Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[Leeroy Jenkins]

CNN has become a joke. Sensationalism and divisive news. 

What are better sources these days to watch, if any?

 

[timschochet]

Yeah...it kinda is.  We (the country) have been kicking the can down the road long enough, lowering our standards along the way.  Continuing to do so is pointless.

It's not pointless to do whatever we can to defeat Donald Trump. 

 

[The Commish]

Yeah...it kinda is.  We (the country) have been kicking the can down the road long enough, lowering our standards along the way.  Continuing to do so is pointless.

It's not pointless to do whatever we can to defeat Donald Trump.

Treating the symptoms of the greater problem is pointless if your goal is to make positive progress towards fixing the greater problem in any meaningful manner.

ETA:  Care to address my post previous to this one you responded to?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Speaking of symptons, Hillary's health does seem to be a potential issue. I can't recall how many significant coughing episodes she has had but the cough doesn't seem to be going away.  Hillary doesn't seem to to want to address it except for some cute "wipe the disk clean with a cloth" comment that its allergies from Trump. When you see the media censoring the coverage, there must be more to it.  

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Speaking of symptons, Hillary's health does seem to be a potential issue. I can't recall how many significant coughing episodes she has had but the cough doesn't seem to be going away.  Hillary doesn't seem to to want to address it except for some cute "wipe the disk clean with a cloth" comment that its allergies from Trump. When you see the media censoring the coverage, there must be more to it.  

Media is talking more about it than Trump's tax returns or his bribes in florida and texas. 

I think we would welcome Kaine as president over Trump anyway. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Speaking of symptons, Hillary's health does seem to be a potential issue. I can't recall how many significant coughing episodes she has had but the cough doesn't seem to be going away.  Hillary doesn't seem to to want to address it except for some cute "wipe the disk clean with a cloth" comment that its allergies from Trump. When you see the media censoring the coverage, there must be more to it.  

It's like everything else with Hillary, real or not, first response is: deny it happened, ignore it. 

You'll never guess what happens next.

 

[timschochet]

regardless of the possible implications, yes?

BTW:  It's been interesting to watch you "evolve" on this....at one point you were a staunch defender (well before Trump)....and now, your defense is essentially "....but TRUMP!!!"  Makes it hard to believe you believed any of what your line of defense was before you had Trump to fall back on.  Genuine question....did you believe what you were saying in your defense of her?  If the answer is yes, why have you turned from that line of defense to Trump?  Why not stick with that initial line of defense?

I believed it when I wrote it, but Comey's statements before Congress caused me to reconsider to an extent. 

But my main argument in defense of Hillary is not "but Trump"; its that the email story juat isn't that important to me. 

 

[timschochet]

regardless of the possible implications, yes?

BTW:  It's been interesting to watch you "evolve" on this....at one point you were a staunch defender (well before Trump)....and now, your defense is essentially "....but TRUMP!!!"  Makes it hard to believe you believed any of what your line of defense was before you had Trump to fall back on.  Genuine question....did you believe what you were saying in your defense of her?  If the answer is yes, why have you turned from that line of defense to Trump?  Why not stick with that initial line of defense?

I believed it when I wrote it, but Comey's statements before Congress caused me to reconsider to an extent. 

But my main argument in defense of Hillary is not "but Trump"; its that the email story juat isn't that important to me. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

this exchange makes a lot more sense now:

a Platte River Networks employee wrote to a coworker that he was, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) s**t."
"I just think if we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups, and that we can go public with our statement saying we have backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30days (sic), it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better," the unnamed employee continued.

Yep. Good call.

And they were getting their instructions from the Clinton Executive Service Corporation, their client.

 

[The Commish]

I believed it when I wrote it, but Comey's statements before Congress caused me to reconsider to an extent. 

To what extent?

But my main argument in defense of Hillary is not "but Trump"; its that the email story juat isn't that important to me.

Tough to swallow any of this given that you mention Trump (and stopping him) in many of your comments today.  These are just from this page.  By the way "I don't care about this topic" isn't an argument.

It's not pointless to do whatever we can to defeat Donald Trump.

No it isn't. We can have that conversation on November 10, once Trump has been defeated. We should not be discussing it now.

Oh. Well in that case I'm not OK with them. I think they were stupid, and then her staff tried to cover it up and Hillary may have lied about it as well. But in the larger scheme of things (Hillary vs. Trump) it's not a big deal to me.

