What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
:lmao:  at Clinton would be forced out of the race?  She intentionally mishandled classified information, lied about it, and thumbs her nose to everyone about it and she's in the race.  A rant about the media isn't forcing her out. 

The fear mongering about trump to get Hillary votes is both laughable and purely pathetic. 

 
Yeah, we simply disagree on almost all of this. But that's cool. I hope that when November comes around, and Hillary has not been indicted, you'll decide to vote for her. 
I'll admit that you're in a much better position than I, as one who would be a Clinton lapdog.  People talk about Trump as being the fascist (and maybe it's true).  But Hillary has a history of making lists of her enemies, skating well over the legal line and targeting those enemies mercilessly.  So some of us maybe don't want her at the helm of the NSA machine which knows precisely which of us have expressed our negative sentiments.  Let's say I'm already careful with my taxes, but better prepare for my audits, or worse.  

And when something like that does happen (and it will), we know exactly what Hillary's shrug looks like.  We know how her staff will hide documents, obstruct investigations and lie under oath between, "I don't recall."  And we know how she'll lie, lie, lie as her victims get nothing and her champions proclaim her innocence in absence of cuffs.

Supporting a President is about what that candidate is capable of, both good and bad - based on what they've done.  On top of everything else discussed in this thread, the way she has comported herself around the email scandal is a worrying look.

 
Last edited:
I'll admit that you're in a much better position than I, as one who would be a Clinton lapdog.  People talk about Trump as being the fascist (and maybe it's true).  But Hillary has a history of making lists of her enemies, skating well over the legal line and targeting those enemies mercilessly.  So some of us maybe don't want her at the helm of the NSA machine which knows precisely which of us have expressed our negative sentiments.  Let's say I'm already careful with my taxes, but better prepare for my audits, or worse.  
:lmao:  I think you're wise to be prepared Mr Ham. I'm sure she's got you in her sights. 

 
Clinton tech aide plans to take the Fifth at deposition


A former information technology adviser to Hillary Clinton plans to exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a deposition next week and wants to prevent any video recording being made of the session.

Lawyers for former State Department tech specialist Bryan Pagliano said in a court filing Wednesday that there's no valid reason to make an audio or video recording of the session since Pagliano doesn't plan to answer any of the questions he's asked by the conservative group Judicial Watch, which is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit related to Clinton's private email server. The group is scheduled to take Pagliano's deposition on Monday. ...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bryan-pagliano-fifth-amendment-223796#ixzz4AQgbkcac

- These depos have implications for criminal exposure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How Baby Boomer psychodrama infected the 2016 election

Barack Obama's election to the presidency in 2008 seemed to promise the end of the Baby Boomer reign over American life. Even Obama seemed to know his rise was their downfall. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama commented that so much of our national politics felt like "the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage."

Well, the Boomers are ready to take the country back, putting their arthritic — excuse me, "overworked" — fingers around the levers of national power again. Donald Trump was born in 1946. Hillary Clinton was born just a year later. Trump was discipled by Roy Cohn, a veteran of the McCarthy investigations. Clinton was a young Goldwater girl turned Wesleyan radical. The 2016 campaign is like the final chapter in the Boomer generation's tragic story.

The Clintonite half of the race represents the Baby Boomer generation's brittle, screechy self-righteousness, born out of exaggerated struggles, and soothed by corrupt money-grabs. Then there's the Trumpian half: born rich, yet afflicted with grandiose self-importance and paranoia, and possessed of a consciously exercised offensiveness that is normally pardoned as senility.

Shock and surprise, each candidate is the most wildly unpopular nominee their party has picked in many decades.

...
http://theweek.com/articles/627505/how-baby-boomer-psychodrama-infected-2016-election

- Good stuff, I like this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary will be giving a major foreign policy address today in San Diego. She's going to call Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified. 

 
Me, Commish, and Sinn Fein in 1932: 

ME: I'm really worried about what I've read about Stalin in Russia and Hitler in Germany. These guys sound absolutely horrible. 

COMMISH: Agreed, they suck. But FDR strikes me as just as bad. The New Deal, Nazism, Communism- to me it's all the same. And you need to stop fear monger int. 

SINN FEIN: Actually in many ways Roosevelt is far worse. 

 
Tim, Commish, and Sinn Fein in 1932: 

Tim: I'm really worried about what I've read about Hindenburg in Germany. This guy is absolutely horrible. 

COMMISH: Agreed, he sucks. But Hitler strikes me as a criminal and liar.  He keeps lists of his enemies.

SINN FEIN: Actually in many ways Hitler could be far worse. 

Tim: Hitler has done nothing wrong and I will do everything I can to support him.

 
Hillary will be giving a major foreign policy address today in San Diego. She's going to call Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified. 
Any word on when she will be holding a press conference?  I would think it's very dangerous for our leaders to not be accountable...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really look forward to Hillary spewing more of the same on foreign policy that has resulted in zero benefits for America, yet has had catastrophic effects on American families, the Federal budget and a nice little kicker...created ISIS by destabilizing the Middle East.

Keep on sucking Hillary!!  Nice Iraq vote, moron.

The woman's decision making skills are on par with a 13 year old's.

ETA:  WE ARE NOT THE WORLD POLICE

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will you feel better about her if she does? Is this the issue that's keeping you from voting for her? 
Would it make you feel better if people stop discussing Hillary's actual behavior and what she does, what she has done, and will do as president? That seems to be the problem here. Hillary would be in huge trouble most elections vs a normal candidate but hey surprise surprise her friend Donald is in the race against her.

Do the role play vignette where Donald calls his friend Bill about advice on getting into the race.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll admit that you're in a much better position than I, as one who would be a Clinton lapdog.  People talk about Trump as being the fascist (and maybe it's true).  But Hillary has a history of making lists of her enemies, skating well over the legal line and targeting those enemies mercilessly.  So some of us maybe don't want her at the helm of the NSA machine which knows precisely which of us have expressed our negative sentiments.  Let's say I'm already careful with my taxes, but better prepare for my audits, or worse.  

And when something like that does happen (and it will), we know exactly what Hillary's shrug looks like.  We know how her staff will hide documents, obstruct investigations and lie under oath between, "I don't recall."  And we know how she'll lie, lie, lie as her victims get nothing and her champions proclaim her innocence in absence of cuffs.
Many of us are waiting on cuffs because you've indicated they are right around the corner many times. 

LOL at you preparing for audits or worse. Is your ego really that big?  

 
I really look forward to Hillary spewing more of the same on foreign policy that has resulted in zero benefits for America, yet has had catastrophic effects on American families, the Federal budget and a nice little kicker...created ISIS by destabilizing the Middle East.

Keep on sucking Hillary!!  Nice Iraq vote, moron.

The woman's decision making skills are on par with a 13 year old's.

ETA:  WE ARE NOT THE WORLD POLICE
Pro tip: Next time type the "o" after the "f" in your browser before hitting the enter key in order to make sure you don't accidentally post silly facebook rants in the FFA again :thumbup:

 
I really look forward to Hillary spewing more of the same on foreign policy that has resulted in zero benefits for America, yet has had catastrophic effects on American families, the Federal budget and a nice little kicker...created ISIS by destabilizing the Middle East.

Keep on sucking Hillary!!  Nice Iraq vote, moron.

The woman's decision making skills are on par with a 13 year old's.

ETA:  WE ARE NOT THE WORLD POLICE
You have GWB to thank for that one.

 
Many of us are waiting on cuffs because you've indicated they are right around the corner many times. 

LOL at you preparing for audits or worse. Is your ego really that big?  
My timeline for the indictments has been given.  It was never as ill defined.  I believe the recommendation to indict will come down be the second week of July.  

As for audits, it's exemplary.  Anyone politically opposed to Hillary should be worried, because she has no respect for laws, operates in shadows, consolidates power, coerces minions to lie and attacks enemies.  Electing her is very dangerous.

 
Last edited:
I feel like we're getting a picture of what Clinton's strategy will be vs. Trump and it looks like it's going to be the same run of the mill attacks that were ineffective against him in the primaries.  Her speech the other day attacking him about Trump U lacked passion and had no impact.  It was just a straight forward political attack lethargically read from prepared text.  Today it's a version of the Romney speech from a few months ago that will attempt to frame Trump as dangerous. These methods have been shown over and over to have no lasting impact on Trump. He almost effortlessly swats these attempts back in the face of the attacker using twitter or the television media. It's obvious to some of the pundits who've been watching that this strategy will fruitless. Prepared statements knocking his flaws are not going to work, not to mention she's just not very good at delivering prepared remarks.  She needs to be real.  One of Trump's political strengths is ability to speak naturally, off the cuff for incredibly long periods of time. Hillary needs to figure out how to do this for even a short period of time and come off as authentic.  We've seen no evidence so far that she can. She needs to, in some ways, reinvent herself before it's too late.

 
I feel like we're getting a picture of what Clinton's strategy will be vs. Trump and it looks like it's going to be the same run of the mill attacks that were ineffective against him in the primaries.  Her speech the other day attacking him about Trump U lacked passion and had no impact.  It was just a straight forward political attack lethargically read from prepared text.  Today it's a version of the Romney speech from a few months ago that will attempt to frame Trump as dangerous. These methods have been shown over and over to have no lasting impact on Trump. He almost effortlessly swats these attempts back in the face of the attacker using twitter or the television media. It's obvious to some of the pundits who've been watching that this strategy will fruitless. Prepared statements knocking his flaws are not going to work, not to mention she's just not very good at delivering prepared remarks.  She needs to be real.  One of Trump's political strengths is ability to speak naturally, off the cuff for incredibly long periods of time. Hillary needs to figure out how to do this for even a short period of time and come off as authentic.  We've seen no evidence so far that she can. She needs to, in some ways, reinvent herself before it's too late.
Just keep him talking. That would be my strategy. 

 
Pags pleads the 5th, Mills walks out on the FBI questions on how she culled the emails, Bentel refused to testify or talk to the IG.... what's so illegal about storing and delivering emails, right? Obviously something.
Just an innocent record-keeping issue.  Nothing to see here, move along.  Doo-tee-doo.

 
Pags pleads the 5th, Mills walks out on the FBI questions on how she culled the emails, Bentel refused to testify or talk to the IG.... what's so illegal about storing and delivering emails, right? Obviously something.
Just an innocent record-keeping issue.  Nothing to see here, move along.  Doo-tee-doo.
Den of thieves and crooks.  But hey, a comet may hit the Supreme Court so move along.

 
Barack Obama is famous for playing the long game and letting others dominate the news cycle. He has let many opponents hang themselves by their own petards. 
Maybe you're right, but my impression has been that he and his team have always made a point of getting out ahead of every single issue and challenging every claim, almost on a daily basis. However I will say that some of these claims and statements by Trump are outright bizarre so maybe that's the point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like we're getting a picture of what Clinton's strategy will be vs. Trump and it looks like it's going to be the same run of the mill attacks that were ineffective against him in the primaries.  Her speech the other day attacking him about Trump U lacked passion and had no impact.  It was just a straight forward political attack lethargically read from prepared text.  Today it's a version of the Romney speech from a few months ago that will attempt to frame Trump as dangerous. These methods have been shown over and over to have no lasting impact on Trump. He almost effortlessly swats these attempts back in the face of the attacker using twitter or the television media. It's obvious to some of the pundits who've been watching that this strategy will fruitless. Prepared statements knocking his flaws are not going to work, not to mention she's just not very good at delivering prepared remarks.  She needs to be real.  One of Trump's political strengths is ability to speak naturally, off the cuff for incredibly long periods of time. Hillary needs to figure out how to do this for even a short period of time and come off as authentic.  We've seen no evidence so far that she can. She needs to, in some ways, reinvent herself before it's too late.
A lot of emoting going on, not Hillary's strength, but IMO she should be hammering him on some of his wealth comments, like 'you have to be wealthy to be great'. He said that. Maybe it's not a problem for him because he goes around professing his allegedly massive wealth in the first place.

 
:lmao:  at Clinton would be forced out of the race?  She intentionally mishandled classified information, lied about it, and thumbs her nose to everyone about it and she's in the race.  A rant about the media isn't forcing her out. 

The fear mongering about trump to get Hillary votes is both laughable and purely pathetic. 
This is why she should disqualify herself if she had a modicum of decency at all. The paper versus electronic debate, aside, the real issue is mishandling classified information and then lying about it. This is a major reason, in an election where I can't stand the Republican candidate, I can't vote for the Democratic one either.

 
A lot of emoting going on, not Hillary's strength, but IMO she should be hammering him on some of his wealth comments, like 'you have to be wealthy to be great'. He said that. Maybe it's not a problem for him because he goes around professing his allegedly massive wealth in the first place.
I just think when she stands up there and reads off a card, the attacks come off as flat no matter what she's attacking.  She just can't sell it.  She comes off like a politician.  Trump's success comes from the fact he doesn't come off like a politician.  He's operating on a different plane.

 
Just keep him talking. That would be my strategy. 
That's it. That's all they need to do. Just let him keep talking and then create commercials that are nothing but montages of his idiotic statements conflicting each other. Bury him in his own words such that he spends the rest of his campaign explaining/defending/denying all the stupid stuff he says on a daily basis.

She shouldn't address him directly at any point. Just state her positions, her achievements, stress her positives, etc. If she just plays the adult she'll win this easy. Don't talk about him yourself, let the ads and the surrogates deal with him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's it. That's all they need to do. Just let him keep talking and then create commercials that are nothing but montages of his idiotic statements conflicting each other. Bury him in his own words such that he spends the rest of his campaign explaining/defending/denying all the idiotic stuff he says on a daily basis.

She shouldn't address him directly at any point. Just state her positions, her achievements, stress her positives, etc. If she just plays the adult she'll win this easy. Don't talk about him yourself, let the ads and the surrogates deal with him.
You guys are hung up on the substance.  I'm talking about style.  If substance had any effect on the race so far Trump would have been out after a week.

 
Me, Commish, and Sinn Fein in 1932: 

ME: I'm really worried about what I've read about Stalin in Russia and Hitler in Germany. These guys sound absolutely horrible. 

COMMISH: Agreed, they suck. But FDR strikes me as just as bad. The New Deal, Nazism, Communism- to me it's all the same. And you need to stop fear monger int. 

SINN FEIN: Actually in many ways Roosevelt is far worse. 
Another Trump/Hitler comparison?

Such a drama queen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys are hung up on the substance.  I'm talking about style.  If substance had any effect on the race so far Trump would have been out after a week.
I'm not talking about substance either, as his own words have none. He gets flustered pretty easily when called on his BS. The style melts away and he reverts to his natural bully on an acid trip state. If he constantly has to keep explaining himself he'll end up looking bad.

Problem is, HRC has many of the same flaws. They both tend to get irrationally defensive when presented with questions they aren't prepared for.

 
Me as a Russian circa 1946:  I don't know about Stalin.  I saw things in the West.  Good things.

Tim:  Stalin is a great man.

Squis:  Can't wait for Twitter to be invented, and he's never been convicted of a crime.

Tommy:  How big is your ego? :lmao:

 
Pretty good Chicago Tribune commentary:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-president-bad-candidate-20160531-story.html

Hillary Clinton is not that good at running for president


The headline "Dems Panicky Over Upcoming Election" is sort of like "Parents Flummoxed by App Popular With Teens" or "Kardashians Continue to Seek Attention." It's certainly true, but not exactly surprising. That's the stage we seem to be entering now in the presidential campaign, with furious hand-wringing by Democrats over the prospect that their presidential nominee is ruining everything. And even though Hillary Clinton could be leading the polls by 20 points and you'd have no trouble finding a dozen Democrats in Washington who would tell you that her campaign is a disaster in the making and it's all about to crumble, there is a fundamental truth underneath it: For all her many skills, Hillary Clinton is just not that good at running for president. That doesn't mean she won't be good at being president, and it's a reminder that the two are not the same thing.

As the New York Times said on Sunday, "early optimism that this would be an easy race is evaporating. In the corridors of Congress, on airplane shuttles between New York and Washington, at donor gatherings and on conference calls, anxiety is spreading through the Democratic Party that Mrs. Clinton is struggling to find her footing." In certain ways, this belief is overblown. Donald Trump has pulled to within a few points of Clinton in polls, but that's mostly due to the fact that the Republican primary race is over and Republicans are consolidating around him, while there are still large numbers of Bernie Sanders supporters who say they won't support her, even though in the end they will (with just a tiny number of exceptions). Once they do, she'll regain a more comfortable lead.

Nevertheless, it's also true that a different candidate would probably be farther ahead of Trump. Clinton brings with her the baggage of a quarter-century of controversies, most unfair but some not, that shape how the public looks at her. It must gall her to no end that while Trump tells so many lies both large and small in a given day that we in the media can barely bring ourselves to correct them anymore, she's the one who's supposed to have a trustworthiness problem. And Clinton does not have the easy charisma of her husband or George W. Bush — like many previous presidential contenders (most but not all of them unsuccessful), you can see the effort she brings to campaigning.

Clinton's staff and friends often protest that the real person they know doesn't come through on the trail and through the media's filter. They say she's funny and caring and thoughtful, and if people really got to know her they'd see that. Clinton would hardly be the first about whom you could say something similar; if you saw the behind-the-scenes documentary "Mitt" (which was released after the 2012 campaign ended), you couldn't help but think more highly of Mitt Romney than you would have if you had just been watching the campaign, no matter what you thought of his policy ideas.

Clinton is also simply not very good at one of the main things presidential candidates have to do — delivering speeches. She has none of Bill's (or Ronald Reagan's) conversational ease, or Barack Obama's mastery of rhetorical rhythm and tone. She tends to over-pronounce every syllable as though she's reading something for a transcriber and doesn't want there to be any mistakes, which robs her of anything resembling a natural flow. And of course, as a woman she gets criticized for "shouting" when male politicians raise their voices all the time when speaking over cheering crowds, and no one seems to mind or call them "shrill" (just listen to a Sanders speech some time).

And then there are the strategic questions. Almost four months ago I wrote a piece noting that while both Trump and Sanders have a simple, easy-to-understand message that explains what they think the problem is and why they are the solution, Clinton had yet to come up with a resonant theme for her campaign. She still hasn't. For a while it was "Breaking Down Barriers," though you probably didn't notice. Then for a day or so they tried out "Stronger Together," which promptly disappeared. Now "Breaking Down Barriers" may be back, but it's hard to tell.

The point isn't that she needs a slogan per se, it's that she needs a way of summarizing what her campaign is about, so that when people vote for her, they have a broad idea of what course they're choosing for the country. She can't find it, and neither can the people who work for her. Clinton's top advisers are actually spending time trying to come up with a Trumpian nickname to hang on Trump — Dangerous Donald? Poor Donald? Dipstick Donald? — which tells you something about their ability to see the forest for the trees.

To be fair, it's awfully tricky to figure out exactly how to deal with Donald Trump. As former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer says in that Times article, "You have to take the threat of Trump becoming president seriously, but you shouldn't treat him as a serious person." Which sounds sensible, but it's hard to implement in practice. What do you do when Trump blurts out his latest lunatic idea, like defaulting on the national debt in order to save some money or pulling out of NATO? What do you say when he floats another conspiracy theory, like Ted Cruz's dad being involved in the Kennedy assassination or the Clintons murdering Vince Foster or global warming being a hoax invented by the Chinese? How are you supposed to respond to that? Nobody knows for sure, because we've just never seen a candidate with Trump's bizarre combination of ignorance, buffoonery, demagoguery and bluster.

It's always hard to know how a politician will perform in a presidential campaign, the most demanding, high-pressure venue in politics. Barack Obama, for instance, had been a state senator for a while and then ran one relatively easy race for the Senate, so it wouldn't have been too surprising if he hadn't been able to handle the rigors of a presidential race. But it turned out that in every important way — as a performer, as a manager, as a strategist — he was extraordinarily good at running for president, among the best who had ever done it. Many others who look promising flame out when they reach the national stage. (I'll confess that I was among the many who thought Scott Walker would be a formidable contender this year.)
Even if Hillary Clinton has corrected some of the mistakes she made eight years ago, like failing to understand the delegate selection process or employing the odious and incompetent Mark Penn as her chief strategist or paying internet shills like timschochet, she was never going to be a great candidate. The things in politics that require intuition and natural talent are not where she excels. The things that require careful study and diligent preparation, on the other hand, are where Clinton can outperform almost anyone. The best candidates can do both, but Clinton was never going to be among them.

Fortunately for her, she has enough built-in advantages, particularly an Electoral College that requires Republicans to sweep almost every swing state in order for them to win and an opponent systematically alienating nearly every key demographic group, that it's highly likely she'll win even if she isn't knocking them dead on the stump. And then we'll see whether her smarts, her deep understanding of policy, her experience in government, and everything she's done to prepare for that day can make up for what she lacks.

