Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

So...  which part of this didn't happen, then?

Beats me.  Like I said, I spent hours breaking down the criminal charges angle and nobody gave an inch even after I turned out to be 100% correct according to the widely respected FBI Director and the attorney general.  I just don't have the energy for it any more. Not when there's an actual ####ing authoritarian bigot fascist in second place in the presidential race.  Maybe if the anti-Clintonites can stop with the Vince Foster nonsense and blaming her for Benghazi and the lock her up chants and the Clinton Foundation = Satan garbage, they'll regain enough credibility for it to eventually be worth the time and energy it would take for me to figure out what exactly is being alleged now and then research it.  Let me know when that happens.

 

[RCon]

Beats me.  Like I said, I spent hours breaking down the criminal charges angle and nobody gave an inch even after I turned out to be 100% correct according to the widely respected FBI Director and the attorney general.  I just don't have the energy for it any more. Not when there's an actual ####ing authoritarian bigot fascist in second place in the presidential race.  Maybe if the anti-Clintonites can stop with the Vince Foster nonsense and blaming her for Benghazi and the lock her up chants and the Clinton Foundation = Satan garbage, they'll regain enough credibility for it to eventually be worth the time and energy it would take for me to figure out what exactly is being alleged now and then research it.  Let me know when that happens.

The crazies will never go away, on any side.  You need to find a way to ignore the crazies, while still engaging the serious, but without attributing the opinions or statements of the crazies to the serious.  As an example, I assume you can tell the difference between SaintsInDome2006 and Jim11.  You shouldn't hold SaintsInDome2006 responsible for the statements of Jim11 or GrandpaRox.  Otherwise, you'll never be able to have a serious debate with anyone.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Yes, I can't imagine why anybody would believe her anymore

- oh if my husband lied under oath that would be very serous, but he didn't and those saying he did are part of a big conspiracy

- those people attacked because of a video

- oh wait it was the fog of war... (Nope)

- there weren't any weapons headed to Syria....ooops

- there was no pay for play at state...oops there was

i could do this all day, but pretty much when a claim is made and she denies it, the facts come out and show the claim is right and she lied again.  How many more times can she cry wolf and you will still believe her?

Doubt it. You trotted out Bill, Benghazi twice, Syria, and the foundation/emails in 5 bullet points and you're spent. Very low E. Queue to you posting a few other empty bullet points about mainly the same bs while apparently supporting a complete buffoon. Let me guess, but they both suck right?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The crazies will never go away, on any side.  You need to find a way to ignore the crazies, while still engaging the serious, but without attributing the opinions or statements of the crazies to the serious.  As an example, I assume you can tell the difference between SaintsInDome2006 and Jim11.  You shouldn't hold SaintsInDome2006 responsible for the statements of Jim11 or GrandpaRox.  Otherwise, you'll never be able to have a serious debate with anyone.

Of course.  But sadly it wasn't just the Jim11s of the world calling Clinton a criminal or blaming her for Benghazi.

Anyway I'm kinda busy today. I barely even have enough time to mock Trump and that's obviously priority #1!  If there's an article explaining the latest and greatest I'll take a look tomorrow.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And none of it matters because the morons in the Republican party put forth Trump. It's unbelievable to see the opportunity they were given just pissed away.

Yep.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I spent hours carefully and patiently explaining to people why her conduct w/r/t the emails was, while sloppy and worthy of condemnation, likely not a violation of any of the criminal statutes people commonly cited. I pointed out how making her conduct fit the cited provisions was at best a square peg/round hole type situation that prosecutors would likely shy away from. I won over zero people with this argument ... even after I was proven to be 100% correct there were still conspiracy theorists criticizing the legal process and others just calling her a criminal regardless of the facts.

I don't usually engage in the won/lost stuff and I know we're all way past this now as Comey's presser was some time ago but I thought I'd offer my POV since you went with "100% correct."

I think the discussions were good. I do think both sides made good points. I don't think anyone was 100% right or wrong. For people who said Hillary would *never* be indicted, congrats, but I don't really recall anyone ever saying she would be for sure either. However at any rate I think Comey validated the concerns about content - the server did hold classified content and it did relate to national security. That's done, Hillary critics were correct on that. On intent I think people saying Hillary would never be indicted were correct on that but they were not correct on the rest - ie authorization question and content. They were wrong on that. I think on the negligence statute yeah I think Comey laid out a case whereby that was violated but - as you and referenced articles pointed out beforehand - the US government does not prosecute those cases and are in practice loathe to bring them to trial. So that was borne out but I'd still call it a wash. And I wouldn't say you weren't persuasive there, you were pointing to articles at Politico and WaPo and that point was very right.

This is all water past bridges now, it's academic and to me interesting, but hey the world has moved past that. Anon Bob and Cstu were just mentioning that NPR had reported that the FBI would be releasing the found (deleted) Hillary emails to Foia. So issues continue to pop up.

 

[badmojo1006]

Richard Cross, who wrote “Benghazi mom” Patricia Smith’s RNC speech, where Smith tearfully blamed Hillary Clinton for her son’s death, said he can never vote for Donald Trump in an op-ed published Wednesday.

Wow

"The reality of American politics today is, she is the only choice."

 

[cstu]

Incredible time, don't think we'll ever see another election like this.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Richard Cross, who wrote “Benghazi mom” Patricia Smith’s RNC speech, where Smith tearfully blamed Hillary Clinton for her son’s death, said he can never vote for Donald Trump in an op-ed published Wednesday.

Wow

Uh, thanks?  This reminds of the letter signed by Negroponte.  I mean, don't help. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Incredible time, don't think we'll ever see another election like this.

It's a political tornado. Terribly devastating, but fascinating. 

 

[Megaton]

Except by most objective accounts, she is far more forthcoming and honest than just about any other candidate that has run 

Obviously you are posting in the wrong thread.   This is the Hillary Clinton thread.  

 

[timschochet]

Hi guys, my wifi (on my phone) appears to be working, as I'm heading back from the Carribean (had a fantastic time BTW). 

I've noticed that discussion in this thread has been extremely light compared to the Trump thread- that's because I'm the last few weeks, Hillary has been quiet, by design. Which is what you do when your opponent is screwing up. I can't remember who beat Todd Akin. 

 

[B Maverick]

Incredible time, don't think we'll ever see another election like this.

Dare to dream, but there is another one in 4 years....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hi guys, my wifi (on my phone) appears to be working, as I'm heading back from the Carribean (had a fantastic time BTW). 

I've noticed that discussion in this thread has been extremely light compared to the Trump thread- that's because I'm the last few weeks, Hillary has been quiet, by design. Which is what you do when your opponent is screwing up. I can't remember who beat Todd Akin. 

And there're no serious policy points with Trump, and the race is a blowout, etc.

 

[bueno]

No, I'm saying that there have been so many wild exaggerations and false allegations regarding Hillary Clinton from her detractors that at this point most people can't be bothered to do the legwork necessary to figure out if this new charge is one of the 98% that fall under those descriptions or the 2% of charges that had merit. So they reasonably assume this falls into the 98% category. 

You can count me as one of those "can't be bothered" people at this point.  I spent hours carefully and patiently explaining to people why her conduct w/r/t the emails was, while sloppy and worthy of condemnation, likely not a violation of any of the criminal statutes people commonly cited. I pointed out how making her conduct fit the cited provisions was at best a square peg/round hole type situation that prosecutors would likely shy away from. I won over zero people with this argument ... even after I was proven to be 100% correct there were still conspiracy theorists criticizing the legal process and others just calling her a criminal regardless of the facts.  I don't really have the energy to do that again. I'd much rather spend the next three months making Trump jokes instead.  Check back with me if she's president and we can dance again, GB.

I will say she is clever when it comes to walking that fine line - but then even Al Capone got convicted in the end. So will Hillary, I hope.

 

[The Commish]

I don't usually engage in the won/lost stuff and I know we're all way past this now as Comey's presser was some time ago but I thought I'd offer my POV since you went with "100% correct."

I think the discussions were good. I do think both sides made good points. I don't think anyone was 100% right or wrong. For people who said Hillary would *never* be indicted, congrats, but I don't really recall anyone ever saying she would be for sure either. However at any rate I think Comey validated the concerns about content - the server did hold classified content and it did relate to national security. That's done, Hillary critics were correct on that. On intent I think people saying Hillary would never be indicted were correct on that but they were not correct on the rest - ie authorization question and content. They were wrong on that. I think on the negligence statute yeah I think Comey laid out a case whereby that was violated but - as you and referenced articles pointed out beforehand - the US government does not prosecute those cases and are in practice loathe to bring them to trial. So that was borne out but I'd still call it a wash. And I wouldn't say you weren't persuasive there, you were pointing to articles at Politico and WaPo and that point was very right.

This is all water past bridges now, it's academic and to me interesting, but hey the world has moved past that. Anon Bob and Cstu were just mentioning that NPR had reported that the FBI would be releasing the found (deleted) Hillary emails to Foia. So issues continue to pop up.

Thanks!!!!!   

 

[The Commish]

Hi guys, my wifi (on my phone) appears to be working, as I'm heading back from the Carribean (had a fantastic time BTW). 

I've noticed that discussion in this thread has been extremely light compared to the Trump thread- that's because I'm the last few weeks, Hillary has been quiet, by design. Which is what you do when your opponent is screwing up. I can't remember who beat Todd Akin. 

It's amazing what one can do to extinguish the bonfire if they just keep from pouring gas on it.  At least we now know where the bar should be set for Hillary to be palatable.  

 

[Megaton]

I am pretty sure it was confirmed it was just a routine security check. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To prevent Clinton files from leaking, FBI strictly limits Congress’ access


WASHINGTON — The FBI is strictly limiting access to documents from its closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and warning members of Congress not to leak them.

Congressional aides told The Associated Press Wednesday that the investigative materials demanded by Republicans are being kept in a secure room typically reserved for the nation’s most closely guarded secrets. Documents containing classified information are commingled with those marked as “Unclassified/For Official Use.”

Those without sufficient security clearances can read only redacted versions and are forbidden from note-taking. ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/prevent-clinton-files-leaking-fbi-strictly-limits-congress-access/







- Hot potato time - so not Congress has the same issue Hillary did, keep classified materials secret.
 
- So the materials that Hillary claimed were not classified are so classified they have to be kept in a SCIF even to investigate them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 

Pwn All The Things ‏@pwnallthethings


Also means staffers who leak it verbatim will get exclusive first-hand experience of being subject of an Espionage Act felony investigation.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't usually engage in the won/lost stuff and I know we're all way past this now as Comey's presser was some time ago but I thought I'd offer my POV since you went with "100% correct."

I think the discussions were good. I do think both sides made good points. I don't think anyone was 100% right or wrong. For people who said Hillary would *never* be indicted, congrats, but I don't really recall anyone ever saying she would be for sure either. However at any rate I think Comey validated the concerns about content - the server did hold classified content and it did relate to national security. That's done, Hillary critics were correct on that. On intent I think people saying Hillary would never be indicted were correct on that but they were not correct on the rest - ie authorization question and content. They were wrong on that. I think on the negligence statute yeah I think Comey laid out a case whereby that was violated but - as you and referenced articles pointed out beforehand - the US government does not prosecute those cases and are in practice loathe to bring them to trial. So that was borne out but I'd still call it a wash. And I wouldn't say you weren't persuasive there, you were pointing to articles at Politico and WaPo and that point was very right.

This is all water past bridges now, it's academic and to me interesting, but hey the world has moved past that. Anon Bob and Cstu were just mentioning that NPR had reported that the FBI would be releasing the found (deleted) Hillary emails to Foia. So issues continue to pop up.

The idea that both sides were equally right in the Clinton email saga is laughable.  As is your "I don't recall anyone ever saying she'd for sure be indicted".  That's like you picking the Panthers to win the Super Bowl, Tim picking the Broncos, and afterward you saying "well, I wasn't saying for sure that the Panthers would win" even though you picked them.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The idea that both sides were equally right in the Clinton email saga is laughable.  As is your "I don't recall anyone ever saying she'd for sure be indicted".  That's like you picking the Panthers to win the Super Bowl, Tim picking the Broncos, and afterward you saying "well, I wasn't saying for sure that the Panthers would win" even though you picked them.  

I would never pick the Panthers to win anything.

 

[cobalt_27]

Clinton Foundation Hacked?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The idea that both sides were equally right in the Clinton email saga is laughable.  As is your "I don't recall anyone ever saying she'd for sure be indicted".  That's like you picking the Panthers to win the Super Bowl, Tim picking the Broncos, and afterward you saying "well, I wasn't saying for sure that the Panthers would win" even though you picked them.  

Somewhere in here I said it was 50/50 that Comey/FBI would recommend indictment. That wasn't brave I guess but that's how I felt and in the end looking at Comey's statement that was not unreasonable. As I pointed out to Tobias his point - from WaPo and Politico - that the criminal negligence statute isn't really prosecuted was spot on. I think I gave him credit on that after Comey's statement too.

 

[Gucci Fur]

Clinton Foundation Hacked?

Who cares?

What difference does it make anymore?

It is Her time.

 

[badmojo1006]

The Era of 'The Bi*ch' Is Coming

Interesting read. Story states that the sexism Hillary will hear and see will be a lot more pronounced then the racism Obama heard and saw. That sexism is more culturally acceptable than racism. 

 

[The Commish]

I see this stuff all the time.  Why do people insist on creating a narrative that they THINK will happen and then start behaving as if that is indeed what is happening before it actually happens?  My brother and my wife do this and it drives me nuts.  I've tried to explain the concept of "self fulfilling prophecy" but they don't seem to get it.

ETA:  Though I do agree sexism is more acceptable than racism.  That much is very true.

 

[badmojo1006]

What little respect I had for Dr. Drew has gone out the window. Won't link to it, but he is on breitbart and Infowars, "gravely concerned" about Hillary's health.

Garbage 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I see this stuff all the time.  Why do people insist on creating a narrative that they THINK will happen and then start behaving as if that is indeed what is happening before it actually happens?  My brother and my wife do this and it drives me nuts.  I've tried to explain the concept of "self fulfilling prophecy" but they don't seem to get it.

ETA:  Though I do agree sexism is more acceptable than racism.  That much is very true.

Because the message carries a LOT more weight when you predict something ahead of time rather than analyzing it after it happens. If someone waited to make this argument until Clinton made a mistake they would be accused of trying to distract from the mistake itself. Predicting it ahead of time makes it more difficult to defend on a case by case basis by pointing to other factors. Imagine any kind of allegation of bias and discrimination, and think about how much powerful it would be if the biased/discriminatory behavior is predicted it ahead of time instead of flagged after the fact.

Also because articles like that one might actually discourage the sort of behavior it discusses. Calling people out for it after it happens is all well and good, but it still happened. If you flag it ahead of time maybe it won't happen. 

 

[The Commish]

Because the message carries a LOT more weight when you predict something ahead of time rather than analyzing it after it happens. If someone waited to make this argument until Clinton made a mistake they would be accused of trying to distract from the mistake itself. Predicting it ahead of time makes it more difficult to defend on a case by case basis by pointing to other factors. Imagine any kind of allegation of bias and discrimination, and think about how much powerful it would be if the biased/discriminatory behavior is predicted it ahead of time instead of flagged after the fact.

Also because articles like that one might actually discourage the sort of behavior it discusses. Calling people out for it after it happens is all well and good, but it still happened. If you flag it ahead of time maybe it won't happen. 

How's it "more difficult" for anyone.  Their response would be "what did you expect would happen when you keep telling everyone what's going to happen"

And IMO, that article goes well beyond "predicting" anything.  It's full on, "yep, this is happening and you can't stop it" shtick and of course, as with all other political  the actions of a few will be used to paint the picture of all so the author can say "see, I was right".  This person is now going to observe and watch for any scrap of "evidence" that supports her "prediction".  The conclusion is in, now all that's needed is the pesky evidence to support it.  All this seems like classic "self fulfilling prophecy" we learn about in Psych and Soci 101 classes.  

 

[Joe Summer]

What little respect I had for Dr. Drew has gone out the window. Won't link to it, but he is on breitbart and Infowars, "gravely concerned" about Hillary's health.

I lost all respect for Dr. Drew when he started exploiting sick people for money. He pretty much killed Jeff Conaway.

 

[TobiasFunke]

How's it "more difficult" for anyone.  Their response would be "what did you expect would happen when you keep telling everyone what's going to happen"

And IMO, that article goes well beyond "predicting" anything.  It's full on, "yep, this is happening and you can't stop it" shtick and of course, as with all other political  the actions of a few will be used to paint the picture of all so the author can say "see, I was right".  This person is now going to observe and watch for any scrap of "evidence" that supports her "prediction".  The conclusion is in, now all that's needed is the pesky evidence to support it.  All this seems like classic "self fulfilling prophecy" we learn about in Psych and Soci 101 classes.  

There's zero reason to think "self-fulfilling prophesy" logic applies here.  You think there's people that wouldn't have hurled sexist insults at her before, but now they will because of an article in The Atlantic subconsciously influenced them to do so?  Come on. Even if we set aside the hilarious image of people who would call the president of the United States a b----or a c--- reading The Atlantic, it still seems pretty difficult to believe.  And who cares if the author or anyone else is going to be vigilant in looking for sexism in political discourse?  Isn't that a good thing?  If it's not actually sexism then people can respond accordingly if she makes an accusation. If it is it should be flagged. I don't see any problem here at all.

 

[Rove!]

What little respect I had for Dr. Drew has gone out the window. Won't link to it, but he is on breitbart and Infowars, "gravely concerned" about Hillary's health.

Garbage 

 

[cstu]

What little respect I had for Dr. Drew has gone out the window. Won't link to it, but he is on breitbart and Infowars, "gravely concerned" about Hillary's health.

Garbage 

I read what he said and it seems like he's judging what her doctors are giving her without having first hand knowledge of her medical history.  Seems amateurish. 

Nothing he said indicated that she's not fit for office, only that she should be getting better treatment:

It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern. It’s that the care she’s getting could make it a concern.

 

[The Commish]

How's it "more difficult" for anyone.  Their response would be "what did you expect would happen when you keep telling everyone what's going to happen"

And IMO, that article goes well beyond "predicting" anything.  It's full on, "yep, this is happening and you can't stop it" shtick and of course, as with all other political  the actions of a few will be used to paint the picture of all so the author can say "see, I was right".  This person is now going to observe and watch for any scrap of "evidence" that supports her "prediction".  The conclusion is in, now all that's needed is the pesky evidence to support it.  All this seems like classic "self fulfilling prophecy" we learn about in Psych and Soci 101 classes.  

There's zero reason to think "self-fulfilling prophesy" logic applies here.  You think there's people that wouldn't have hurled sexist insults at her before, but now they will because of an article in The Atlantic subconsciously influenced them to do so?  Come on. Even if we set aside the hilarious image of people who would call the president of the United States a b----or a c--- reading The Atlantic, it still seems pretty difficult to believe.  And who cares if the author or anyone else is going to be vigilant in looking for sexism in political discourse?  Isn't that a good thing?  If it's not actually sexism then people can respond accordingly if she makes an accusation. If it is it should be flagged. I don't see any problem here at all.

I guess time will tell but I have no idea why this little area of politics would be immune to this sort of logic.  It's front and center in just about every other area of politics, but you may be right.  There's one thing I know for certain when it comes to stuff like this.  The mental gymnastics one goes through to get to "see, I told you so" always provide for a good show.  I have no problem calling out blatant sexism.  That, of course, isn't the issue.  It's going to be the parsing of words/actions that address the symptom rather than the problem where this comes to light.  The first time someone calls her a ##### because they are pissed off and annoyed the "see, sexism" shtick will be rolling as if the only reason they are calling her names is because she's a woman.

 

[perry147]

Lord, have to say Trump has proved very interesting in drawing people out. Pundits and pols like Hannity and Giuliani have been proved to be cynical jokes as to their conservative principles and I'm sure we're all surprised by people who have let their real views out of the woodwork to support Trump. I've said it before but it's reminiscent of Duke when he ran here. Learned a lot about people.

Yes I agree we learned a lot. I knew a guy who volunteered on the Duke campaign and worked with him for awhile. Very rich family, prep school education, when to the Citadel, but very weird guy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What little respect I had for Dr. Drew has gone out the window. Won't link to it, but he is on breitbart and Infowars, "gravely concerned" about Hillary's health.

Garbage 

I read what he said and it seems like he's judging what her doctors are giving her without having first hand knowledge of her medical history.  Seems amateurish. 

Nothing he said indicated that she's not fit for office, only that she should be getting better treatment:

It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern. It’s that the care she’s getting could make it a concern.

Looking at it again in all fairness he was on KABC in L.A., so he didn't actually appear on InfoWars or Trumpbart.

Pinsky is just a tv doctor, right? Is he an internist or something relevant? I don't think he knows thing one about her care. And at least she has real physicians. This is (not kidding) Trump's doctor, a GI.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I guess time will tell but I have no idea why this little area of politics would be immune to this sort of logic.  It's front and center in just about every other area of politics, but you may be right.  There's one thing I know for certain when it comes to stuff like this.  The mental gymnastics one goes through to get to "see, I told you so" always provide for a good show.  I have no problem calling out blatant sexism.  That, of course, isn't the issue.  It's going to be the parsing of words/actions that address the symptom rather than the problem where this comes to light.  The first time someone calls her a ##### because they are pissed off and annoyed the "see, sexism" shtick will be rolling as if the only reason they are calling her names is because she's a woman.

Are you saying that someone saying it's sexism the first time she's called a b---- is somehow wrong or bad?  The premise of the article relies on the notion that calling women b---- or c--- is sexism.  If you disagree with that, fine- you're wrong IMO, but at least I understand that argument).  But I really don't follow your argument at all, most prominently because "self-fulfilling prophecy" psychology doesn't apply here.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think self-fulfilling prophecy refers to when the prophecy affects the behavior of people other than the subject of the prophecy, and that behavior in turn encourages the subject to behave as predicted (it can also refer to people's predictions about themselves but that doesn't apply here obviously). That's what an intro psych class or two and a quick google search tell me, at least. So in this case who would be the people around these would-be sexists that would somehow encourage sexism because of the article that might not have appeared otherwise?  Just doesn't make sense.

 

[The Commish]

Are you saying that someone saying it's sexism the first time she's called a b---- is somehow wrong or bad? 

I'm saying that just because someone uses a word (any word really) doesn't mean they are using it because of gender.  Example....I've called Obama a little ######## before.  I did so because I was/am angry at his lack of action on a particular topic.  Am I being sexist?  I've called Trump a little cowardly ##### too....sexism?  I'd call anyone acting that way those things as a point of emphasis, not because I'm sexist.  Now, those terms are off limits for me to use towards other politicians?  I struggle with the motives of those who pick and choose who can be called what.  

 

[cstu]

Looking at it again in all fairness he was on KABC in L.A., so he didn't actually appear on InfoWars or Trumpbart.

Pinsky is just a tv doctor, right? Is he an internist or something relevant? I don't think he knows thing one about her care. And at least she has real physicians. This is (not kidding) Trump's doctor, a GI.

Speaking of his doctor, this is an eye-opening look at his medical...document?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm saying that just because someone uses a word (any word really) doesn't mean they are using it because of gender.  Example....I've called Obama a little ######## before.  I did so because I was/am angry at his lack of action on a particular topic.  Am I being sexist?  I've called Trump a little cowardly ##### too....sexism?  I'd call anyone acting that way those things as a point of emphasis, not because I'm sexist.  Now, those terms are off limits for me to use towards other politicians?  I struggle with the motives of those who pick and choose who can be called what.  

So your argument actually has nothing to do with self-fulfilling prophecies at all- you just don't think calling a woman a ##### is sexist. 

I'm not interested in having that argument.  Google can give you plenty of articles and blogs arguing the other side.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

PRO TIP:   When you use b***h or p***y it to suggest a male politician lacks conviction or toughness, that is also a sexist comment.  We've all done it, but at least have the self-awareness to acknowledge it. 

 

[The Commish]

PRO TIP:   When you use b***h or p***y it to suggest a male politician lacks conviction or toughness, that is also a sexist comment.  We've all done it, but at least have the self-awareness to acknowledge it. 

Absolutely fine with this stance and I'll take it as such.  No problem admitting that I am not perfect and at times will let my judgment lapse.  Where it gets to me is the situation where people remain silent if person X is calling person Y names yet get all when person X goes and calls person Z those same names.  Consistency is what I'm after.....in the interest of full disclosure my terms were "female dog" and "richard head"

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

PRO TIP:   When you use b***h or p***y it to suggest a male politician lacks conviction or toughness, that is also a sexist comment.  We've all done it, but at least have the self-awareness to acknowledge it. 

When I used to use one of those words to describe Blaine Gabbert, I just meant he was a cat. Because he was with the Jags.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Speaking of his doctor, this is an eye-opening look at his medical...document?

This is the best article I have seen on this.

This letter and the IRS "audit" (I don't think there is one) just seem like two ridiculously blatant lies and I really want to see Hillary's campaign and the press call him out on these. Let's see the IRS audit letter. Let's see an interview with the ephemeral Dr. Bornstein. I really want him drilled on this but I guess there is so much going on and he is flaming out so well on his own maybe they leave him alone on these for that reason.

 

[Rove!]

Looking at it again in all fairness he was on KABC in L.A., so he didn't actually appear on InfoWars or Trumpbart.

Pinsky is just a tv doctor, right? Is he an internist or something relevant? I don't think he knows thing one about her care. And at least she has real physicians. This is (not kidding) Trump's doctor, a GI.

He and another doctor reviewed what medical records were released and he explained their opinion based on the info that has been provided...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

He and another doctor reviewed what medical records were released and he explained their opinion based on the info that has been provided...

Here's Pinsky:

That is brain damage, and it’s affecting her balance. Now clearly, it hasn’t affected her cognition, but tell us a little more about that. That’s profound. And then number two, when they screened her for heart disease, again, they did an old-fashioned screen. It just seems like she’s getting care from somebody that she met in Arkansas when she was a kid, and you’ve got to wonder. You’ve got to wonder. It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern. It’s that the care she’s getting could make it a concern.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/dr-drew-gravely-concerned-clintons-health-archaic-treatments/

Let's get past who the hell Pinsky is to be making these assessments. I just know him from his sex talk show and telling Charlie Sheen to 'get help.'

This is like everything else in this race.

Normal election vs normal, younger opponent? Yeah let's talk about age and the significance of being president. She is an old lady. And guess what Trump is an old guy. They are both roughly the same age.

Now one of them has a bogus letter - it might be forged, not kidding - the other apparently had a real exam with a real evaluation, like McCain did. Can you imagine if Hillary did this? Why would Trump feel the need to do such a thing? Paranoia? Or is he really hiding a serious health issue.

I think medical condition of candidates is relevant. It would have been relevant for Sanders too. It was really relevant for JFK and he was in his 40s.

Honestly I have a serious concern about Trump's mental health. I'm not alone in this. If you want to tackle Hillary's health, fine, let's do it but tackle Trump's too while you're at it.

I'm nearly always pro-transparency. I don't have a problem with looking at tax returns or health records, great that's what the people should do, but it's a much, much bigger deal (to me) when candidates and officials hide their information, so in my book Trump is worse on the tax/money and health thing. He's not just hiding he's dissembling.

 

[Rove!]

Here's Pinsky:

http://freebeacon.com/politics/dr-drew-gravely-concerned-clintons-health-archaic-treatments/

Let's get past who the hell Pinsky is to be making these assessments. I just know him from his sex talk show and telling Charlie Sheen to 'get help.'

This is like everything else in this race.

Normal election vs normal, younger opponent? Yeah let's talk about age and the significance of being president. She is an old lady. And guess what Trump is an old guy. They are both roughly the same age.

Now one of them has a bogus letter - it might be forged, not kidding - the other apparently had a real exam with a real evaluation, like McCain did. Can you imagine if Hillary did this? Why would Trump feel the need to do such a thing? Paranoia? Or is he really hiding a serious health issue.

I think medical condition of candidates is relevant. It would have been relevant for Sanders too. It was really relevant for JFK and he was in his 40s.

Honestly I have a serious concern about Trump's mental health. I'm not alone in this. If you want to tackle Hillary's health, fine, let's do it but tackle Trump's too while you're at it.

I'm nearly always pro-transparency. I don't have a problem with looking at tax returns or health records, great that's what the people should do, but it's a much, much bigger deal (to me) when candidates and officials hide their information, so in my book Trump is worse on the tax/money and health thing. He's not just hiding he's dissembling.

What would be the point of releasing medical records if they are not to be evaluated?  Pinsky, as far as I know, isn't some right wing kook who is going to find some issue no matter what it says.  He and another doctor read the report and gave their reaction to the info. 

I agree that a Trump is full of it on his medical records.  The healthiest guy ever ( except Kim Jong-Il), somehow wasn't healthy enough for 'nam.....

 

[timschochet]

Rob Portman continues to lead his Senate race despite Trump. If this represents a trend, the Senate will remain in GOP hands. Which will then lead to the first major question of Hillary's presidency: the Supreme Court. 

1. Will the Senate push Garland through? 

2. Will Obama remove his nomination of Garland at Hillary's request? 

3. Will a Republican Senate simply refuse to approve anyone that Obama OR Hillary nominates? 

 

[Daywalker]

Rob Portman continues to lead his Senate race despite Trump. If this represents a trend, the Senate will remain in GOP hands. Which will then lead to the first major question of Hillary's presidency: the Supreme Court. 

1. Will the Senate push Garland through? 

2. Will Obama remove his nomination of Garland at Hillary's request? 

3. Will a Republican Senate simply refuse to approve anyone that Obama OR Hillary nominates? 

It's the biggest story no one is really talking about.  

Appears Republicans have already forever changed the process going forward.  This is a huge threat to checks and balances.