Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[caveman1917]

These must be Bernie Sanders supporters, because it's the same math they tried to use to delude themselves.

Nobody ever listened to Bernie anyway.

Still, his liberal supporters should be happy. He promised them a free education and now they got one.

 

[caveman1917]

Stein can't break 5%. Johnson can't break 10%

That you don't get it, or just don't want to does not change anything.

I will ask you this again: do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is? Hint: it doesn't just mean looking at how candidates poll, but at the reason behind them polling at the numbers they do.

 

[The_Animus]

During "Lawyergate" the Bush administration destroyed 5million emails - where was the Republican outcry there?

This is a common argument that really needs to stop being made.

First of all, every time this gets brought up the response is generally that Bush is also guilty and they can both rot in jail.

Secondly, whether someone else did it, is irrelevant. Bush doing it too doesn't magically make Clinton doing it any less bad.

 

[caveman1917]

Feel free to provide evidence that the 86% of the voters who are picking Clinton or Trump had another candidate as their first choice.

Using this thread as a sample, it would be a majority of them. Other than that I don't care enough by far to go research it.

 

[pgwenthold]

This is a common argument that really needs to stop being made.

First of all, every time this gets brought up the response is generally that Bush is also guilty and they can both rot in jail.

Secondly, whether someone else did it, is irrelevant. Bush doing it too doesn't magically make Clinton doing it any less bad.

Again, this is not about Bush. This is about Republicans and their desperate attempts to smear Clinton.

That they never objected to Bush tells us what they really think about the significance of what happened. If they really thought deleting emails was a serious problem, they would have objected for Bush. That it only matters for Clinton tells you they don't actually think it is a problem.

 

[wareyin]

Using this thread as a sample, it would be a majority of them. Other than that I don't care enough by far to go research it.

Interesting. You use an extremely small, self selected sample that is not representative of the general population, misread their responses, and refuse to look further for support for your claim. You do realize that this is a recipe for failure, don't you?

 

[Tero]

There is no source yet for any good data on the last 15 000 e mails. Do not go to Judicial Watch as they only produce fabricated stuff:

A document certifying a new employment position for one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s senior aides at the State Department was signed by Mrs. Clinton’s then chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills, according to a copy of the document provided to The New York Times on Sunday.

Last week, The Times and other news outlets reported that the document was signed by Mrs. Clinton personally, based on a copy that was obtained by a conservative watchdog group. On the document, Mrs. Clinton’s name was printed above the signature in a box intended for the aide’s supervisor, but the signature itself was redacted by the State Department, according to the group, Judicial Watch.

The document was part of a process undertaken in 2012 by which Mrs. Clinton’s then deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, began working simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton family’s foundation, and the consulting firm Teneo. A Clinton aide on Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the signature was that of Ms. Mills, and said that it was within Ms. Mills’ duties to sign such documents on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...-staff-authorized-job-change-for-huma-abedin/

 

[The Great Zaganza]

@The_Animus

I don't think it's irrelevant: it's about perception. Most Republicans vilify Clinton to a bizarre extend, calling for her to be 'locked up' or even put in front of a firing squad for treason.
Putting Clinton's email scandal in relation of Bush's should at least normalize the discussion back to questions of right and wrong instead of monster or traitor.

This whole election is about avoiding (as far as either side is concerned) the End of America (or the world, whatever is more important) instead of 4 years of unwanted leadership.

 

[The Big Dog]

I read the entire article and didn't see anything that supported your claim. Can you pull out the parts that support your claim.

agree to disagree

 

[acbytesla]

agree to disagree

What? You agree to not provide the specific parts that back up your claim? Hmm mm

 

[The Big Dog]

There is no source yet for any good data on the last 15 000 e mails. Do not go to Judicial Watch as they only produce fabricated stuff:

The State Department redacted that document, not Judicial Watch.

The amount of disinformation you are spewing in this thread is astonishing.

Un-****linglievable....

 

[Tero]

The State Department redacted that document, not Judicial Watch.

The amount of disinformation you are spewing in this thread is astonishing.

