Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

I am glad the latest scandal has had no impact on the polls.  Yep good job picking Hillary as your candidate.   I can't believe we are in the verge of the possibility of having an egomaniac ahat as President.  What a pathetic election cycle.  

 

[Koya]

Koya, here's one thing you need to understand about the Trump supporters in this forum (and a lot of the Trump supporters in general): 

They don't care what Trump says. They don't give a crap what his proposals are or how crazy he sounds. They're voting for Trump because they want to see our heads explode. By "our heads" I'm talking about liberals. pro-establishment types, and those who try to adhere to political correctness. They (Trump supporters) want to see us defeated and freaked out about it. 

That is, for many, the sole agenda. 

1. I am liberal in thought, but not politically.  

2. Very much believe the establishment is the problem.  Trump is an extension of that establishment, it's just many seem, quite literally, not intelligent or aware enough to recognize that.  Regardless, it's why I've voted Libertarian last time and will this time.

3. There is a new political correctness... it is almost as if the alt-right has co-opted the term and now, in their parlance, anything that is said which shines a poor light on them/their cause becomes "political correctness gone amock" - its a knee jerk hollow reaction.

We see that in this very thread.  When you just bring up Hitler comparisons in general conversation, yeah, it's crazy.  But when you bring up a Hitler comparison because a candidate uses the same language, rhetoric and tactics and, worse yet, said candidate refuses to distance himself from the actual KKK and Nazi lovers among his base... that's not PC gone amock. That's calling a spade a spade.  

 

[HellToupee]

PMs down??????

doesnt add to the post count

 

[TobiasFunke]

Koya, here's one thing you need to understand about the Trump supporters in this forum (and a lot of the Trump supporters in general): 

They don't care what Trump says. They don't give a crap what his proposals are or how crazy he sounds. They're voting for Trump because they want to see our heads explode. By "our heads" I'm talking about liberals. pro-establishment types, and those who try to adhere to political correctness. They (Trump supporters) want to see us defeated and freaked out about it. 

That is, for many, the sole agenda. 

I don't get this at all. I would never want to see other posters here, or Americans in general, mad or upset or angry. I want to convince them that the candidates or policies I prefer are in the best interests of the country, hopefully including them. I want to convince them that certain candidates, Trump in particular, are not in our best interests. But it doesn't even cross my mind to vote for someone because if they win, other people will be upset. Wishing unhappiness on other Americans- not as as by-product, but as an actual factor in your decision- seems pretty un-American to me.

 

[jonessed]

David Duke is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and is currently running for office.

And?  He disavowed Duke.  What else is he supposed to do.  Is Anybody David Duke supports suddenly a Hitler-clone that's out to create another Holocaust?  What kind of logic is that?

 

[The Commish]

So, in your view, which of the two does this fall or is it some other variation?  It's been somewhat scary for me this election cycle is how willfully ignorant and uniformed the voting block is in this country.  To an extent, I include myself in that group because I haven't paid real close attention to our election processes all that closely until now.  Some of what I have seen is appalling.  Some of it is expected.  Other governments influencing our elections is expected given our noses being in elections in other countries all the time.  

In my view Trump explicitly invited foreign powers and interests to hack the DNC, hack his political opponent and continue interfering with our elections as such.

It doesnt get more stark than Trumps own freakin' words, encouraging others to essentially spy on the U.S. - but since it's trumps political opponent and for his own gain, that's all good I suppose.

I'm not sure it's "good".  I do think it's unnecessary.  It was already happening...he didn't need to invite/ask them to do it.  I'm not sure he put the country at any new risk, but his lack of denunciation is a problem...no question.  

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Koya, here's one thing you need to understand about the Trump supporters in this forum (and a lot of the Trump supporters in general): 

They don't care what Trump says. They don't give a crap what his proposals are or how crazy he sounds. They're voting for Trump because they want to see our heads explode. By "our heads" I'm talking about liberals. pro-establishment types, and those who try to adhere to political correctness. They (Trump supporters) want to see us defeated and freaked out about it. 

That is, for many, the sole agenda. 

Just you, Tim. Just you.

 

[Koya]

I'm not sure it's "good".  I do think it's unnecessary.  It was already happening...he didn't need to invite/ask them to do it.  I'm not sure he put the country at any new risk, but his lack of denunciation is a problem...no question.  

To be clear, Trumps despicable theatrics did not, in my opinion, put us at new risk.

Now, will his ties with Russia / Russian business interests put us at risk or, at best, put him in a conflict? Possibly.

And is it reprehensible that someone running for President would encourage such action, and in doing so, contribute to the further decay of our democratic institutions? I'd say we are watching that happen before our eyes.

It just still surprises me how many people are willing to ignore dozens of instances such as this over the past year alone from Trump.  Maybe not surprise anymore.  It does scare me though, honestly.  I've literally never been "scared" of our nation's future.  This last year and last 6 months especially, has changed that.  Which sucks. 

 

[Henry Ford]

And?  He disavowed Duke.  What else is he supposed to do.  Is Anybody David Duke supports suddenly a Hitler-clone that's out to create another Holocaust?  What kind of logic is that?

I have never, in any post, said any of that.  But Duke and his followers and other hate groups are a very strong base of the Trump movement.  They are a concern, as I've repeatedly said in a number of different ways.

 

[urbanhack]

Koya, here's one thing you need to understand about the Trump supporters in this forum (and a lot of the Trump supporters in general): 

They don't care what Trump says. They don't give a crap what his proposals are or how crazy he sounds. They're voting for Trump because they want to see our heads explode. By "our heads" I'm talking about liberals. pro-establishment types, and those who try to adhere to political correctness. They (Trump supporters) want to see us defeated and freaked out about it. 

Sorry...this doesn't belong.   #### the establishment.

 

[shadrap]

For like the sixth time- no, it's not.  We're talking about people fearful due to persistent threats and harassment, which includes references to the previous Holocaust and calls for another one, and a presidential campaign that's done very little to discourage its supporters from making those threats. Not actually predicting another Holocaust.  They are two different things. One is fear of individuals or groups not affiliated with the government but emboldened by a presidential campaign. That is a real thing that is happening and would IMO get even worse if that campaign succeeds. The other is fear of government-ordered genocide. To my knowledge nobody actually thinks the latter would happen here in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean the former is silly and should be dismissed.

Well, if I'm not mistaken it was the Hillary team that sent paid "brownshirts" to incite violence at Trump rallies.  so who is it inciting this stuff?

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, if I'm not mistaken it was the Hillary team that sent paid "brownshirts" to incite violence at Trump rallies.  so who is it inciting this stuff?

I think they were supposed to be "Bernieshirts"

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

They don't care what Trump says. They don't give a crap what his proposals are or how crazy he sounds. They're voting for Trump because they want to see our heads explode. By "our heads" I'm talking about liberals. pro-establishment types, and those who try to adhere to political correctness. They (Trump supporters) want to see us defeated and freaked out about it. 

That is, for many, the sole agenda. 

Just you, Tim. Just you.

Unfortunately I do see this in general, not just here. They do want to see the "libtards" freak out.

The thing is, this shouldn't be a libtard issue, or a spite issue. Donald Trump is unfit. Hillary will just actually be a "regular" politician. Does that suck for you? Well, the President doesn't decide your paycheck or your house, so get over it. The Mexicans and the Muslims don't take your jobs, or blow you up. Sorry that Hillary is just more of Obama. I know, it sucks. Obama and Hillary. Hillary and Obama. "Let's blow it up on the libtards, amirite?" So tedious.

 

[David Dodds]

But no one is afraid of HRCs ratcheting up the Russia rhetoric?  Why is she provoking them at every turn?  Neither the NSA or Homeland Security has made definitive statements regarding the Podesta emails positively coming from Russia.  But HRC shouts it at the top of her lungs.  Seems to me that electing her is guaranteeing a conflict with Russia.  

 

[jonessed]

I'm not sure it's "good".  I do think it's unnecessary.  It was already happening...he didn't need to invite/ask them to do it.  I'm not sure he put the country at any new risk, but his lack of denunciation is a problem...no question.  

It's not like he had control over it.

I really don't care who or how someone exposes the corruption and fraud in our government anymore.  Snowden tried to do it as a whistleblower and was stifled and through our press before they shut him down.

I'm not sure there are any viable legal paths to take any more.  The system is pretty rigged.

 

[jon_mx]

Unfortunately I do see this in general, not just here. They do want to see the "libtards" freak out.

The thing is, this shouldn't be a libtard issue, or a spite issue. Donald Trump is unfit. Hillary will just actually be a "regular" politician. Does that suck for you? Well, the President doesn't decide your paycheck or your house, so get over it. The Mexicans and the Muslims don't take your jobs, or blow you up. Sorry that Hillary is just more of Obama. I know, it sucks. Obama and Hillary. Hillary and Obama. "Let's blow it up on the libtards, amirite?" So tedious.

Hillary is far far worse than Obama when it comes to corruptness.  Obama did not do 1/100th of the crap that Hillary pulls.  

 

[DocHolliday]

Well, if I'm not mistaken it was the Hillary team that sent paid "brownshirts" to incite violence at Trump rallies.  so who is it inciting this stuff?

You are not mistaken.  This was brushed over by Hillary's mainstream news outlets.   

 

[Henry Ford]

But no one is afraid of HRCs ratcheting up the Russia rhetoric?  Why is she provoking them at every turn?  Neither the NSA or Homeland Security has made definitive statements regarding the Podesta emails positively coming from Russia.  But HRC shouts it at the top of her lungs.  Seems to me that electing her is guaranteeing a conflict with Russia.  

I don't want to alarm you, but we're already in conflict with Russia.

 

[jonessed]

I have never, in any post, said any of that.  But Duke and his followers and other hate groups are a very strong base of the Trump movement.  They are a concern, as I've repeatedly said in a number of different ways.

Almost half the country supports Trump, and the other half supports Clinton.  All kinds of distasteful individuals and groups are going to roll up into that segmentation.

 

[chet]

FYI:  The Cubs are a bigger dog than Donald right now.

 

[David Dodds]

If Russia were behind the WikiLeaks, why would they release AFTER early voting starts?  They want HRC to win, but then get indicted?  Is that their master strategy?

 

[shadrap]

In my view Trump explicitly invited foreign powers and interests to hack the DNC, hack his political opponent and continue interfering with our elections as such.

It doesnt get more stark than Trumps own freakin' words, encouraging others to essentially spy on the U.S. - but since it's trumps political opponent and for his own gain, that's all good I suppose. 

Man, you credit Trump with that much power?  Whoever hacked the dem's emails would have done the same to the repubs.  To think otherwise is not being wise.

 

[cstu]

The Early Vote In Nevada Suggests Clinton Might Beat Her Polls There

Still, many more Democrats than Republicans have voted in early balloting. Through early Tuesday, 43 percent of early and absentee votes have been cast by registered Democrats and just 37 percent have been cast by registered Republicans. Democrats have a lead in the number of raw votes of greater than 30,000 out of more than 500,000 votes cast, which is about 50 percent of all votes cast in the 2012 presidential election.

Indeed, the pattern in early voting looks pretty much the same as in 20121. After one week of early voting in 2012, Democrats made up 45 percent of early voters and Republicans made up 37 percent. Those numbers held through the second week of early voting and into the general election. Democrats had a 7-point edge after early voting that year and a 6-point edge after all the votes were counted. The fact that the registration numbers didn’t change very much after early voting shouldn’t be surprising, because absentee and early voters made up about 70 percent of all ballots cast.

The similarity to 2012 in the early numbers in Nevada is good news for Clinton. Obama won the state by 7 points (or about the Democratic edge in the registration of those who voted). Some polls have given Clinton the same-size lead in the past month, but the current FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast puts her advantage at between 1 and 2 percentage points in Nevada. If Trump were to lose Nevada, the polls-only model gives him just a 9 percent chance of winning the election. It’s a near must-win for him, as most swing states are.

 

[Koya]

If Russia were behind the WikiLeaks, why would they release AFTER early voting starts?  They want HRC to win, but then get indicted?  Is that their master strategy?

Involved with <> behind.

There have been numerous leaks from numerous data breaches from numerous foreign players.  We know for a fact Russia is "involved"

Exactly what level of involvement and at what levels of the Russian govt we don't know.  Exactly which breaches and which dumps are being directed by whom, influenced by whom and with which other parties involved we don't know.

But we know Russia is ####### around, and it seems like most people would rather focus on the ####### emails for the billionth time than flat up spying against one of our presidential candidates like its an ok thing, because it aligns with some people's party politics. 

Disgusting*

* which doesn't mean certain behaviors exposed by said leaks is not also disturbing if not disgusting. But not discussing that red herring right now and it's pathetic I even need this disclaimer.  We are being ####ed with by the Russians, and people are not rallyin behind, well, an American? Even if they can't stand her? When did our nation become such a group of spineless #######. 

 

[cstu]

If Russia were behind the WikiLeaks, why would they release AFTER early voting starts?  They want HRC to win, but then get indicted?  Is that their master strategy?

Maybe they thought a last-minute bombshell would affect the election enough to make up for the early voting.

 

[Henry Ford]

Almost half the country supports Trump, and the other half supports Clinton.  All kinds of distasteful individuals and groups are going to roll up into that segmentation.

I'm sure.  Trump has the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Daily Stormer, the Knights Party,  VDare, Occidental Dissent, the Traditionalist Worker Party, the League of the South, the American Freedom Party, and the National Policy Institute.

Clinton has a lot of politicians and bankers.  So there's that.

 

[Koya]

Man, you credit Trump with that much power?  Whoever hacked the dem's emails would have done the same to the repubs.  To think otherwise is not being wise.

Have you read my comments? I flat out stated that Trump very likely had no influence on what happened in terms of exposing us to any more danger from these foreign interventions. 

That does not change the fact that his proclamations were inexcusable, and the parroting of said proclamations by many of his supporters not utterly unpatriotic (I mean, can we at least call accepting, asking for and wishing for more foreign spying on U.S. citizens as unpatriotic? What else can you call it? This isn't Eric Snowden, some home grown whistleblower. This is the ####### Russian govt and others trying to influence our election and dig up dirt on our citizens, hated as she may be have some modicum of respect for our nation and our institutions - and our damn democracy itself)

 

[BeaverCleaver]

When did our nation become such a group of spineless #######. 

Ask the Social Justice Warriors about that.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

More on the emails...."We gotta zap Lanny out of our universe" 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41556

 

[Koya]

Maybe they thought a last-minute bombshell would affect the election enough to make up for the early voting.

Maybe they are slow playing the Ecuadoran government as they continue to avoid extradition because Wikileaks leader is a fellow narcissist who is accused of rape and other unsavory misdeeds and is trying to avoid being held to justice?

I mean, seriously, when you look around and you see Trump, Assange, David Duke and the old unfiltered and off the reservation Giuliani as your guiding leaders of a movement, maybe you are following the wrong movement. 

When you turn around and realize that your fellow followers are by far less educated, less successful and far more angry and verbally hateful than, well, any candidate's base in recent memory... maybe you are a part of the wrong movement.  It's like, ok, I'll "believe" you are not a racist bigot.  

But I'll be damned if I'm not going to forever question the judgement of someone who willingnly surrounds and aligns themselves with and actively supports those who are.

 

[ren hoek]

5.  Our president will make it a priority to imprison his political opponent. I consider that more likely than any of the things you've listed.  It's pretty much a campaign promise. Throwing your political opponent is jail is something that happens in dictatorships. One of the articles of impeachment for Nixon was his misuse of law enforcement for political purpose.

6. The press will be vilified and marginalized, removing a vital check on the government.  Also more likely than the things on your list, pretty much already underway in fact.

He can't just throw people in jail that he disagrees with.  They have to commit major crimes, like ignorantly losing state secrets to foreign countries and destroying the evidence, or committing crimes, or doing something treasonous like knowingly funding foreign governments with terrorist ties.  The president does not have that power.  

Media has served the establishment for a long time, especially the networks.  Are you seriously implying the same press that fed her debate questions and let her wine and dine them is somehow giving us a vital check on government power?  

 

[Koya]

Ask the Social Justice Warriors about that.

I'll ask you.  Please explain.  Including what a "Social Justice Warrior" is (honestly, don't know)

 

[Koya]

I'm sure.  Trump has the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Daily Stormer, the Knights Party,  VDare, Occidental Dissent, the Traditionalist Worker Party, the League of the South, the American Freedom Party, and the National Policy Institute.

Clinton has a lot of politicians and bankers.  So there's that.

Including a lot of Republican ones.  Of both lots. 

 

[jonessed]

Involved with <> behind.

There have been numerous leaks from numerous data breaches from numerous foreign players.  We know for a fact Russia is "involved"

Exactly what level of involvement and at what levels of the Russian govt we don't know.  Exactly which breaches and which dumps are being directed by whom, influenced by whom and with which other parties involved we don't know.

But we know Russia is ####### around, and it seems like most people would rather focus on the ####### emails for the billionth time than flat up spying against one of our presidential candidates like its an ok thing, because it aligns with some people's party politics. 

Disgusting*

* which doesn't mean certain behaviors exposed by said leaks is not also disturbing if not disgusting. But not discussing that red herring right now and it's pathetic I even need this disclaimer.  We are being ####ed with by the Russians, and people are not rallyin behind, well, an American? Even if they can't stand her? When did our nation become such a group of spineless #######. 

We spy on leaders all the time.  Remember what we did to Merkel?  She was an ally.  I can't imagine what we do to our enemies.  How many governments have we completely upended in the last 20 years?

This #### happens.  I don't support Russian hacking but we don't have any control over that.  We can however stop crap like pay to play politicking and paying people to incite riots.  Just because Russia was involved in uncovering the corruption doesn't mean we should ignore it.

 

[jonessed]

Maybe they are slow playing the Ecuadoran government as they continue to avoid extradition because Wikileaks leader is a fellow narcissist who is accused of rape and other unsavory misdeeds and is trying to avoid being held to justice?

I mean, seriously, when you look around and you see Trump, Assange, David Duke and the old unfiltered and off the reservation Giuliani as your guiding leaders of a movement, maybe you are following the wrong movement. 

When you turn around and realize that your fellow followers are by far less educated, less successful and far more angry and verbally hateful than, well, any candidate's base in recent memory... maybe you are a part of the wrong movement.  It's like, ok, I'll "believe" you are not a racist bigot.  

But I'll be damned if I'm not going to forever question the judgement of someone who willingnly surrounds and aligns themselves with and actively supports those who are.

How is Assange at all associated with David Duke?  Assange's support is more generational based than politically based.  He was a huge liberal hero when he was digging up the dirt on Bush.  He's also big with Bernie supporters.

 

[David Dodds]

Involved with <> behind.

There have been numerous leaks from numerous data breaches from numerous foreign players.  We know for a fact Russia is "involved"

Exactly what level of involvement and at what levels of the Russian govt we don't know.  Exactly which breaches and which dumps are being directed by whom, influenced by whom and with which other parties involved we don't know.

But we know Russia is ####### around, and it seems like most people would rather focus on the ####### emails for the billionth time than flat up spying against one of our presidential candidates like its an ok thing, because it aligns with some people's party politics. 

Disgusting*

* which doesn't mean certain behaviors exposed by said leaks is not also disturbing if not disgusting. But not discussing that red herring right now and it's pathetic I even need this disclaimer.  We are being ####ed with by the Russians, and people are not rallyin behind, well, an American? Even if they can't stand her? When did our nation become such a group of spineless #######. 




 




 

You could make the same argument against our government that seems to meddle in every other country in the world.  Hell, we were spying on the heads of most governments.  And it appears the NSA has all of our emails for the last 7 years even though that is illegal to do.  

I do think Russia has hacked us.  I also think China has hacked us.  And I think the US and has hacked everyone too.  Hillary's rhetoric against Russia feels like it comes from a place of fear. Let Homeland Security make those announcements.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

5.  Our president will make it a priority to imprison his political opponent. I consider that more likely than any of the things you've listed.  It's pretty much a campaign promise. Throwing your political opponent is jail is something that happens in dictatorships. One of the articles of impeachment for Nixon was his misuse of law enforcement for political purpose.

6. The press will be vilified and marginalized, removing a vital check on the government.  Also more likely than the things on your list, pretty much already underway in fact.

The press should be vilified. And, they stopped being a vital check on government a while ago. Now it's more important to maintain the right relationships and accept that they will feed you the story they want printed. 

Eta - maybe if Trump were elected they would go back to being journalists and not stenographers. 

 

[shadrap]

Have you read my comments? I flat out stated that Trump very likely had no influence on what happened in terms of exposing us to any more danger from these foreign interventions. 

That does not change the fact that his proclamations were inexcusable, and the parroting of said proclamations by many of his supporters not utterly unpatriotic (I mean, can we at least call accepting, asking for and wishing for more foreign spying on U.S. citizens as unpatriotic? What else can you call it? This isn't Eric Snowden, some home grown whistleblower. This is the ####### Russian govt and others trying to influence our election and dig up dirt on our citizens, hated as she may be have some modicum of respect for our nation and our institutions - and our damn democracy itself)

maybe if there wasn't any dirt to dig up, they wouldn't have any dirt to dig up.  Hillary created the dirt pile so now it's Trump & the Russians fault?   A little flawed, don't you think?

 

[tangfoot]

just another nugget in #PodestaEmails25 telling Podesta best way to win argument is compare your opponent to Hitler https://t.co/x5zN609oM8

Are you ####### kidding?  That line is from an old-### Dave Barry humor column.

http://hyperdiscordia.crywalt.com/how_to_win_arguments.html

 

[Koya]

We spy on leaders all the time.  Remember what we did to Merkel?  She was an ally.  I can't imagine what we do to our enemies.  How many governments have we completely upended in the last 20 years?

This #### happens.  I don't support Russian hacking but we don't have any control over that.  We can however stop crap like pay to play politicking and paying people to incite riots.  Just because Russia was involved in uncovering the corruption doesn't mean we should ignore it.

I never claimed spying doesn't happen. I'm claiming you don't ####### encourage it to be done against your own country, against a presidential candidate at that, especially if you happen to also be a presidential candidate.

Is that logic so hard to understand? And I clearly stated we shouldn't ignore the information... but to encourage it verbally as Trump did is a disgrace and belittles the very institution he is running for.  

Do you not agree?

 

[tangfoot]

Obviously not a Holocaust, but I'm kinda worried that some unhinged fringe group will attack a college campus or news media outlet (or "insert bastion of liberal thinking and bias here") late next week if Hillary wins the election.

They'll never be able to find the Ivory Tower.

 

[Henry Ford]

He can't just throw people in jail that he disagrees with.  They have to commit major crimes, like ignorantly losing state secrets to foreign countries and destroying the evidence, or committing crimes, or doing something treasonous like knowingly funding foreign governments with terrorist ties.  The president does not have that power.  

Media has served the establishment for a long time, especially the networks.  Are you seriously implying the same press that fed her debate questions and let her wine and dine them is somehow giving us a vital check on government power?  

That's not entirely true.  As long as he declares that they have aided Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or related organizations, yes he can.  Wait, has he ever done that with Clinton?

 

[TobiasFunke]

He can't just throw people in jail that he disagrees with.  They have to commit major crimes, like ignorantly losing state secrets to foreign countries and destroying the evidence, or committing crimes, or doing something treasonous like knowingly funding foreign governments with terrorist ties.  The president does not have that power.  

Media has served the establishment for a long time, especially the networks.  Are you seriously implying the same press that fed her debate questions and let her wine and dine them is somehow giving us a vital check on government power?  

The president has the power, either on his own or by exerting pressure on those who serve at his discretion, to do everything but render a verdict in a criminal case. It's a ridiculous amount of leverage. As I pointed out, Nixon's misuse of law enforcement was one of the Articles of Impeachment.  If you don't understand the danger of a presidential candidate promising to lock up his political opponent and leading chants of the same, I don't know what to tell you.

Your media argument is deeply flawed. No, Donna Brazile and Corey Lewandowski and all the other CNN partisan hacks are not giving us a vital check on government power at all times.  They deserve ridicule.  But the NY Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and many others have done impressive work and are incredibly important to our democracy.  Are you seriously implying that the press isn't a vital check on government power?  Where do you think people got all the information they're using to make their arguments in political threads here, including many of the arguments they make as evidence of Clinton's corruption?  This is a bizarre line of reasoning, which others have articulated (including @Sinn Fein just now) highlights this particular problem with Trumpism. 

 

[jon_mx]

I'm sure.  Trump has the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Daily Stormer, the Knights Party,  VDare, Occidental Dissent, the Traditionalist Worker Party, the League of the South, the American Freedom Party, and the National Policy Institute.

Clinton has a lot of politicians and bankers.  So there's that.

Well Hillary has the NAMBLA vote, the ex-felon votes, the communist vote, the terrorist sympathizer vote to name a few.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

just another nugget in #PodestaEmails25 telling Podesta best way to win argument is compare your opponent to Hitler https://t.co/x5zN609oM8

He was sort of stating Godwin's Law.

I'm sure people know that by now.

 

 

[Koya]

maybe if there wasn't any dirt to dig up, they wouldn't have any dirt to dig up.  Hillary created the dirt pile so now it's Trump & the Russians fault?   A little flawed, don't you think?

Come on man, you have to do better than this weak attempt at a diversionary red herring.

I never claimed it's the Russians fault - they are doing what they should be doing, and what we very well might do should the roles be reversed.

I DID claim is a disgrace for Trump to verbally encourage it - even without his shady ties to Russia and business interests over there that bring a legit and concerning amount of potential conflict to the forefront, even without that as further context what Trump did should be dismissed out of hand.

At least anyone remotely patriotic to the United States of America and not Trump or the Republican Party. 

So, what is flawed again? Because you got this all wrong. And, as I noted before, if any REAL dirt does arise from this of course we must take action... but to encourage a foreign power to do the digging is, as I said before, disgusting.

 

[jonessed]

I'm sure.  Trump has the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Daily Stormer, the Knights Party,  VDare, Occidental Dissent, the Traditionalist Worker Party, the League of the South, the American Freedom Party, and the National Policy Institute.

Clinton has a lot of politicians and bankers.  So there's that.

Exactly.  Seems pretty even.

 

[David Dodds]

Is this Hillary's Watergate?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/hillarys-watergate

Even if she wins, will she be dogged for years in investigations?

 

[Henry Ford]

Well Hillary has the NAMBLA vote, the ex-felon votes, the communist vote, the terrorist sympathizer vote to name a few.  

I missed most of those endorsements.  Got any links?  I have them for every one of the endorsements I listed.

 

[Henry Ford]

Is this Hillary's Watergate?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/hillarys-watergate

Even if she wins, will she be dogged for years in investigations?

Not according to Carl Bernstein, who suggested that the comparison was ludicrous.  But I don't know what he'd know about Watergate.