'll receive a full pardon from President Obama.

Headline: "King rescues Queen from the gallows."
Click to expand...
You people are going to look so stupid.

I love it.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Well, I respectfully disagree with Julian Assange and believe Crooked Hillary will be indicted.

Whereupon she'll receive a full pardon from President Obama.

Headline: "King rescues Queen from the gallows."
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't you hate Assange? Why are you joyfully quoting him as a source?
 
I saw two young ladies yesterday, at a shop I have work done at, they are both in their 20's, one early 20's, the other in her late 20's and married. The younger was a very open supporter of Bernie, the other, just not a fan of Hillary, but an even lesser fan of Trump. I asked them both if they were going to hold their nose and vote for Hillary, or just not vote (Didn't see any point in mentioning Trump) and they both said they just weren't going to vote at all, with the older saying nether she, nor her husband, would bother to vote at all this year.
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
I saw two young ladies yesterday, at a shop I have work done at, they are both in their 20's, one early 20's, the other in her late 20's and married. The younger was a very open supporter of Bernie, the other, just not a fan of Hillary, but an even lesser fan of Trump. I asked them both if they were going to hold their nose and vote for Hillary, or just not vote (Didn't see any point in mentioning Trump) and they both said they just weren't going to vote at all, with the older saying nether she, nor her husband, would bother to vote at all this year.
Click to expand...

I suspect that this is currently the case, as folk recover from their disappointment (I'm certainly disappointed). However, as the election draws nigh, folk (who would normally vote) will likely gravitate toward making a choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom