Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

[msommer]

I don't want either of them.  Neither is no better than the other as a person.  

Tough. You are getting one of them.

 

[SoBeDad]

I question Khan's judgement.

His son was killed by Muslims in a Muslim country in a war supported by Hillary Clinton. If Trump had been in charge then his son would still be alive.

My guess is that his son is rolling over in his grave at the pathetic pandering of his hypocritical father.

If almost anyone but Bush had been in charge, we would've invaded Iraq. BTW, Trump was for the Iraq war at the beginning of the war. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I was going to guess something in the 15-20% range.

Maybe you concur with me than.

My point to Riversco (which prompted our exchange) was that if he thinks a majority of Trump's constituency actually think a wall is going to be built, we are seeing very different things (or, interpreting what we are seeing differently). IMO, he sometimes see ghosts when it comes to a purported consensus (i.e. - of course Wentz is way better than Goff ).

That's fair.  My apologies.  I apparently walked into an exchange between you and another poster that had a history behind it that I didn't pick up before responding.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Tough. You are getting one of them.

No,kidding?  What's your point?

 

[badmojo1006]

Grave threat?  You're such a drama queen on a board in which you will never change anyone's opinion.

Hillary Clinton has killed people, grossly mishandled classified information on purpose, and is a lying dirty power hungry scumbag.  Yeah that's what we need. 

Honestly don't care what your opinion of Hillary is...I doubt anything can change that. What is your opinion of Trump? You do not care that he is attacking a family with a fallen soldier for a son?

I think you are beyond pale with your Hillary comments, but I want to see what you think of Trump 

 

[msommer]

Not sure if I understand the last part. In other words, if the IRA opened a branch in the US and set off a few bombs, should we round up all Irish Catholics?  

Maybe a better way to pose the question. What percentage of Muslims (or those of the Islamic faith, including people like Kareem Abdul-Jabaar and Muhammad Ali) are terrorist? If it is very, very, very, very low, should they all be tarred by the same brush?

I'd be on board with more rigorous vetting procedures for immigration. But I thought he phrased it as temporary (what time scale, typically, he remains not just vague but silent on) BAN.

This estimates 106,000 out of 1.6 billion

 

[msommer]

No,kidding?  What's your point?

Which is the lesser of two (in your words) evils?

Deal with that

 

[badmojo1006]

I question Khan's judgement.

His son was killed by Muslims in a Muslim country in a war supported by Hillary Clinton. If Trump had been in charge then his son would still be alive.

My guess is that his son is rolling over in his grave at the pathetic pandering of his hypocritical father.

So now you are insulting all men and women who served and were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Which is the lesser of two (in your words) evils?

Deal with that

Any particular reason to be a jerk towards me?

 

[chauncey]

Hillary wants to take on Wall Street, meanwhile:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/30/wall-street-for-hillary-clinton-has-48-5m-in-hedge-fund-backing-compared-to-trumps-19m.html

Hedge fund owners and employees have so far this election cycle contributed nearly $48.5 million for Hillary Clinton, compared to about $19,000 for Donald Trump, an indication that Wall Street is clearly backing the Democratic presidential nominee.

The total amount of such campaign contributions in 2016 is $122.7 million, twice as much as in the 2012 election cycle, according to a recent federal report analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

I guess some people will believe anything she says. 

 

[badmojo1006]

Hillary wants to take on Wall Street, meanwhile:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/30/wall-street-for-hillary-clinton-has-48-5m-in-hedge-fund-backing-compared-to-trumps-19m.html

I guess some people will believe anything she says. 

Because they know what a dangerous nutbag he is and they are backing the only sane candidate in the race

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not sure if I understand the last part. In other words, if the IRA opened a branch in the US and set off a few bombs, should we round up all Irish Catholics?  

Maybe a better way to pose the question. What percentage of Muslims (or those of the Islamic faith, including people like Kareem Abdul-Jabaar and Muhammad Ali) are terrorist? If it is very, very, very, very low, should they all be tarred by the same brush?

I'd be on board with more rigorous vetting procedures for immigration. But I thought he phrased it as temporary (what time scale, typically, he remains not just vague but silent on) BAN.

I'm just saying that people are very susceptible to just that line of thinking, yes. And that's kind of the theory behind the mass deportation of all illegal aliens because there are some who commit crimes.

On your 2nd point, I think that's the whole premise of the foreign muslim ban. Yes.

He said a ban as in just a ban, then when he got push back he said temporary, then when he got more push back he went from 'muslim' to any country with a history of terrorist activity.  But I've never believed his capacity to make such distinctions is real or willing.

And I suppose my point was that from a Trumpian POV there is no real distinction which can be made between a foreign muslim and an American muslim. I see zero reason they should not extend their thinking to American muslims.

I think in a weird way many who oppose Trump underestimate all of this. It's the idea that's dangerous far more than the man.

 

[Bob Magaw]

That's fair.  My apologies.  I apparently walked into an exchange between you and another poster that had a history behind it that I didn't pick up before responding.

No need to apologize. You helped clarify what I thought and wrote, and enabled me to think about it in a different way. If I wasn't clear initially, than that is at least partly my responsibility. Thanks.  

 

[SoBeDad]

New Democratic Strategy: Go after Trump with sympathetic figures such as parents of fallen Muslim and Latino soldiers & police, disabled people and their families, prisoners of war. Then let Trump self-destruct.

When powerful groups or people, such as newspaper editorial boards and presidents of foreign countries go after Trump, his poll numbers only seem to go higher. 

 

[chauncey]

Less than 200 people care to come out and see Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Bill, and Mr Rogers in PA:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/759509936002957314

LOW energy.

Meanwhile, Trump is packing the house in CO.

Doesn't make sense, given what the media and polls tell us. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Less than 200 people care to come out and see Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Bill, and Mr Rogers in PA:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/759509936002957314

LOW energy.

Meanwhile, Trump is packing the house in CO.

Doesn't make sense, given what the media and polls tell us. 

Look at the first two tweets under that.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I'm just saying that people are very susceptible to just that line of thinking, yes. And that's kind of the theory behind the mass deportation of all illegal aliens because there are some who commit crimes.

On your 2nd point, I think that's the whole premise of the foreign muslim ban. Yes.

He said a ban as in just a ban, then when he got push back he said temporary, then when he got more push back he went from 'muslim' to any country with a history of terrorist activity.  But I've never believed his capacity to make such distinctions is real or willing.

And I suppose my point was that from a Trumpian POV there is no real distinction which can be made between a foreign muslim and an American muslim. I see zero reason they should not extend their thinking to American muslims.

I think in a weird way many who oppose Trump underestimate all of this. It's the idea that's dangerous far more than the man.

Gotcha.

For a moment your use of the word I (have a very hard time) caused me to blur the distinction between you speaking for yourself and describing the logical implications and consequences of Trump's "rationale" (and I use the term loosely). Don't know how I could make that mistake, it won't happen again.  

"And I've said and I believe that logically if someone thinks that a foreign muslim is a danger to the US - and so should be banned - I have a very hard time understanding why American muslims should not be interned as well. I see no difference if the controlling problem is religious identity."

 

[Bob Magaw]

Trump needs a nickname.

 

[The Commish]

I will not. This isn't partisan. And I am only referring to what you have written for months. You have consistently mocked me for warning about the threat of a Trump presidency. You, and others, have equated Hillary Clinton as being just as bad. You have declared that it is perfectly justifiable to vote for a third party candidate, and in so doing you will not be in any way responsible for a Trump victory, even in a battleground state. 

I think all of these positions, taken by you, are wrong and in terms of this election, dangerous. If you want to take back what you have written, great( I will congratulate you for doing so. But otherwise I will continue to call you out and criticize you and anyone else who expresses a similar point of view and I won't apologize for any of it. 

I have not on the bold.  You so bad want for me to have said this it appears.  You keep trying to put these words in my mouth.  So again....I ask you keep me out of your partisan bull####

I HAVE mocked you for thinking this is a world where Trump can become dictator of the United States.  That's some of the dumbest #### I've ever read on this board, so I mocked you and will continue to do so as long as you keep saying it.  I think the only time I have ever come close to comparing the two directly was around a comment someone made on honesty and I said based on what we know about each of them I was fine considering it a wash for the time being and happy to go back and revisit my assessment should we ever be able to compare Trump's political actions to his from the campaigns.

It's crystal clear that your  is in the way of any sort of discussion with me, so how about just putting me on ignore if you aren't going to take the time to comprehend what I am saying in these threads.  I really don't want to litter them with constant clarifications of what I actually said vs what you say I say.  It's annoying.

 

[dickey moe]

This is the crux.

I don't think this country has ever had to question if a person running for president is truly an awful, rotten human being.

Let me be the one zillionth person to say that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are awful, rotten human beings.

 

[The Commish]

Hillary Clinton is the only one who can defeat Donald Trump. Anyone who does not vote for Hillary Clinton is not contributing to the defeat of Donald Trump, and therefore is part of the problem. That's how I see it. 

in a normal election I would not see it this way. In fact I would be very supportive of Sinn Fein's position, and yours. This is not a normal election. Everything I write is based on the premise that a Trump presidency is an extremely grave threat to this country. If you believe that, you MUST vote for Hillary Clinton. 

This isn't the first election I've read your  about a vote for X really being a vote for Y.

 

[The Commish]

Hillary wants to take on Wall Street, meanwhile:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/30/wall-street-for-hillary-clinton-has-48-5m-in-hedge-fund-backing-compared-to-trumps-19m.html

I guess some people will believe anything she says. 

Because they know what a dangerous nutbag he is and they are backing the only sane candidate in the race

As if this backing is some sort of new phenomena that has crept into this election cycle, right?   

I love when people try to justify a candidate by pretending to know the motives of other peoples' support.

 

[squistion]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/07/30/1554599/-Convention-Ratings-Are-In-Hope-Beats-Fear-Mongering-And-Fox-News-Is-Irrelevant

Now that both of the presidential nominating conventions are over, we can take a look at how the American people felt about the proceedings with respect to their television viewing. The Nielsen ratings are in and they tell a story that may have an impact on the election and its results in November.

From the broadest perspective the Democrats scored a significant victory (which may explain why Donald Trump is now pretending that he had nothing to do with his own convention). The cumulative total viewers for all four nights, across ten broadcast and cable networks, during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) was 116.7 million. For the Republican National Convention (RNC) it was 100.7 million. The Democrats outright won the first three nights by at least five million viewers. On the fourth night Trump's acceptance speech outdrew Hillary Clinton's by a small margin of 1.6 million. 


 


 DNC


   RNC


Day 1    


28.4


   23.0


Day 2


28.0


   23.0


Day 3


27.0


   19.8


Day 4


33.3


   34.9


 


116.7


   100.7


The fourth night of the DNC event requires some additional analysis. It is fair to say that the night when a candidate is making their acceptance speech has particular significance. They are the star attraction at these shows and the impressions they make can have a substantial impact. Consequently, it should raise one's curiosity as to why the Democrats won every night except the one when Hillary Clinton was making her big speech.

The answer is not especially surprising. When the numbers are broken down by network, you'll find that Trump drew a massive 9.4 million viewers for his speech on Fox News alone. The following week, by contrast, Clinton was watched by only three million viewers on Fox. There was no similar disparity on any other network.

Clearly the people who watch Fox News were inclined to tune in to see their favorite candidate, Donald Trump. And when it came time for Hillary Clinton to speak, Fox viewers simply tuned her out [...] Absent this warped variable, the average viewership of the convention's fourth night again shows a healthy lead for the Democrats.

 

[Gopher State]

After the DNC feeling much better about the honesty of Hillary.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Less than 200 people care to come out and see Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Bill, and Mr Rogers in PA:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/759509936002957314

LOW energy.

Meanwhile, Trump is packing the house in CO.

Doesn't make sense, given what the media and polls tell us. 

More proof America is full of angry white racists who hate women.

Good thing they are old and dying off. 

 

[dickey moe]

After the DNC feeling much better about the honesty of Hillary.

Hey hey I'm a Believer!

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Matt O'Brien ‏@ObsoleteDogma 2h2 hours ago

To recap: Trump insulted the grieving mother of a soldier who died fighting for our country, and said that hiring people was a sacrifice.

Has Trump Gone Too Far? - Part 532 of a series.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

DNC


   RNC


Day 1    


28.4


   23.0


Day 2


28.0


   23.0


Day 3


27.0


   19.8


Day 4


33.3


   34.9


 


116.7


   100.7


The fourth night of the DNC event requires some additional analysis. It is fair to say that the night when a candidate is making their acceptance speech has particular significance. They are the star attraction at these shows and the impressions they make can have a substantial impact. Consequently, it should raise one's curiosity as to why the Democrats won every night except the one when Hillary Clinton was making her big speech.

The answer is not especially surprising. When the numbers are broken down by network, you'll find that Trump drew a massive 9.4 million viewers for his speech on Fox News alone. The following week, by contrast, Clinton was watched by only three million viewers on Fox. There was no similar disparity on any other network.

Makes sense.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Let me be the one zillionth person to say that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are awful, rotten human beings.

Yeah but Hillary won't push the button. 

Unless the Russians invade the Baltics.

That calm steady ready hand. 

Bwahahahahahahahahah

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Has Trump Gone Too Far? - Part 532 of a series.

He went too far a long time ago, he just keeps going further.

 

[dickey moe]

Has Trump Gone Too Far? - Part 532 of a series.

Why would he stop now?

 

[msommer]

Unless the Russians invade the Baltics.

Russia will only invade the Baltics if The Donald is the President

HTH

 

[Dr Oadi]

He went too far a long time ago, he just keeps going further.

At least Trump is asking the question liberals asked decades ago. 

Is it worth it?

Saigon wasn't. 

Why is the rest of the World worth more than them?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

At least Trump is asking the question liberals asked decades ago. 

Is it worth it?

Saigon wasn't. 

Why is the rest of the World worth more than them?

Isn't the Vietnam comp the mideast, where he wants to send troops now?

We won Europe and the Cold War.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Russia will only invade the Baltics if The Donald is the President

HTH

Why because Trump and Putin's buddy buddy? 

Is your brain functioning?

Trump and Putin's buddies. 

Russia's gonna invade if Trump's elected.  

Foolishness. 

But hey Hillary and Trump  like America decade's ago gave Poland away to avoid war. 

They weren't worth it then. But now.  Whoa. 

 

[Guest]

Because they know what a dangerous nutbag he is and they are backing the only sane candidate in the race

You're missing the point of Chauncey's post.  This election compared to 2012, Wall Street gave 2x.  And high 30 percent stake went to Hillary.  They very well may favor Hillary's sanity, but that's not what these numbers scream.  They scream an attempt to jockey for influence, that such influence can be bought and that the leading conduit is Hillary.  The majority of money was spread out over other candidates and not Trump. I'm guess Cruz and Bush were the leading recipient of the $80+ million that did not go to Hillary.  

Simply stated though, your stated narrative is not the one supported by these numbers.  The numbers do support the anger someone like I has with the entire broken system and these candidates.  

 

[Dr Oadi]

Isn't the Vietnam comp the mideast, where he wants to send troops now?

We won Europe and the Cold War.

I don't know. We came. We saw.  He died. 

Who wants that to happen more to Assad? Hillary? Trump? Establishment Republicans?  

Who is America's enemy? 

Is ISIS America's enemy? 

Or Assad and Russia?

 

[badmojo1006]

Why because Trump and Putin's buddy buddy? 

Is your brain functioning?

Trump and Putin's buddies. 

Russia's gonna invade if Trump's elected.  

Foolishness. 

But hey Hillary and Trump  like America decade's ago gave Poland away to avoid war. 

They weren't worth it then. But now.  Whoa. 

If you are seriously worried about sending troops to the middle east to fight ISIS, ISIL, Al-Queda, Assad, then Hillary is the person you should be voting for. One of the main things I disagree with her is she is more Hawkish than Obama and more hawkish then Trump.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't know. We came. We saw.  He died. 

Who wants that to happen more to Assad? Hillary? Trump? Establishment Republicans?  

Who is America's enemy? 

Is ISIS America's enemy? 

Or Assad and Russia?

Normal policy discussion here?

Last I checked Hillary is not sending troops back into Iraq/Syria.

Last I checked Trump will. Or he's completely lying about destroying Isis with false promises.

Enemies?

- Isis for sure.

- As for Russia - Well how do you feel about Reagan and the Cold War?

 

[Dr Oadi]

As Obama would put it. 

Make no mistake.  

American blood has been spilled and will continue to be spilled all over the World. 

For what is a question for the American people to answer. 

To overthrow Assad? 

Iraq was such a mistake to liberals but if America goes back into the Mideast for War it will be with or against Assad and Russia. 

America isn't a Christian Nation.  

Been the way since America waged war against piracy with Muslim Nations. 

So why is ISIS America's enemy?

It's not. Just another excuse to get popular support for another War to overthrow leaders America doesn't want. 

So why vote Trump?  Because America will never wage war with Russia unless Europe wills it. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So why vote Trump?  Because America will never wage war with Russia unless Europe wills it. 

America is bound to respond if Article V is invoked. If Europe wills it, we go.

It's been invoked once before, the US invoked it after 9/11/01.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If you are seriously worried about sending troops to the middle east to fight ISIS, ISIL, Al-Queda, Assad, then Hillary is the person you should be voting for. One of the main things I disagree with her is she is more Hawkish than Obama and more hawkish then Trump.

I disagree with you here. We're at war now but I don't think Hillary sends ground troops. Trump will IMO.

 

[msommer]

Why because Trump and Putin's buddy buddy? 

Is your brain functioning?

Trump and Putin's buddies. 

Russia's gonna invade if Trump's elected.  

Foolishness. 

But hey Hillary and Trump  like America decade's ago gave Poland away to avoid war. 

They weren't worth it then. But now.  Whoa. 

Putin has no buddies, he has people that are subservient and enemies.

Guess which one Trump is (and who is the chump)

HTH

 

[Dr Oadi]

America is bound to respond if Article V is invoked. If Europe wills it, we go.

It's been invoked once before, the US invoked it after 9/11/01.

Let Europe invoke it. America will be that bully that ensues all things prosperous for them. Unless you are expendable for Peace like Poland was. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let Europe invoke it. America will be that bully that ensues all things prosperous for them. Unless you are expendable for Peace like Poland was. 

That's our country. If you don't like it, that's your business. I'm proud of what we are, who we are and what we have done. God Bless the USA.

 

[squistion]

That's our country. If you don't like it, that's your business. I'm proud of what we are, who we are and what we have done. God Bless the USA.

  

 

[Dr Oadi]

Putin has no buddies, he has people that are subservient and enemies.

Guess which one Trump is (and who is the chump)

HTH

Trump the chump. 

Iraq is a perfect example of how to whip upAmerican public support for War. 

All you Trump will destroy the World liberals will be all in with Hillary leading America into Syria. 

We came. We saw. He died. 

We also saw Russia intervene shockingly. 

And also withdraw shockingly. 

Again it's not a question of America sending ground troops into Syria ( FYI they are there and growing ). 

It is against who. 

ISIS or Assad?

Russia has already told us where they stand. 

Remember when ISIS was winning territory?

Well it has been awhile since the scary Russians left. 

Assad or ISIS. 

Why can't it be neither for America?

 

[msommer]

I'm not even going to try to make sense of that word salad

 

[Bob Magaw]

Cross-posted

Breaking News - Fancy Bear, the sophisticated hacker employed by the GRU's elite military intelligence division responsible for the recent DNC/Clinton security breaches, was tasked by Putin to crack Trump's Republican campaign IT, but he had to keep interrupting and eventually abandoning his efforts after he kept vomiting on the keyboard.  

#VOMITRUMP

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Has Trump Gone Too Far? - Part 532 of a series.

This is exactly right.  I thought he obviously went too far when said that Mexico was sending Mexicans here to rape our women.  I mean, that's obviously a laughingly disqualifying statement, right?  But then the guy just keeps going and saying stuff that's just as crazy and nothing ever seems to come from it.  It's like he's immune from criticism when it comes to saying horrible, insane stuff in front of a live mic. It's mind-boggling.