Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Fox is making a big deal tonight out of emails from 2008 that reveal that Hillary's campaign looked at Obama's possible Muslim background and former cocaine habit.

This is called opposition research. Every campaign does it. The leadership of the campaign then decides whether or not to use it. Hillary also had Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres to play with. In the end, she used very little of any of it- not because she was above it, or pristine in some way, but because she figured out it wouldn't have worked.

Trump's defenders, and a lot of conservatives in general, are using this stuff to somehow suggest that Trump's Birther stuff wasn't really that bad, that he was only continuing what Hillary started. This is completely false. Trump spent a year making false and blatantly racist claims about Obama's citizenship, religion, and college records- he did it openly, publicly, and in front of whatever media he could find.

 

[shader]

Fox is making a big deal tonight out of emails from 2008 that reveal that Hillary's campaign looked at Obama's possible Muslim background and former cocaine habit.

This is called opposition research. Every campaign does it. The leadership of the campaign then decides whether or not to use it. Hillary also had Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres to play with. In the end, she used very little of any of it- not because she was above it, or pristine in some way, but because she figured out it wouldn't have worked.

Trump's defenders, and a lot of conservatives in general, are using this stuff to somehow suggest that Trump's Birther stuff wasn't really that bad, that he was only continuing what Hillary started. This is completely false. Trump spent a year making false and blatantly racist claims about Obama's citizenship, religion, and college records- he did it openly, publicly, and in front of whatever media he could find.

Sounds like spin to me.  

The reality is that nothing Hilary's campaign does will stick to her.  The only way she would be affected is if SHE were caught saying or emailing something. 

And even then....her opponent is so historically bad, that might not even matter.  

 

[Statorama]

Sounds like spin to me.  

The reality is that nothing Hilary's campaign does will stick to her.  The only way she would be affected is if SHE were caught saying or emailing something. 

And even then....her opponent is so historically bad, that might not even matter.  

...and remember, the most important thing is to believe every accuser of Trump and NOT believe every accuser of the Clintons.  Once you start questioning whether the Trump accusers are stretching the truth, or that the accusers of the Clinton's might be telling the truth, you become "one of them"

 

[BassNBrew]

Fox is making a big deal tonight out of emails from 2008 that reveal that Hillary's campaign looked at Obama's possible Muslim background and former cocaine habit.

This is called opposition research. Every campaign does it. The leadership of the campaign then decides whether or not to use it. Hillary also had Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres to play with. In the end, she used very little of any of it- not because she was above it, or pristine in some way, but because she figured out it wouldn't have worked.

Trump's defenders, and a lot of conservatives in general, are using this stuff to somehow suggest that Trump's Birther stuff wasn't really that bad, that he was only continuing what Hillary started. This is completely false. Trump spent a year making false and blatantly racist claims about Obama's citizenship, religion, and college records- he did it openly, publicly, and in front of whatever media he could find.

Still waiting for someone to say someone was born in Africa or Canada is racist

 

[squistion]

...and remember, the most important thing is to believe every accuser of Trump and NOT believe every accuser of the Clintons.  Once you start questioning whether the Trump accusers are stretching the truth, or that the accusers of the Clinton's might be telling the truth, you become "one of them"

Clinton accusers were discredited in the 90s. Willey tried to suborn perjury with Julie Hyatt-Steel. Juanita Broadrick recanted her rape accusation in a deposition presented to the court that was under oath. Paula Jones accusations were not sufficient for any prosecutor to bring charges against Bill Clinton. There is no there there. Perhaps the Trump accusers will also be found to lack credibility, but so far most of their allegations are confirmed by contemporaneous accounts of friends and relatives.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Fox is making a big deal tonight out of emails from 2008 that reveal that Hillary's campaign looked at Obama's possible Muslim background and former cocaine habit.

This is called opposition research. Every campaign does it. The leadership of the campaign then decides whether or not to use it. Hillary also had Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres to play with. In the end, she used very little of any of it- not because she was above it, or pristine in some way, but because she figured out it wouldn't have worked.

Trump's defenders, and a lot of conservatives in general, are using this stuff to somehow suggest that Trump's Birther stuff wasn't really that bad, that he was only continuing what Hillary started. This is completely false. Trump spent a year making false and blatantly racist claims about Obama's citizenship, religion, and college records- he did it openly, publicly, and in front of whatever media he could find.

Legit question. I never kept up on the birther crap at the time cause to me it was stupid and irrelevant. Did he ever say stuff that was explicitly racist or is it all implied?

 

[timschochet]

Legit question. I never kept up on the birther crap at the time cause to me it was stupid and irrelevant. Did he ever say stuff that was explicitly racist or is it all implied?

Implicit, but heavily so. 

 

[timschochet]

But Trump has lots of very explicit racist comments on his record. 

 

[GoBirds]

Clinton accusers were discredited in the 90s. Willey tried to suborn perjury with Julie Hyatt-Steel. Juanita Broadrick recanted her rape accusation in a deposition presented to the court that was under oath. Paula Jones accusations were not sufficient for any prosecutor to bring charges against Bill Clinton. There is no there there. Perhaps the Trump accusers will also be found to lack credibility, but so far most of their allegations are confirmed by contemporaneous accounts of friends and relatives.

 

[timschochet]

What squis just wrote is all true. What do you take issue with? 

 

[renesauz]

so "widely expressed" is two links?  Please, it's fear- mongering to get votes, plain and simple.  I WAS STALKED!  THE HORROR!

This is pathetic attempt at getting votes considering she married and lives with a serial rapist/sexual assaulter anyways.  No one believes this #### except, of course, the sycophants.

I'm sure she'll claim she was sexually assaulted by him back stage on her next talk show appearance.

WTF are you talking about. People on HERE were talking about him stalking while the debate was still in progress!!!!

 

[renesauz]

She may win but she has to address the division in this country and address mainstream concerns.   If her first act is an Executive Order on gun control she's not getting any cooperation.  The name calling and bashing of "rednecks," "deplorables," white people in general, Catholics, etc. by her and her surrogates needs to be toned down.

She doesn't have a mandate.  The other candidate imploded.

We might disagree on almost everything political, but this is spot on.

 

[BassNBrew]

Legit question. I never kept up on the birther crap at the time cause to me it was stupid and irrelevant. Did he ever say stuff that was explicitly racist or is it all implied?

Implicit, but heavily so. 

So you're making stuff up like usual.

 

[The Commish]

Fox is making a big deal tonight out of emails from 2008 that reveal that Hillary's campaign looked at Obama's possible Muslim background and former cocaine habit.

This is called opposition research. Every campaign does it. The leadership of the campaign then decides whether or not to use it. Hillary also had Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres to play with. In the end, she used very little of any of it- not because she was above it, or pristine in some way, but because she figured out it wouldn't have worked.

Trump's defenders, and a lot of conservatives in general, are using this stuff to somehow suggest that Trump's Birther stuff wasn't really that bad, that he was only continuing what Hillary started. This is completely false. Trump spent a year making false and blatantly racist claims about Obama's citizenship, religion, and college records- he did it openly, publicly, and in front of whatever media he could find.

I suspect this is correct and that's disgusting.  If you strip away all the  on this topic you're left with the following.  Had Hillary decided this was a viable position, she probably would have used it.  She did / had the research done to see if it made sense to go that path.  You don't do that sort of work and research if you aren't thinking about going that path.  Trump, as usual, went with the  to the public.  Clearly, he too was ok with going that path, but he didn't seem to care if it'd work or not.  That's the difference in those two.  If you think this allows for a moral high ground, that's a problem with your bar.  This IS an example of restraint, but not because of some moral reason.  It's because she understood that it wouldn't help her.

 

[Boston]

Love Hill's crew calling the Dem base the Red Army...

 

[Guest]

Why dwell on the birther issue? As I told a friend today, someone could come out today and say that Trump punched them in the face and took their wallet and have it on video and he'd lose less than 1% of his current support.

Total Hillary futures investment up to $2,500 at odds of 1:10.

 

[Boston]

Why dwell on the birther issue? As I told a friend today, someone could come out today and say that Trump punched them in the face and took their wallet and have it on video and he'd lose less than 1% of his current support.

Is this any different than those supporting Hillary?

 

[RCon]

I can understand being confident.  I am as well.

I don't understand betting on Hillary at 10:1 when there are sites offering 6:1.

 

[cstu]

I suspect this is correct and that's disgusting.  If you strip away all the  on this topic you're left with the following.  Had Hillary decided this was a viable position, she probably would have used it.  She did / had the research done to see if it made sense to go that path.  You don't do that sort of work and research if you aren't thinking about going that path.  Trump, as usual, went with the  to the public.  Clearly, he too was ok with going that path, but he didn't seem to care if it'd work or not.  That's the difference in those two.  If you think this allows for a moral high ground, that's a problem with your bar.  This IS an example of restraint, but not because of some moral reason.  It's because she understood that it wouldn't help her.

There's nothing immoral about using FACTS about your opponent against them.

 

[squistion]

Seems fair if he is willing to take a sanity test.

TIMEVerified account ‏@TIME 7m7 minutes ago

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should take a drug test before the next debate

 

[bud29]

Seems fair if he is willing to take a sanity test.

So strange. He's been the one with the coke sniffles these last two debates, not her. 

 

[Koya]

What squis just wrote is all true. What do you take issue with? 

Facts. Reality. Truth.  Anything that does not support his personal political viewpoints and agenda. 

 

[Koya]

Seems fair if he is willing to take a sanity test.

I've worked for two mini trumps.  This guy is the poster child for the cheater who assumes everyone else must cheat, and therefore projects his own weaknesses (and therefore insecurities) upon his foes.  Not running mates.  Not adversaries even. Foes.  Trumps world is anyone who does not do whatever it takes to help him is against him, which by his definition means wrong, bad, evil, ugly, disgusting. 

When Trump accuses someone of doing something, I'd wager a good bet he's likely guilty of that same (or very similar) offense.

 

[cstu]

So strange. He's been the one with the coke sniffles these last two debates, not her. 

It's called 'projection'.

 

[Mile High]

So strange. He's been the one with the coke sniffles these last two debates, not her. 

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull#### 

 

[The Future Champs]

I suspect this is correct and that's disgusting.  If you strip away all the  on this topic you're left with the following.  Had Hillary decided this was a viable position, she probably would have used it.  She did / had the research done to see if it made sense to go that path.  You don't do that sort of work and research if you aren't thinking about going that path.  Trump, as usual, went with the  to the public.  Clearly, he too was ok with going that path, but he didn't seem to care if it'd work or not.  That's the difference in those two.  If you think this allows for a moral high ground, that's a problem with your bar.  This IS an example of restraint, but not because of some moral reason.  It's because she understood that it wouldn't help her.

This is a good point, but restraint and judgement are as important, if not more important, than moral reasoning, as traits for presidential candidates.   Trump has to be the worst candidate ever as to the former.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Fox is making a big deal tonight out of emails from 2008 that reveal that Hillary's campaign looked at Obama's possible Muslim background and former cocaine habit.

This is called opposition research. Every campaign does it. The leadership of the campaign then decides whether or not to use it. Hillary also had Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres to play with. In the end, she used very little of any of it- not because she was above it, or pristine in some way, but because she figured out it wouldn't have worked.

Trump's defenders, and a lot of conservatives in general, are using this stuff to somehow suggest that Trump's Birther stuff wasn't really that bad, that he was only continuing what Hillary started. This is completely false. Trump spent a year making false and blatantly racist claims about Obama's citizenship, religion, and college records- he did it openly, publicly, and in front of whatever media he could find.

You can bet that Hillary would have use it if her campaign found any evidence against Obama.  Talk about going high... Nothing is beneath her.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Billy Bush is set to get up to 9M from NBC as part of a settlement to leave the Today Show.  What a country.

 

[[scooter]]

You can bet that Hillary would have use it if her campaign found any evidence against Obama.  Talk about going high... Nothing is beneath her.

Hillary holds back and Rohn says "Nothing is beneath her". Poor, poor Rohnny.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Hillary holds back and Rohn says "Nothing is beneath her". Poor, poor Rohnny.

She holds back? On what?

 

[David Dodds]

The good news of a Hillary President is that she can now be in charge of the NSA too.  Between controlling that and the media, what could possibly go wrong for this country?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

The good news of a Hillary President is that she can now be in charge of the NSA too.  Between controlling that and the media, what could possibly go wrong for this country?

If Hillary wins, she will be the worse President we have in a long, long time.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

...and remember, the most important thing is to believe every accuser of Trump and NOT believe every accuser of the Clintons.  Once you start questioning whether the Trump accusers are stretching the truth, or that the accusers of the Clinton's might be telling the truth, you become "one of them"

It is important to have sound judgement when the media is obviously biased and doing everything possible to help Hillary.  It is not a fair fight.

 

[WilliamBonney]

Why dwell on the birther issue? As I told a friend today, someone could come out today and say that Trump punched them in the face and took their wallet and have it on video and he'd lose less than 1% of his current support.

Total Hillary futures investment up to $2,500 at odds of 1:10.

Betting -1000 MLs is excellent BRM. 

 

[[scooter]]

Hillary holds back and Rohn says "Nothing is beneath her". Poor, poor Rohnny.

She holds back? On what?

  She held back on attacking Obama for cocaine use. That was the point of the article that you just referenced.

I feel like I'm arguing with Hipple here.

 

[[scooter]]

The good news of a Hillary President is that she can now be in charge of the NSA too.  Between controlling that and the media, what could possibly go wrong for this country?

If Hillary wins, she will be the worse President we have in a long, long time.

That's unpossible.

 

[Guest]

Betting -1000 MLs is excellent BRM. 

I'm not a professional gambler managing a bankroll. I'm someone who is awake enough to know that Trump isn't going to win and there's free money on the ground. So stopped by to pick it up.

 

[Abraham]

  She held back on attacking Obama for cocaine use. That was the point of the article that you just referenced.

I feel like I'm arguing with Hipple here.

Lol.  Trumpkins are the best. 

 

[Rohn Jambo]

  She held back on attacking Obama for cocaine use. That was the point of the article that you just referenced.

I feel like I'm arguing with Hipple here.

She did not.  It's how we knew Obama used "a little blow".

 

[WilliamBonney]

I'm not a professional gambler managing a bankroll. I'm someone who is awake enough to know that Trump isn't going to win and there's free money on the ground. So stopped by to pick it up.

Bovada and sportsbook.ag both have -650. Who taught you how to pick things up?   

 

[David Dodds]

She will just be the Goldman Sachs puppet to talk to the people.  But she has been exposed and has no credibility. She has been playing pay-for-play so long that she really has no idea how to talk to common people.  Wikileaks has exposed her to be pay for play on virtually every issue.  Emails from Chelsea Clinton show an attempt to reform the Clinton Foundation was both mocked and laughed at by the power brokers that run her election.  She stands for nothing except to make herself rich.  You want policy change, just send in your 6-7 figure donation to the Clinton Foundation and she'll get it done.

Long-standing Democrat here, but I want nothing to do with this Democrat party anymore.  I thank Wikileaks, the Guardian, Intercept and others for unveiling the curtain to the rigged world we live in.  It's a given Hillary will win.  It was decided years ago.  It did not matter who was her opponent.  The media's job was to ensure a Democrat win.  and now with Hillary controlling the NSA, no candidate stands a chance to ever defeat her regardless of how bad she is as President.  She will make sure to crush any foes using all the power the NSA can muster (and that's pretty powerful seeing how they forced Yahoo and others through court order to have all emails go through the NSA computers).  

I laugh at people thinking it's ok for someone to wield this much power.  Do whatever you want - no media accountability.  Break any laws you want - State Dept will look the other way.  Use the NSA to eliminate all opposing threats (under the guise of national security).  Not sure how the USA became this, but it's a sad time.   

 

[timschochet]

The good news of a Hillary President is that she can now be in charge of the NSA too.  Between controlling that and the media, what could possibly go wrong for this country?

I think you do a great job for Footballguys, but politically you're no better than Mr Ham. You and he should swap conspiracy theories. 

 

[Rohn Jambo]

She will just be the Goldman Sachs puppet to talk to the people.  But she has been exposed and has no credibility. She has been playing pay-for-play so long that she really has no idea how to talk to common people.  Wikileaks has exposed her to be pay for play on virtually every issue.  Emails from Chelsea Clinton show an attempt to reform the Clinton Foundation was both mocked and laughed at by the power brokers that run her election.  She stands for nothing except to make herself rich.  You want policy change, just send in your 6-7 figure donation to the Clinton Foundation and she'll get it done.

Long-standing Democrat here, but I want nothing to do with this Democrat party anymore.  I thank Wikileaks, the Guardian, Intercept and others for unveiling the curtain to the rigged world we live in.  It's a given Hillary will win.  It was decided years ago.  It did not matter who was her opponent.  The media's job was to ensure a Democrat win.  and now with Hillary controlling the NSA, no candidate stands a chance to ever defeat her regardless of how bad she is as President.  She will make sure to crush any foes using all the power the NSA can muster (and that's pretty powerful seeing how they forced Yahoo and others through court order to have all emails go through the NSA computers).  

I laugh at people thinking it's ok for someone to wield this much power.  Do whatever you want - no media accountability.  Break any laws you want - State Dept will look the other way.  Use the NSA to eliminate all opposing threats (under the guise of national security).  Not sure how the USA became this, but it's a sad time. 

Spot on.  Hillary thinks she is powerful but she's just someone's favorite puppet.

 

[Abraham]

I think you do a great job for Footballguys, but politically you're no better than Mr Ham. You and he should swap conspiracy theories. 

I agree.  I read that and wondered if someone had hijacked David's account. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I think you do a great job for Footballguys, but politically you're no better than Mr Ham. You and he should swap conspiracy theories. 

You just hate the truth about your hero

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I think you do a great job for Footballguys, but politically you're no better than Mr Ham. You and he should swap conspiracy theories. 

Why are you against Citizens United?

 

[timschochet]

She will just be the Goldman Sachs puppet to talk to the people.  But she has been exposed and has no credibility. She has been playing pay-for-play so long that she really has no idea how to talk to common people.  Wikileaks has exposed her to be pay for play on virtually every issue.  Emails from Chelsea Clinton show an attempt to reform the Clinton Foundation was both mocked and laughed at by the power brokers that run her election.  She stands for nothing except to make herself rich.  You want policy change, just send in your 6-7 figure donation to the Clinton Foundation and she'll get it done.

Long-standing Democrat here, but I want nothing to do with this Democrat party anymore.  I thank Wikileaks, the Guardian, Intercept and others for unveiling the curtain to the rigged world we live in.  It's a given Hillary will win.  It was decided years ago.  It did not matter who was her opponent.  The media's job was to ensure a Democrat win.  and now with Hillary controlling the NSA, no candidate stands a chance to ever defeat her regardless of how bad she is as President.  She will make sure to crush any foes using all the power the NSA can muster (and that's pretty powerful seeing how they forced Yahoo and others through court order to have all emails go through the NSA computers).  

I laugh at people thinking it's ok for someone to wield this much power.  Do whatever you want - no media accountability.  Break any laws you want - State Dept will look the other way.  Use the NSA to eliminate all opposing threats (under the guise of national security).  Not sure how the USA became this, but it's a sad time.   

And this sounds just like MOP. 

 

[cstu]

She will just be the Goldman Sachs puppet to talk to the people.  But she has been exposed and has no credibility. She has been playing pay-for-play so long that she really has no idea how to talk to common people.  Wikileaks has exposed her to be pay for play on virtually every issue.  Emails from Chelsea Clinton show an attempt to reform the Clinton Foundation was both mocked and laughed at by the power brokers that run her election.  She stands for nothing except to make herself rich.  You want policy change, just send in your 6-7 figure donation to the Clinton Foundation and she'll get it done.

Long-standing Democrat here, but I want nothing to do with this Democrat party anymore.  I thank Wikileaks, the Guardian, Intercept and others for unveiling the curtain to the rigged world we live in.  It's a given Hillary will win.  It was decided years ago.  It did not matter who was her opponent.  The media's job was to ensure a Democrat win.  and now with Hillary controlling the NSA, no candidate stands a chance to ever defeat her regardless of how bad she is as President.  She will make sure to crush any foes using all the power the NSA can muster (and that's pretty powerful seeing how they forced Yahoo and others through court order to have all emails go through the NSA computers).  

I laugh at people thinking it's ok for someone to wield this much power.  Do whatever you want - no media accountability.  Break any laws you want - State Dept will look the other way.  Use the NSA to eliminate all opposing threats (under the guise of national security).  Not sure how the USA became this, but it's a sad time. 

What's this whole NSA thing about?  And do you think Republicans are any less in the pocket of the rich - you know the Party that wants to lower taxes on the most wealthy?

 

[Ghost Rider]

  politically you're no better than Mr Ham. You and he should swap conspiracy theories. 

And you're no better than Skip Bayless.  In fact, you are like the message board of him.  Just like TV keeps him on for ratings, because people love watching a troll and a train wreck, the powers-that-be around here probably keep you around because you post 1,499 times a day and keep traffic going.  Keep it up, Skip Jr.   

 

[rustycolts]

And this sounds just like MOP. 

No it sounds like the truth.