 

[Boston]

Speaking of symptons, Hillary's health does seem to be a potential issue. I can't recall how many significant coughing episodes she has had but the cough doesn't seem to be going away.  Hillary doesn't seem to to want to address it except for some cute "wipe the disk clean with a cloth" comment that its allergies from Trump. When you see the media censoring the coverage, there must be more to it.  

Big x-factor in this election...if she has any of these coughing fits during the debates it could take on a life of it's own...

 

[The Commish]

seriously....why do I give a #### if Hillary is coughing?  It's not like Palin is her running mate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

seriously....why do I give a #### if Hillary is coughing?  It's not like Palin is her running mate.

Some consistency would be nice.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's not pointless to do whatever we can to defeat Donald Trump. 

That would mean Hillary dropping out to let Tim Kaine trounce Trump.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

That would mean Hillary dropping out to let Tim Kaine trounce Trump.

Kaine doesnt have enough time. 

Hillary really did do a disservice to the country by running while having these issues. If we get stuck with President Trump, it is her fault. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But my main argument in defense of Hillary is not "but Trump"; its that the email story just isn't that important to me. 

^Not an actual defense.^

 

[Guest]

The FBI says that Hillary's team literally had an 'oh sh7t' moment (their words, that's their quoting Hillary's team) right before they deleted everything they could after taking an inventory of all data to ensure they didn't miss everything.

Can't wait for the first murder trial when someone relies on the Hillary "oh s" defense.  "As soon as I dumped the body, I was like 'oh s!'"

 

[Guest]

Exactly. "Oh ####!" is a sign of somebody screwed up.

He/she lied in three separate emails.  Why do you assume this is not another lie?

And to your point that you don't care about email, this isn't about email.  This is about a culture of secrecy, cover-ups, lies and corruption.  And at every turn when you'd prefer it all look inflated and innocent, it has been exactly as it seems to anyone not grossly rationalizing.  

 

[cstu]

Some consistency would be nice.

McCain was the 2nd oldest nominee in history, 3 years older than Hillary.

Thought it was reasonable to question his health due to his age and what he had been through during the war.

Reagan was the 4th oldest now (after Trump) and he was over 8 months older than Hillary when elected.

It's looking like the three oldest nominees (Dole, McCain, and Trump) will all be losers.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think comparing Hillary (or anybody else, really) to Trump is very useful.  I mean, if he's your benchmark, then everybody else is going to be honest, trustworthy, competent, well-spoken, not-at-all racist, and open-minded by comparison.

But that's precisely the comparison that voters will have to make. Comparing Hillary to Chris Christie might be more interesting because they are more evenly matched, but she's not running against Christie. She's running against Trump, and more than 80% of likely voters see it as a two-way race between them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But that's precisely the comparison that voters will have to make. Comparing Hillary to Chris Christie might be more interesting because they are more evenly matched, but she's not running against Christie. She's running against Trump, and more than 80% of likely voters see it as a two-way race between them.

Sure, but acknowledging that Hillary isn't as bad as Trump doesn't make her not-terrible on an absolute scale.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

McCain was the 2nd oldest nominee in history, 3 years older than Hillary.

Thought it was reasonable to question his health due to his age and what he had been through during the war.

Reagan was the 4th oldest now (after Trump) and he was over 8 months older than Hillary when elected.

It's looking like the three oldest nominees (Dole, McCain, and Trump) will all be losers.

I don't see why there's much difference, Hillary could be what 77 by the end of her 2nd term? And she brought up her own concussion with regards to ability to remember things 3+ years after the fact.

And I definitely think it should also be asked from Trump, especially the mental evaluation though he would never do that, but he could at least start with finding a real damned doctor to write his letter.

Hell JFK was like 43 or so and he had one of the worst health conditions of any president ever, age really has nothing to do with it.

Personally I do think the claims about Hillary's health are bs but I do think she has opened the door and the people's right to know should always come first.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Sure, but acknowledging that Hillary isn't as bad as Trump doesn't make her not-terrible on an absolute scale.  

Of course. (Hence the word "comparatively" in my previous post.)

 

[Ditka Butkus]

For who? Most of the skilled experienced labor in the areas the fence will be built are probably illegal immigrants. 

Maybe we can get the African American men in Chicago to apply, if they were working they would have less time to/ be to tired to kill each other. If illegal's can go out of their way to sneak here to work our construction jobs I'm sure these young men could, if they really wanted to.

 

[Politician Spock]

Oh. Well in that case I'm not OK with them. I think they were stupid, and then her staff tried to cover it up and Hillary may have lied about it as well. But in the larger scheme of things (Hillary vs. Trump) it's not a big deal to me.

Hillary vs Trump is NOT a larger scheme of things. It's two things. It's 1) Hillary; and 2) Trump. It's the smallest set that "things" can be. If it were less, it wouldn't be "things", it would be a "thing". The larger scheme of things is that democracy isn't binary. Making democracy binary makes it smaller, not larger. If you want to look at the larger scheme of things, you have to be willing to look beyond Hillary and Trump. You're not willing. You're being small minded. You, and your like, are THE problem with this country.

 

[The Commish]

seriously....why do I give a #### if Hillary is coughing?  It's not like Palin is her running mate.

Some consistency would be nice.

I didn't care about his health problems either.  At least with him, Palin was a somewhat palatable reason.  With Hillary, I'd rather have her VP, or anyone but Trump for that matter, over her.

 

[Sand]

Yes, the narrative seems to be that Hillary is the corrupt candidate while Trump is the crazy, bigoted candidate. Trump's corruption is therefore deemphasized. But if his craziness and bigotry weren't giving him cover, and if his corruption were covered by the media the same way Hillary's is, Trump would be known as the corrupt candidate while Hillary would be perceived as the comparatively honest candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/

And to think most of the media is trying to pave over her worst transgressions.  It should be worse than it is.

But to your point most people (me included) view selling access from a position of a public servant is much worse than the converse - buying access as a private citizen.  Though I'm not a fan of either candidate I'm convinced with everything coming out that electing HRC would be placing the most corrupt politician in the modern era into the most powerful position on the planet.  When you think about some of the more interesting corrupt politicians of the last couple decades (Edwin Edwards, Marion Barry, etc.) what she's managed to pull off is staggering in scope and breadth.

 

[Guest]

Hillary vs Trump is NOT a larger scheme of things. It's two things. It's 1) Hillary; and 2) Trump. It's the smallest set that "things" can be. If it were less, it wouldn't be "things", it would be a "thing". The larger scheme of things is that democracy isn't binary. Making democracy binary makes it smaller, not larger. If you want to look at the larger scheme of things, you have to be willing to look beyond Hillary and Trump. You're not willing. You're being small minded. You, and your like, are THE problem with this country.

This is really an excellent post.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary vs Trump is NOT a larger scheme of things. It's two things. It's 1) Hillary; and 2) Trump. It's the smallest set that "things" can be. If it were less, it wouldn't be "things", it would be a "thing". The larger scheme of things is that democracy isn't binary. Making democracy binary makes it smaller, not larger. If you want to look at the larger scheme of things, you have to be willing to look beyond Hillary and Trump. You're not willing. You're being small minded. You, and your like, are THE problem with this country.

This is, I believe, the 3rd time I've been told that I am what is wrong with this country. Since I like this country just fine the way it is, I regard your comment as a high compliment, for which I thank you.

 

[pantherclub]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hacking-hillary-complete-timeline-2016-coughing-fits/

woah

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hacking-hillary-complete-timeline-2016-coughing-fits/

woah

In that last clip I very much agree with what she is saying about Nato and Trump's fanboidom for dictators.... and yet it's obscured with her coughing fit. That was yesterday. She said it was allergies. In April she said it was allergies.

It's allergies, right? January, February, April, May, June.... long allergy season.

 

[Guest]

This is, I believe, the 3rd time I've been told that I am what is wrong with this country. Since I like this country just fine the way it is, I regard your comment as a high compliment, for which I thank you.

Tim, reducing politics to controlled messages (let alone controlled people) is dangerous. I think of Bush with his plaster board backdrops with catchphrase and stacked audiences as a symptom of how we ended up in a trillion dollar nationalist fueled quagmire.

Hillary's tactics and your zealotry aren't really any different.   

 

[timschochet]

Tim, reducing politics to controlled messages (let alone controlled people) is dangerous. I think of Bush with his plaster board backdrops with catchphrase and stacked audiences as a symptom of how we ended up in a trillion dollar nationalist fueled quagmire.

Hillary's tactics and your zealotry aren't really any different.   

Yeah, you know what's really dangerous? Wild conspiracy theories. 

Go and look up the "Stabbed in the Back" theory and discover what neat little 20th century government it helped create. It's not harmless fun for you and others to go around saying that Hillary is a member of organized crime, that she's had people murdered, etc. You're doing harm. 

 

[timschochet]

By the way I heard this on the radio: Anthony Weiner is LIVING proof that Hillary does not have people murdered...

 

[Guest]

Yeah, you know what's really dangerous? Wild conspiracy theories. 

Go and look up the "Stabbed in the Back" theory and discover what neat little 20th century government it helped create. It's not harmless fun for you and others to go around saying that Hillary is a member of organized crime, that she's had people murdered, etc. You're doing harm. 

Hillary's incompetence and the litany of lies surrounding her are real and well documented.  Chalk up the rest as a mixture of conjecture and circumstantial evidence.  Doesn't matter.  Enough is known.  She cannot be trusted, nor can those around her. Her donors and benefactors have invested in pieces of her and she is bought.  Her behavior has been consistent with this truth.  

You have reduced our future down to a narrow contest between as bad a candidate as America has seen and the worst it has ever seen.  It's absurd and such and injustice.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way I heard this on the radio: Anthony Weiner is LIVING proof that Hillary does not have people murdered...

That's great.

 

[Politician Spock]

Yeah, you know what's really dangerous? Wild conspiracy theories. 

Voting for Johnson is a vote against wild conspiracy theories too. And he's not incompetent like HIllary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, you know what's really dangerous? Wild conspiracy theories. 

Yeah Saints, I always thought there was a lot of truth to the vast right wing conspiracy charge. There are good reasons for this. From the beginning of the Whitewater scandal through Paula Jones, almost all of it was funded by Richard Melon Scaife. He was the multi-millionaire who originally financed the Clinton Chronicles, World Net Daily, and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. These sources put out the theories that Vince Foster had been murdered, that Bill was smuggling drugs out of Mena, Arkansas, that Hillary had Arkansas state troopers committing murder (or being murdered, I could never keep that straight.) And these were the SAME sources that funded Paula Jones' lawsuit and surrounded her and the other women. Are you familiar with Larry Nichols? You might want to Google him and see what comes up.

There's a book by Joe Conason that documents all of this. There were conservatives determined to take down the Clintons long before Monica Lewinsky ever arrived on the scene. So when Hillary talked about that on TV, she was absolutely right. What she did not realize was that Bill actually was having oral sex with Monica.

Go on.

 

[timschochet]

Go on.

You already know my answer. Why do you continue with this? And why didn't you quote the rest of what I wrote, which was "except it's not a conspiracy." ???

 

[timschochet]

Voting for Johnson is a vote against wild conspiracy theories too. And he's not incompetent like HIllary.

Whether or not he's more competent than Hillary (I don't think he is, and in fact I believe your assertion on this point is somewhat laughable) it's irrelevant, because he's not going to be elected. If you are voting for him in a non-battleground state, then your vote is meaningless. If you're voting for him in a battleground state, then you may be helping Donald Trump by doing so- that's the ONLY possible effect of your vote. It's your decision, but be aware that this is a fact.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You already know my answer. Why do you continue with this? And why didn't you quote the rest of what I wrote, which was "except it's not a conspiracy." ???

Ok, full content now included.

Where do you say "except it's not a conspiracy"? I'm not sure you understand what that word means. You're thinking it's true or partly true doesn't make it less of a conspiracy if it is true. I mean you have all of these Oliver Stone Mr. X characters running around Snidely Whiplash-like plotting evil rumors about Polly Purebread but hey if it WAS true it would still be a conspiracy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's a book by Joe Conason that documents all of this.

That's so funny because there's a Joe Conason out promoting a book he wrote about the Clintons right now. Same guy rushed to Hillary's defense to claim she and Powell concocted the whole totally misunderstood email convenience system one night over dinner. Totally harmless, talked about it over Merlot you know, Colin said, 'yeah go ahead, great idea.' They laughed.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whether or not he's more competent than Hillary (I don't think he is, and in fact I believe your assertion on this point is somewhat laughable) it's irrelevant, because he's not going to be elected. If you are voting for him in a non-battleground state, then your vote is meaningless. If you're voting for him in a battleground state, then you may be helping Donald Trump by doing so- that's the ONLY possible effect of your vote. It's your decision, but be aware that this is a fact.

Johnson was a successful governor. Hillary was a miserable failure as SoS.

Even if Johnson loses, my vote for him will let me sleep at night knowing I didn't cast a vote to #### up this country. 

 

[timschochet]

Ok, full content now included.

Where do you say "except it's not a conspiracy"? I'm not sure you understand what that word means. You're thinking it's true or partly true doesn't make it less of a conspiracy if it is true. I mean you have all of these Oliver Stone Mr. X characters running around Snidely Whiplash-like plotting evil rumors about Polly Purebread but hey if it WAS true it would still be a conspiracy.

I would define a conspiracy as a secret plot of some sort. The Republican effort to delegitimize the Clintons has never been secret. And the fact that it has been "vast" contradicts the notion that it is a conspiracy as well; conspiracies are never vast by their very nature.

 

[timschochet]

Johnson was a successful governor. Hillary was a miserable failure as SoS.

Even if Johnson loses, my vote for him will let me sleep at night knowing I didn't cast a vote to #### up this country. 

I should be a little more fair to you: if I recall correctly, you have stated in the past your belief that our economy is doomed to collapse within a few years. I strongly disagree with that prediction, but if you believe it to be true, then your position on this matter becomes entirely consistent IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would define a conspiracy as a secret plot of some sort. The Republican effort to delegitimize the Clintons has never been secret. And the fact that it has been "vast" contradicts the notion that it is a conspiracy as well; conspiracies are never vast by their very nature.

You think your conspiracy is legitimate because it just is.

Conspiracies aren't necessarily secret things at all. What Ham is talking about is a thing. Politicians get investigated for criminal RICO, it's a racket. If politicians (state, local) are openly taking in money (say via their own private businesses) from vendors they are granting government contracts to, that's a conspiracy, it's a criminal racket and it's illegal. The fact that they do it in their constituents' faces doesn't mean it's suddenly not a conspiracy.

 

[timschochet]

You think your conspiracy is legitimate because it just is.

Conspiracies aren't necessarily secret things at all. What Ham is talking about is a thing. Politicians get investigated for criminal RICO, it's a racket. If politicians (state, local) are openly taking in money (say via their own private businesses) from vendors they are granting government contracts to, that's a conspiracy, it's a criminal racket and it's illegal. The fact that they do it in their constituents' faces doesn't mean it's suddenly not a conspiracy.

And his implication that Hillary is a murderer?

 

[Politician Spock]

I should be a little more fair to you: if I recall correctly, you have stated in the past your belief that our economy is doomed to collapse within a few years. I strongly disagree with that prediction, but if you believe it to be true, then your position on this matter becomes entirely consistent IMO.

Collapse? No.

Significantly change? Yes.

This is because the US currency system is being used in a way it was not designed. It's being used as the currency of choice for international trade. We've benefited from this for decades as we have to consume more than we produce in order for us to export more of our money to meet the demand for our money in international trade. Eventually the rest of the world will come up with an international trade system that doesn't benefit one country over the rest. That will be good for the rest of the world, but bad for us. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with US politics... unless you think we should have politicians who want to force the rest of the world to use our currency. The only way we could do that is by pointing a bigger gun in their face than they can point in ours..... oh.... wait a minute..... that's what we do. 

 

[BassNBrew]

Whether or not he's (Johnson) more competent than Trump (I don't think he is, and in fact I believe your assertion on this point is somewhat laughable) it's irrelevant, because he's not going to be elected. If you are voting for him in a non-battleground state, then your vote is meaningless. If you're voting for him in a battleground state, then you may be helping Hillary Clinton by doing so- that's the ONLY possible effect of your vote. It's your decision, but be aware that this is a fact.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And his implication that Hillary is a murderer?

In terms of the dangerousness of the accusation?

I don't know, let me think about that:

Mr. Ham: Hillary conspired to take out Foster in 1994 because he was scheduled to testify before Congress and he was the only one who knew everything Hillary did from A to Z. She certainly had a motive and she has a lifetime of sneakiness.

Mr. Schochet: There is a cabal of evil Republicans who have been controlling the media and manipulating the electorate so they can [fill in motive here - racial, economic, neocon imperialism] for over 25 years and part of their strategy is to destroy the Clintons who stand in their way.

- Does this claim not breed distrust in government?

- Does this claim not corrode the functioning of our system?

- Does this claim not create mistrust between voters and make any rational discourse of what the Clintons really do and how they behave and what their true motives are almost impossible in many circumstances, because any time a legitimate concern is raised this evil plot is also raised so that loyal forces must rally around Hillary like some threatened queen bee?

I don't know, which conspiracy theory is more dangerous, what do you think?