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!
I'm not sure what you mean. He said he would defund planned parenthood. That means Clinton is absolutely justified in criticizing him for saying he'd defund planned parenthood. Seems pretty simple to me. Do you disagree? Am I missing something here? I feel like I'm missing something.
Sure she hates those Wall Street speeches but she will sup at their beneficiary's table.that's awesome. Warren - or as I like to call her by her Indian name: "Squats with Unions" - may have completely sold out now.
Guess she's not as closer to Bernie than HRC as everyone all thought.
Yeah he also backed off and said he wouldn't defund PP, and PP praised him. He's supported abortion / pro-life his whole life.
That link is from August 2015. The clip I posted is from a debate in February 2016. He actually moved from opposing defunding to supporting it, not the other way around.
The hell you don't. You're posting 100 times a day in the thread, nothing but praise for her and scorn for everyone else, facts be damned. I mean, look at your avatar.
Ok good point. He's gone from pro-life to wanting to imprison women for abortions to supporting Roe to praising PP to defunding it to not defunding it to defunding it - as stated in a debate. Can't wait to hear what he says next on the subject.
This has nothing to do with the article we were discussing.To you perhaps. This event means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Again, it's not either/or. I've said from the beginning that I couldn't care less about the email content. It doesn't interest me all that much outside the entertainment that stems from trying to explain the content away. Standing up a SERVER ( I don't even care her motive for setting it up). Thinking it was acceptable to put a personal SERVER on a government network tells us plenty about her judgment and ethics. If you choose to ignore, that's fine. Do your thing
It does make him awfully easy to campaign against. Whatever side of an issue you want to criticize, chances are he's taken it at one point or another.
How many Americans are uncomfortable with the job Planned Parenthood is doing with women's healthcare? If less than half then shifting funds to a like modeled organization seems like it would be a bureaucratic hassle with additional costs thrown in on top, aka government waste.
Hillary's sycophants will continue you to ignore this story. What else can they do? This is the reason the email/server story is a big deal. Here's your quid pro quo. She's a criminal.
It's true! He has no position and he has every position. Literally the only things that matter to him are his ego (including what he thinks of people's perception of him) and his rep as a 'deal maker.' Everything he says and does is affected by that.
Yeah what was your phrase? There's "nothing"? If the president had that conversation it would be unethical for him to not tell the FBI to shut it down. Sure that's worth intruding a presidential nominee and her staff with interviews, court filings and seized data for over a year.
I keep harping on it because of the subject, not because of Bernie. If Bernie weren't running I'd still have the opinion that her judgment is lacking in an incredibly significant way
None of this is worth it imo unless it leads to an overall upgrade in our computer infrastructure and improved categorization of data (i.e. less random crap being classified) But sometimes political theater must be played out.
I think that is a legit concern...yet, if we can change our whole health care system with Obamacare I am sure we can find a way to do this...
Again, this is nothing new and not on point to the WSJ article.I keep harping on it because of the subject, not because of Bernie. If Bernie weren't running I'd still have the opinion that her judgment is lacking in an incredibly significant way
I don't like seeing stuff like this, it's indicative of why I wasn't a huge Clinton fan before she became "not Trump."
The thing I am truly getting impressed with Hill is how much of this nonsense she is involved in...it is not a few things here and there...it is non-stop and she just dominates with this type of stuff...you almost can't focus on anything because something new comes out right after you learn about something else...
So now the investigation is political theatre? That's rich. Truly that's not something I think Obama would accept, he wouldn't be putting his administration and party through this for the sake of a troll.
If you donate a large amount of money to any campaign then you'll get something for it, usually an ambassadorship. Stupid of her to put him on an intel board though.
If it wasn't quid pro quo, then why when questioned about this guy why wasn't there an alternative explanation? Instead the Clintons stalled and then booted this guy off the committee and tried to act like it never happened. Do you think that's good enough?
Campaign? She was SOS. She didn't have a campaign. She did have giant slush fund that was made look like a charity though.
First to admit that I haven't read all the
articles around this. So if the article you are referring to isn't about how Clinton and her staff handled information, I apologize. If it was about how she and her staff handled information, it takes quite the exercise in mental gymnastics to separate the information from the vehicles through which the information was passed. It's on the level of "she's not under investigation, her server is" and "it's not an investigation, it's a security review".I assume they stalled and then booted him because the optics are bad. I'm a supporter and even I don't like it, as I said.
It was about information on a potential drone strike that was vaguely referenced in emails that went over State's non-secure server and then was forwarded to Hillary's server. So yes, it's about how the staff handled information, but whether Hillary had a State email or her private email, the information was compromised before it ever got to her. So the question that's actually important to this story is whether the vague references were suffficient cover or if any and all communications should have been done over a secure network regardless of their lack of specificity.First to admit that I haven't read all the
What statute? I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that a public official can't take money from some mook and then put him on a committee he's completely unqualified for. Isn't that a bribe? Maybe I'm wrong about that. Is that legal?
She didn't take money, he made donations to her campaign and apparently her charitable foundation. If it was a crime to appoint donors to political positions every president and cabinet member in our lifetime would be a crook [insert joke here].
Tim you don't respond to those fringe folks either. Your dishonesty doesn't come from saying positive things, it's deliberately dismissing her obvious shortcomings and burying your head in the sand regarding a very serious criminal investigation of her.
Donations to her campaign? You know that she reported that she paid herself $250,000 last year from campaign funds. I'm sure she wasn't living on ramen noodles in 08. Also, if it wasn't a crime, then I'm sure she'll tell us why she appointed the guy in the first place because everyone does it. I'm sure she won't stonewall and say this story came from the vast right wing conspiracy.
Is your argument here that if a politician is less than 100% forthright and prompt in response to an inquiry that a crime has been committed? If that's the case then every politician in history is a criminal [again insert joke here].
My argument is that this is stuff that's on the server that Tim and his ilk says doesn't matter. She deleted 30k emails and tried to keep all her comingling of personal/foundation/state business for this very reason.
It's simple really. When he's for PP, he's talking about Planned Parenthood. When he's against PP, he's talking about pee-pee, which, by the way, is disgusting. Just disgusting. I don't even wanna talk about it, that's how disgusting it is. When Trump is President, believe me, we won't go pee-pee anymore. It'll be tremendous, and he's very proud of that.