 
You guys are hung up on the substance.  I'm talking about style.  If substance had any effect on the race so far Trump would have been out after a week.
And you seem to be hung up on the results of the Republican primary -- the general is an entirely different ballgame.  Trump says tons of stuff, style or no, that is revolting to all but the bitter white guys who turned out in droves for him in the primary.

 
...

Clinton's top advisers are actually spending time trying to come up with a Trumpian nickname to hang on Trump — Dangerous Donald? Poor Donald? Dipstick Donald? — which tells you something about their ability to see the forest for the trees.

...
They are so bad at this.  It's kind of embarrassing and frustrating.

IMO the play on the nickname thing is to get Jon Stewart's old nickname for him, ####face von Clownstick, back in circulation somehow, just because its fun and it infuriates him and will probably make him look silly if/when he responds to it. 

Then when the debates come, the first time he obviously ducks a question in favor of one of his trademark off-topic meanderings, she calls him on it and labels him "Donald Duck."  It's catchy, it's emasculating and it highlights a huge flaw of his that will come up again and again every time he ducks substance in favor of empty rhetoric.

That's what I'd do, anyway.  But what do I know.

 
And you seem to be hung up on the results of the Republican primary -- the general is an entirely different ballgame.  Trump says tons of stuff, style or no, that is revolting to all but the bitter white guys who turned out in droves for him in the primary.
I think it's obvious that in some ways the guy is going to temper his act for the general.  The more I read the more it seems people are going to doubt the guy all the way up to November 8th.  Time to take him seriously.

 
Barack Obama is famous for playing the long game and letting others dominate the news cycle. He has let many opponents hang themselves by their own petards.
BTW, a petard is a bomb. The idiom (from Shakespeare) is "hoist with his own petard" (i.e., to be blown up by his own bomb).

Actually, Shakespeare originally spelled it as petar', because petar is French for fart.

Blown up by your own fart!

 
They are so bad at this.  It's kind of embarrassing and frustrating.

IMO the play on the nickname thing is to get Jon Stewart's old nickname for him, ####face von Clownstick, back in circulation somehow, just because its fun and it infuriates him and will probably make him look silly if/when he responds to it. 

Then when the debates come, the first time he obviously ducks a question in favor of one of his trademark off-topic meanderings, she calls him on it and labels him "Donald Duck."  It's catchy, it's emasculating and it highlights a huge flaw of his that will come up again and again every time he ducks substance in favor of empty rhetoric.

That's what I'd do, anyway.  But what do I know.
Wonder had Stewart stuck around, if he'd have had influence on Donald getting this far?

 
They are so bad at this.  It's kind of embarrassing and frustrating.

IMO the play on the nickname thing is to get Jon Stewart's old nickname for him, ####face von Clownstick, back in circulation somehow, just because its fun and it infuriates him and will probably make him look silly if/when he responds to it. 

Then when the debates come, the first time he obviously ducks a question in favor of one of his trademark off-topic meanderings, she calls him on it and labels him "Donald Duck."  It's catchy, it's emasculating and it highlights a huge flaw of his that will come up again and again every time he ducks substance in favor of empty rhetoric.

That's what I'd do, anyway.  But what do I know.
She gets into George Costanza "T-Bone" territory at this point. She needs to not do this. Even if the team hits on the right name she'll blow the delivery. - Best thing is let the smart Twitter meme guys handle this organically.

 
My timeline for the indictments has been given.  It was never as ill defined.  I believe the recommendation to indict will come down be the second week of July.  

As for audits, it's exemplary.  Anyone politically opposed to Hillary should be worried, because she has no respect for laws, operates in shadows, consolidates power, coerces minions to lie and attacks enemies.  Electing her is very dangerous.
The IRS doesn't have anywhere near enough agents to audit all of Hillary's enemies.  I think you'll be just fine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's obvious that in some ways the guy is going to temper his act for the general.  The more I read the more it seems people are going to doubt the guy all the way up to November 8th.  Time to take him seriously.
:no:   I actually wonder if he even takes his candidacy seriously aside from the vast mostly free publicity he's getting.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top