Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
Deep, man! Deep!

(Argumentum by lack of contentum. Two punctuation marks, a single letter, and a smiley. And they say we don't have fruitful discussions in the Politics sub-forums!)
Click to expand...

Well you could type another 500 words to try to save face....

you don't even disagree, it is just about fmw at this point.
 
Does Mike Bloomberg Know Something We Don’t About the Clinton FBI Probe?

Does Mike Bloomberg Know Something We Don’t About the Clinton FBI Probe? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-m...101500895.html
Another explanation is that he sees trouble ahead for Hillary Clinton. Because of his close relationship with former NYC police Chief Ray Kelly and others in the law enforcement community, he might have the inside track on the FBI investigation into the former Secretary of State’s handling of classified documents and questionable foundation-related activities. Democrats have done a fine job of completely dismissing the FBI inquiry, but the possibility that Clinton could face serious legal hurdles may be encouraging Bloomberg’s ambitions.
The probe is not, as some Hillary backers have claimed, scandal-mongering by right-wing zealots. It is a serious investigation, reportedly employing more than 100 FBI agents not normally known for idle gestures. It is being directed by the famously apolitical James Comey, who heads President Obama’s FBI. Comey faced down apparatchiks in the George W. Bush administration seeking to continue a warrantless wiretapping program, putting his job on the line to do so. When a reporter asked him if he didn’t have a duty to support President Bush, Comey answered “No, my responsibility, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Click to expand...

Does he? Hmmmm...
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
Does Mike Bloomberg Know Something We Don’t About the Clinton FBI Probe? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-m...101500895.html


Does he? Hmmmm...
Click to expand...

Scorecard! Scorecard! Get your scorecards, here. Can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Who is Liz Peek? Hmmmm? This is no more or less credible that the Breitbart and Fox "un-named sources" or Trump's "all the X* I know believe I'm right".


*X can equal anything from Mexicans to Chinese to Lawyers to Policemen.
 
Dog Town said:
The term is scoreboard! Anything to refute the article? Nothing? Color me surprised!:jaw-dropp

Explains connections to why Bloomberg would consider getting involved! No?
Click to expand...

No, the vendors at Yankee Stadium (where they refused to put players' names on their uniforms" used to sell scorecards and that was their pitch.

What's to refute? Supposition? Liz can suppose anything. But even Moses supposes erroneously.
 
Foolmewunz said:
No, the vendors at Yankee Stadium (where they refused to put players' names on their uniforms" used to sell scorecards and that was their pitch..
Click to expand...

Yes...true, but that makes no sense! Refute the concept of why, Bloomberg might get involved, or don't. It follows the reasons listed! SCOREBOARD!
 
Dog Town said:
Yes...true, but that makes no sense! Refute the concept of why, Bloomberg might get involved, or don't. It follows the reasons listed! SCOREBOARD!
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was being too clever by half. Let me spell it out.

THE AUTHOR IS A RIGHT WING POLITICAL STOOGE WHO PLAYS THE ROLE OF "EXPERT COMMENTATOR" ON FOX NEWS, and FOX AND FRIENDS. I give her musings as much credibility (e.g. none) as I do anything James Carville says without sourcing and/or evidence. A friend of Bloomberg reports that he might have inside information and that might be the reason he's putting out feelers. That's all that's there.

"Know your players" is a theme I often refer to when people haven't bothered to check the credibility of the source. I see no reason to give it any more credence than any of Breitbart's "a Washington insider tells us"....
 
Foolmewunz said:
Perhaps I was being too clever by half. Let me spell it out.

THE AUTHOR IS A RIGHT WING POLITICAL STOOGE WHO PLAYS THE ROLE OF "EXPERT COMMENTATOR" ON FOX NEWS, and FOX AND FRIENDS. I give her musings as much credibility (e.g. none) as I do anything James Carville says without sourcing and/or evidence. A friend of Bloomberg reports that he might have inside information and that might be the reason he's putting out feelers. That's all that's there.

"Know your players" is a theme I often refer to when people haven't bothered to check the credibility of the source. I see no reason to give it any more credence than any of Breitbart's "a Washington insider tells us"....
Click to expand...
No, let me spell it out because it appears you need it! Bloom knows the players, it is the score he is concerned with! PLEASE pay attention!
 
Dog Town said:
No, let me spell it out because it appears you need it! Bloom knows the players, it is the score he is concerned with! PLEASE pay attention!
Click to expand...

But Bloomberg isn't making this claim. A buddy who knows a guy who heard something from another guy is making the claim. I know this is par for the course in the Find Any Anti-Hillary Innuendo Sweepstakes, but there's no credibility.
 
Foolmewunz said:
But Bloomberg isn't making this claim. A buddy who knows a guy who heard something from another guy is making the claim. I know this is par for the course in the Find Any Anti-Hillary Innuendo Sweepstakes, but there's no credibility.
Click to expand...

So, no explanation as to why Bloom is considering the race? Regardless of info?
Got it! Just say so...
 
What you seem to be missing is the fact that Bloom is even considering getting in the ring! His reasons have been stated! The article, as much as you hate the source as do I, give supposition to ideas! Ideas that are not unreasonable!

You have nothing to refute, but "but...but..."
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
So, no explanation as to why Bloom is considering the race? Regardless of info?
Got it! Just say so...
Click to expand...

Dog Town said:
What you seem to be missing is the fact that Bloom is even considering getting in the ring! His reasons have been stated! The article, as much as you hate the source as do I, give supposition to ideas! Ideas that are not unreasonable!

You have nothing to refute, but "but...but..."
Click to expand...

I'm trying hard to understand your fascination with this topic. Is this the first you've heard about Bloomberg possibly running? Every few months an unnamed source close to the situation mentions it. (Hint: His initials are probably MB.) Now it's an unnamed source close to the situation who reports that he's even had aides block out a potential campaign.

Wannabe candidates do this all the time. If that's what's got you all excited, go for it. I'm merely against the rumor-and-gossip-passing-as-news" as it regards a financial reporter and right wing hack reporting that his rationalization for sticking his toe in the water might be that he might know something because he might still be in touch with his LEO guys from his tenure as mayor who might have told him something.

I have no problems with Bloomberg running. He's a billionaire and still viewed as a Republican by most voters, I'd guess. He'll hurt the GOP and Trump more than he'll hurt the Dems.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I have no problems with Bloomberg running. He's a billionaire and still viewed as a Republican by most voters, I'd guess. He'll hurt the GOP and Trump more than he'll hurt the Dems.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, neither do I.
He's my old college Republican logo.
Economic conservative, social...

But Bernie is my man! Can't settle for a lessor anymore! My vote goes to someone I feel connected to. Not the lessor!
HRC to me is not even, as scientists say, wrong!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
hey, feel free to say that all you want, scream it from the mountaintop, you are entitled to your opinion.

And I can link several authors who flat out say that she is totally wrong.

And numerous left wing writers and historians are entitled to point out that Hillary's statement is wrong and awful.
Click to expand...

I am more than just a little suspicious of modern "scholarship" on this point. I think a lot of left wing historians have decided they had to rewrite the history of reconstruction because it made the newly freed slaves look like they were unsophisticated.

That said, yeah, Hillary will have to walk back her statement because she is going against the Leftist version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom