Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
A Pew poll in 2013 found "70 percent of Jewish voters were Democrats," and the Jewish News Service found, "Surveys indicate that more than 90 percent of Jews who are registered to vote make it to the polls, compared to only 74 percent of all Americans."

From looking at Jewish-oriented media, the latest gaffe by Trump -- the ad showing Hillary with the five-pointed star -- is apparently considered offensive. That the image apparently originated on a white supremacist site, followed by the Trump campaign's blather about it being "a sheriff's badge," is considered evidence that Trump, if not necessarily anti-Semitic, is pretty clueless.

It's almost impossible to see how The Don can win in November without Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American Muslims, most college-educated men and women of all races and religions voting for him.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Oh, and funny the "vindictive, nasty, shrill, Jew-hating bigot" has a son in law of a certain persuasion.
Click to expand...


Weird isn't it? And Clinton's campaign HQ is in Brooklyn. So she must hate Jewish people.

All that is a diversion so people won't find out.
 
newyorkguy said:
A Pew poll in 2013 found "70 percent of Jewish voters were Democrats," and the Jewish News Service found, "Surveys indicate that more than 90 percent of Jews who are registered to vote make it to the polls, compared to only 74 percent of all Americans."

From looking at Jewish-oriented media, the latest gaffe by Trump -- the ad showing Hillary with the five-pointed star -- is apparently considered offensive. That the image apparently originated on a white supremacist site, followed by the Trump campaign's blather about it being "a sheriff's badge," is considered evidence that Trump, if not necessarily anti-Semitic, is pretty clueless.

It's almost impossible to see how The Don can win in November without Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American Muslims, most college-educated men and women of all races and religions voting for him.
Click to expand...

With every word out of his mouth he offends another demographic. It's his new innovative way of running a campaign. So innovative, it's never been tried before. Talk and act like a bigoted sexist fool and win the Presidency.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"The Jewish Press is an American weekly newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York and geared toward the modern Orthodox Jewish community. It describes itself as "America's Largest Independent Jewish Weekly."

"The Jewish Press was founded to fill the void of Jewish news media left by the declining newspapers in the late 1950s. The first issue was published on January 29, 1960."

-- Wikipedia: The Jewish Press
Click to expand...

Wait...You seriously think the Jewish community is going to vote Trump?

Oh, man. That's completely *********** hilarious. Insane, but hilarious.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"The Jewish Press is an American weekly newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York and geared toward the modern Orthodox Jewish community. It describes itself as "America's Largest Independent Jewish Weekly."

"The Jewish Press was founded to fill the void of Jewish news media left by the declining newspapers in the late 1950s. The first issue was published on January 29, 1960."

-- Wikipedia: The Jewish Press
Click to expand...

That citation makes about much sense as your Pravda citation.
 
I have to say, I'm very disappointed. We clearly aren't living up to our normal standards in this thread. I expected to come back, after a weekend of general debauchery and whatnot, to find at least three more pages had passed of nonsensical ramblings.

It appears that when that certain indictment turned out to be less-than-absolute, some folk just don't have the will to continue the fight. Shame really.
 
Sanders is expected to endorse her tomorrow:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-sanders-new-hampshire-endorsement/86936756/
More than a month after the end of the last round of state primaries, it appears the Democratic presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is officially set to conclude.
The Sanders campaign released a statement Monday morning confirming what had been widely expected for days: The Vermont senator will join Clinton at a rally in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday where he's expected to endorse her.

Maybe she'll be done then ? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
RobRoy said:
I have to say, I'm very disappointed. We clearly aren't living up to our normal standards in this thread. I expected to come back, after a weekend of general debauchery and whatnot, to find at least three more pages had passed of nonsensical ramblings.

It appears that when that certain indictment turned out to be less-than-absolute, some folk just don't have the will to continue the fight. Shame really.
Click to expand...

The people who were pushing indictment don't have much to talk about.

It was fun to argue the indictment was a real possibility that Hillary supporters had to plan for. Some people balked at even entertaining the notion, and my argument was always "You're not taking this seriously enough". And I admit to losing that argument. Kind of.

This turned out to be serious after all, though I was wrong about her chance of being indicted (which is obviously zero since it didn't happen). But I think it was close. There's not much space between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent". Let's not pretend the FBI gave her a glowing endorsement. Comey's remarks were brutal and would have finished off a candidate in a normal cycle.

I've always argued that Clinton is a terrible candidate, which she is, and despite the absolute trainwreck that is the Trump campaign, he is still within spitting distance (down by 4.5%, RCP average), and those polls were taken before Comey's press conference.

Usually being called "carelessly reckless" (or vice-versa, I forget which) by the director of the FBI in a formal setting would finish a candidate. How could you be more irresponisble (short of indictment) than to get publicly chided about how irresponsible you are by the FBI? And Clinton, terrible candidate that she is, found herself in just such a situation.

BUT! It's not enough to be good (or bad, in Clinton's case). You have to be lucky. No matter how good you are, certain things have to break your way. Clinton is a terrible candidate, but how lucky are we that they didn't pick Kasich, or Rubio, or Christey, or Bush? I thought Obama was the luckiest candidate in history, but Clinton's luck in having a Trump for an opponent? It's like drawing to a Royal Flush and getting it. The Fates just seem to want Hillary to get it.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
The people who were pushing indictment don't have much to talk about.

It was fun to argue the indictment was a real possibility that Hillary supporters had to plan for. Some people balked at even entertaining the notion, and my argument was always "You're not taking this seriously enough". And I admit to losing that argument. Kind of.

This turned out to be serious after all, though I was wrong about her chance of being indicted (which is obviously zero since it didn't happen). But I think it was close. There's not much space between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent". Let's not pretend the FBI gave her a glowing endorsement. Comey's remarks were brutal and would have finished off a candidate in a normal cycle.

I've always argued that Clinton is a terrible candidate, which she is, and despite the absolute trainwreck that is the Trump campaign, he is still within spitting distance (down by 4.5%, RCP average), and those polls were taken before Comey's press conference.

Usually being called "carelessly reckless" (or vice-versa, I forget which) by the director of the FBI in a formal setting would finish a candidate. How could you be more irresponisble (short of indictment) than to get publicly chided about how irresponsible you are by the FBI? And Clinton, terrible candidate that she is, found herself in just such a situation.

BUT! It's not enough to be good (or bad, in Clinton's case). You have to be lucky. No matter how good you are, certain things have to break your way. Clinton is a terrible candidate, but how lucky are we that they didn't pick Kasich, or Rubio, or Christey, or Bush? I thought Obama was the luckiest candidate in history, but Clinton's luck in having a Trump for an opponent? It's like drawing to a Royal Flush and getting it. The Fates just seem to want Hillary to get it.
Click to expand...
Huh, you keep insisting that Clinton is a terrible candidate, yet it seems no one can defeat her. Maybe terrible means something different on your planet?
 
wareyin said:
...Maybe terrible means something different on your planet?
Click to expand...

Fudbucker said:
...I thought Obama was the luckiest candidate in history...
Click to expand...


Maybe "luckiest" has a different meaning too. Barack Obama is only the second U.S. President since Dwight Eisenhower to win two elections both times with over 50% of the popular vote. (Ronald Reagan was the other.)
 
newyorkguy said:
Maybe "luckiest" has a different meaning too. Barack Obama is only the second U.S. President since Dwight Eisenhower to win two elections both times with over 50% of the popular vote. (Ronald Reagan was the other.)
Click to expand...

When I talk about Obama being lucky, I specifically have in mind Obama's Senate campaign (Alan Keyes), and McCain making two of the worst unforced errors in campaign history: picking Sarah Palin and suspending his campaign in Oct 2008.

Obama vs. Romney took some skill. Obama had to actually campaign to beat Romney AND Clinton in 2008.
 
Congressmen ask U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate Clinton for perjury

Two Republican congressmen on Monday formally requested that the U.S. Attorney for the District investigate whether Hillary Clinton committed perjury when she testified before a congressional committee about her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The letter from U.S. Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) asserts that evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation involving Clinton’s email practices “appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony” and asks federal authorities to “investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.” It is addressed to U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips and copied to FBI Director James B. Comey and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans — 56 percent — disapproved of the FBI director’s recommendation not to charge Clinton, and 57 percent said the issue made them at least somewhat worried about how she might handle her responsibilities as president.

Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6a230a-47af-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html (July 11, 2016)
Click to expand...


"The request for a new investigation is not a surprise. Last week when James Comey testified before a House panel some Republican lawmakers said that they would seek a Justice Department perjury investigation into Clinton's testimony. Last year, Clinton had testified before the House Benghazi Committee that there had been no emails marked classified on her server, but Comey testified that several had classification markings within the body of the email."

Reference:
Did Clinton lie to Congress about email? GOP seeks perjury probe (July 11, 2016)


"It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble."
-- Senator Howard Baker circa 1974
 
Good morning. I just watched an interview of Jeb Bush by Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC in which Jeb Bush says he can't vote for either Trump or Hillary. He said he would have voted for any other republican candidate, until asked about Ben Carson, and then he said he didn't know enough about him or something like that. The Interseting thing he did was pull a move out of the Intelligent Design teams playbook, where they use words in different than their expected context. He managed to make it sound as if the FBI did indite Hillary. Talking about why he can't back Hillary he said "this last two weeks with Hillary Clinton, where she was indicted...(pause) effectively, by the FBI director, and at the last, everything but the indictment took place and basically said she lied" Interesting way to create a sound byte for those who are not paying attention. So even though the FBI director said they would not indite her, Jeb plays word games to say that she was indicted by the FBI director. Not surprising. I wonder how many others will follow this tactic.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/jeb-bush-on-voting-in-2016-i-can-t-do-it-723183683554
 
Last edited:
I don't want to send this thread off on a tangent but in the 2008 election McCain's polling numbers actually went up following the selection of Sarah Palin. As we neared November the economy began going into a steep recession and public support for the war in Iraq, which was in its fifth year, was waning. The Bush Administration was increasingly unpopular. I think the American people were ready for a change. The turnout in 2008 was over 130 million, the highest turnout in history.

To bring this back on topic, the situation is considerably different in 2016. The economy is doing quite well and the Obama Administration has been able to keep us out of any new military adventures. I think the majority of Americans want to see this continue and consider Hillary Clinton the most likely choice to achieve that.
 
newyorkguy said:
I don't want to send this thread off on a tangent but in the 2008 election McCain's polling numbers actually went up following the selection of Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...
My recollection was that he had a bump immediately after announcing her, but as time went on people started realizing how crazy she was and it hurt him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom