This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's because she has a history of and is always doing everything in her power to lose. It's the only thing she does well.Not an obsession at all. I don't care what you do, actually. But it's interesting to me that there's been a million and one predictions of Hillary failing in this thread, and whenever she wins another victory none of you guys ever come in here and say that you were wrong. Never happens. You just move on to the next prediction of her losing.
Not against anyone. The odds were stacked against Bernie, because he's never been a member of the Democratic party until recently, and because his ideas are to the left of the mainstream. The mainstream doesn't win the Democratic nomination because somebody like Wasserman decides it, they win, nearly every time, because the Democratic party is mainstream. The Republican party used to be mainstream too, until this year...
I think you have a pretty bad habit of not comprehending what is predicted and whether a 'prediction' has occurred in the first place. I think you're the only one making outright predictions around here. The number of times you've stated the email issue had gone away or was about to must be around 20 for more than a year.
What are you talking about? Wins what? Primaries? She has lost a lot of primaries and many more than expected.
What about Sinn Fein predicting that she wouldn't win the nomination? How about Mr. Ham predicting indictment every other day?
Has she won the nomination yet? Is an indictment off the table? Granted, the nomination looks pretty darn good but I assume Sinn Fein's prediction assumes Mr Ham's comes to fruition.
The angry half are the Hillary supporters who are attacking people. The Trump supporters are positive and looking forward to making America great again.
Do you wish they'd go away or do you want to know the full truth, even if it means compromising Hillary's chances? My guess is you don't want to know the truth, you'd rather just see the whole thing go away.
Go away? We haven't even gotten to the good ones yet!
What about them? The difference is Clinton hasn't won the nomination yet, and she may still be indicted so Sinn and Ham and NOT wrong, like you.
Did she delete them with a rag? Maybe we can wring it out and get the emails back.
Those few who are engaging in violence are anti-Trump, but no proof they are all Hillary or Bernie supporters, although a certain percentage my be by default (who else will they vote for?). Nevertheless, it is not some organized plan by the Hillary supporters to attack people as you suggest.
Bentel didn't cooperate with the State IG either.
Obama doesn't take a single public step on Clinton's behalf until (if ever) she is out from under cloud of indictment. With the Democrats in very public disarray, her most powerful public advocate's current silence, on HIS former SoS, is deafening...
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Hillary has lost just 4 out of the last 13 primaries and caucuses. During that stretch, she received over 685,000 more votes than Sanders did.
And Ronald Reagan refused to endorse George H.W. Bush until he locked up the 1988 primary. Guess that silence was deafening too, huh?
I think the full truth will exonerate her from any chance of indictment.
An 8-year warm bucket o' piss Vice-President couldn't get a kind word from the Great Communicator to save his life, and when he finally did it was half-hearted at best. From the Bush camp it absolutely was deafening...
Of course, Obama calls her best moment as SOS, his worst mistake.
He is waiting for her to officially lock up the nomination, which may not be until the convention. But he will enthusiastically endorse her and campaign for her, as he wants his legacy continued.
You've made similar statements a couple of times in this thread and I really have to give you kudos for honesty. I think it's the only way anyone can support Hillary imo. Just accept all the corruption and tell yourself the other person is worse. Unfortunately I can't do that.
Obama will most certainly campaign against Trump, but he cannot campaign for Clinton while she may yet get indicted lest she become a very unwelcome addition to his legacy...
He is waiting for her to officially lock up the nomination, which may not be until the convention. But he will enthusiastically endorse her and campaign for her, as he wants his legacy continued.
Enjoy your Trump presidency! He will bring back jobs and prosperity and you will look back and be ashamed that you would rather have a criminal than the great uniter Trump as president.
Reagan and Bush were never that close. Obama and Hillary are even colder and more distant towards each other. I am not sure it is a positive to make such a comparison. Reagan-Bush ticket was more of a political necessity.
You're right that all the shenanigans almost certainly didn't change the outcome (that is, Clinton holding a more or less insurmountable lead in delegates at this point in time). However, don't try to pretend that DWS and the DNC didn't pull a number of shady and unethical (technically within the rules, but still shady as hell) tricks in an attempt to stack the deck in Clinton's favor.
This is likely the root of a lot of your defensiveness, you can still concede wrongdoing and support Hillary over Trump. You just think conceding facts and events somehow strengthens Trump in the real world. Not true, it's happening anyway, - ETA - Or maybe like Norv says you have to do this to hold back cognitive dissonance, I dunno.
I figured so much, given your fondness of Nixon. You are advocating a very dangerous position.
I don't think the primary was so much rigged or that there were shenanigans. It's simply that the DNC and DWS had decided all along they would make the conditions ultra-favorable to Clinton over Bernie. With all the political capital and infrastructure, they lost 21 contests, but were still able to overcome the insurgent candidate. Just barely.
Can't tell if this is serious or not, but if so, I'm happy to make my position clear. I support Hillary because I think she's by far the most qualified and best represents my worldview. I do not believe that being out of compliance with an email retention policy is disqualifying, especially considering the circumstances.
No one is talking about "compliance" with an email "retention policy".I do not believe that being out of compliance with an email retention policy is disqualifying, especially considering the circumstances.
You know what Loan Sharks? If Donald Trump somehow wins the election then I will hope that he defies my expectations and that he is a good President. I root for this country, and I will root for Donald Trump if he does well by it. And if he is a good President and brings prosperity and security I will certainly say so and I will support him no matter what I think of him personally.
Yeah, I think your framing of the email/server issue is conveniently limited. But, at least it's consistent with the deliberate ignorance and aloofness that characterizes the ardent Hillary supporters here. Tim, after all, would rather just not know if his presidential candidate committed an indictable offense. Pretty telling.Can't tell if this is serious or not, but if so, I'm happy to make my position clear. I support Hillary because I think she's by far the most qualified and best represents my worldview. I do not believe that being out of compliance with an email retention policy is disqualifying, especially considering the circumstances.
I haven't tried to pretend otherwise, ever, in this thread or elsewhere.
Bill & Teddy K were big on Obama if you are one to believe their reported racist comments
It is one of many issues which include gross mishandling of top secret data, skirting the FOIA, and obstruction of justice. Compliance with policy doesn't crack the top 10 concerns here. Hillary is really fortunate she has not been questioned under oath yet on this, because she most certainly would have perjured herself.
She hasn't been 'fortunate,' she hasn't been cooperating since the beginning. She's in active evasive measures mode, always has been.