Un-****linglievable....

So the state department redacted the signature and that gives JW the right to make up a signature?

 

[wareyin]

So the state department redacted the signature and that gives JW the right to make up a signature?

Of course it gives JW the right to just make stuff up! You wouldn't want someone spreading disinformation, would you?


Oh, wait, making up stuff like JW and Big Dog have been doing is spreading disinformation? Cripes

 

[The Big Dog]

So the state department redacted the signature and that gives JW the right to make up a signature?

FANTASTIC EXAMPLE OF THE RULE OF SO!!!!!

OUTSTANDING!

here is the document:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/24/us/politics/document.html

"Make up a signature," Jesus Christ, more blatant misinformation.

 

[wareyin]

To a fellow forumite:

The State Department redacted that document, not Judicial Watch.

The amount of disinformation you are spewing in this thread is astonishing.

Un-****linglievable....

To a forum administrator:

agree to disagree

Very interesting how different the responses are.

 

[Tero]

FANTASTIC EXAMPLE OF THE RULE OF SO!!!!!

OUTSTANDING!

here is the document:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/24/us/politics/document.html

"Make up a signature," Jesus Christ, more blatant misinformation.

Add to the list

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/judicial-watch/
nothing but
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/plane-false/

 

[Bubba]

Regarding Hilly's 1970s rape defense job, I gather


* the 1980s Ray Reed/Hillary interview is real.
* its true the (then 12 yr old, 1970s rape victim) recently said Hillary ruined her life.
* Hilly's joke about lie detectors indicated she knew the guy was guilty

(there are audio clips on youtube with Hilly laughing about how she bluffed the prosecutor into lowering charges by claiming evidence she did not have)

Is it also true the 12 yr old rape victim was battered and in a coma for 5 days, as one of the videos asserts?
.

https://www.youtube dot com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
.

 

[The_Animus]

Again, this is not about Bush. This is about Republicans and their desperate attempts to smear Clinton.

That they never objected to Bush tells us what they really think about the significance of what happened. If they really thought deleting emails was a serious problem, they would have objected for Bush. That it only matters for Clinton tells you they don't actually think it is a problem.

No. There are numerous alternative explanations for why someone might have not complained about Bush but did complain about Clinton. There are democrats on this forum who complained about Clinton's e-mails but not Bush's.

@The_Animus

I don't think it's irrelevant: it's about perception. Most Republicans vilify Clinton to a bizarre extend, calling for her to be 'locked up' or even put in front of a firing squad for treason.
Putting Clinton's email scandal in relation of Bush's should at least normalize the discussion back to questions of right and wrong instead of monster or traitor.

This whole election is about avoiding (as far as either side is concerned) the End of America (or the world, whatever is more important) instead of 4 years of unwanted leadership.

Most people whether Republican or Democrat vilify the other side. Sometimes it's warranted. Sometimes it's not.

If you want to put it in context and examine questions of right and wrong I don't think the one liner asking where the Bush outcry was does that.

 

[wareyin]

Regarding the 1970 I gather


* the 1980s Ray Reed/Hillary interview is real.
* its true the (then 12 yr old, 1970s rape victim) recently said Hillary ruined her life.

(there are audio clips on youtube with Hilly laughing about how she bluffed the prosecutor about non-existence evidence she had)

Is it also true the 12 yr old rape victim was battered and in a coma for 5 days, as one of the videos asserts?
.

https://www.youtube dot com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
.

I'm assuming you are talking about the case that Clinton was appointed to defend? You might want to brush up on the facts.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

 

[Bubba]

I'm assuming you are talking about the case that Clinton was appointed to defend? You might want to brush up on the facts.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Thanks, Saw snopes earlier. Snopes didnt address............

Just want to know if true as in the one video below...whether the girl was in a coma five days and barren for life.

This 3 min video claims all that and edits the audio to spin it.
https://www.youtube. dot com/embed/BdNHf1g4ivA

This six min video has complete audio with out spin.

https://www.youtube. dot com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4


I figured you guys are all over this already with facts galore to share.

.
.