|
Post by blueorfe on Oct 22, 2016 16:19:12 GMT -5
Trump is a moron but Hillary is no better.... I don't why I came to this thread? I hate politics and politicians, they're all a bunch of deceitful crooks and swindlers. But watching a bit of this video reminded how good a film that Slap Shot is, I'm currently downloading it
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Oct 22, 2016 22:44:14 GMT -5
While you are 'technically' correct that the Dems put her there, after her loss to Obama in 2008 when she felt then it was her 'turn', she went out of her way to ensure NO ONE with any true political threat would dare get into the race against her. They wanted some competition so it wouldn't be a coronation so when Bernie got in, they were perfectly fine with that as they thought she'd put him away within 3 months. Then something happened. The youth started seeing someone they could associate with and many others actually started realizing how evil Hillary was. Had the media given Sanders the type of media Trump was getting early on, Sanders would have won. Unfortunately for him, they didn't take him seriously until he won New Hampshire by double digits, despite the fact he was giving speeches to tens of thousands of folks while she was giving speeches to 1000 and less. Finally once he started gaining momentum, the DNC worked with the Clinton campaign to set the debates during major sporting events, outside prime time and on weekends, because Hillary really didn't want to debate at all. She wanted a coronation. She was running her campaign so tight, roping the media away from her, so that the only place she was vulnerable was the debates. In the end the popularity of Sanders forced Hillary to accept 'townhall debates' after the DNC ones were done. So the DNC & certain media folks worked very hard to ensure Bernie never had a chance, while Hillary did the rest keeping Elizabeth Warren out and anyone else of consequence. Bottom line, the Dems really didn't elect her, she was SELECTED. Explain the conspiracy to me. How did she ensure no one got into the race? It was supposed to be her turn vs Obama too. Looking over who Democrats had to offer this time around, there weren't many good candidates available to begin with. I do agree most of their party was on board for it being her turn (again) but for her to have that turn, she had to get the votes through the primary. And she did get a lot more votes, delegate scamming or not. If Bernie didn't have to shake that socialist tag, he would have won. It freaked out a lot of people because they couldn't understand what socialist democrat meant and didn't care to find out. I'm not a fan but I will give her credit for her experience in government. Good or bad, she knows every character that needs to be known, not only domestic but worldwide. She has relationships everyone who is important on the world stage. When talks go behind closed doors, she is probably more equipped to come out of it better than anyone because of those relationships. Again, not a fan, but she deserves acknowledgement her experience. It brings a lot to the table. On a side note, i hate the crappy electoral college, delegate and super delegate style of choosing who won. Screw that, count the votes and be done with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 0:11:45 GMT -5
While you are 'technically' correct that the Dems put her there, after her loss to Obama in 2008 when she felt then it was her 'turn', she went out of her way to ensure NO ONE with any true political threat would dare get into the race against her. They wanted some competition so it wouldn't be a coronation so when Bernie got in, they were perfectly fine with that as they thought she'd put him away within 3 months. Then something happened. The youth started seeing someone they could associate with and many others actually started realizing how evil Hillary was. Had the media given Sanders the type of media Trump was getting early on, Sanders would have won. Unfortunately for him, they didn't take him seriously until he won New Hampshire by double digits, despite the fact he was giving speeches to tens of thousands of folks while she was giving speeches to 1000 and less. Finally once he started gaining momentum, the DNC worked with the Clinton campaign to set the debates during major sporting events, outside prime time and on weekends, because Hillary really didn't want to debate at all. She wanted a coronation. She was running her campaign so tight, roping the media away from her, so that the only place she was vulnerable was the debates. In the end the popularity of Sanders forced Hillary to accept 'townhall debates' after the DNC ones were done. So the DNC & certain media folks worked very hard to ensure Bernie never had a chance, while Hillary did the rest keeping Elizabeth Warren out and anyone else of consequence. Bottom line, the Dems really didn't elect her, she was SELECTED. Explain the conspiracy to me. How did she ensure no one got into the race? It was supposed to be her turn vs Obama too. Looking over who Democrats had to offer this time around, there weren't many good candidates available to begin with. I do agree most of their party was on board for it being her turn (again) but for her to have that turn, she had to get the votes through the primary. And she did get a lot more votes, delegate scamming or not. If Bernie didn't have to shake that socialist tag, he would have won. It freaked out a lot of people because they couldn't understand what socialist democrat meant and didn't care to find out. I'm not a fan but I will give her credit for her experience in government. Good or bad, she knows every character that needs to be known, not only domestic but worldwide. She has relationships everyone who is important on the world stage. When talks go behind closed doors, she is probably more equipped to come out of it better than anyone because of those relationships. Again, not a fan, but she deserves acknowledgement her experience. It brings a lot to the table. On a side note, i hate the crappy electoral college, delegate and super delegate style of choosing who won. Screw that, count the votes and be done with it. This! The electoral college gives the smaller states a slight advantage over larger states if you break it down as Electoral votes / population.
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Oct 23, 2016 8:51:49 GMT -5
All I gotta say is that we all missed the boat with a credible candidate with Bernie Sanders, whether or not you agreed with him. Credible...did you see this?....
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Oct 23, 2016 8:57:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Oct 23, 2016 9:36:33 GMT -5
She dropped out of being Sec of state in 2012. This gave her four years to do many more speeches and start her campaign for 2016. Now some might say Hillary's endorsement of Obama meant that Obama had to endorse Hillary 8 years later, that isn't the case. Obama paid Hillary back by making her his Sec of State. This helped build her resume, allowed her to travel and gain 'experience'. It also allowed her to make deals with foreign governments to give to her Clinton Foundation where 80-83% goes to paying administrative costs like her, Bill, Chelsea's salaries.
In the end there were a few Democrats that would have loved a shot at the 2016 race, but Hillary's folks were out & about starting in 2012 quelling those fires. Some folks like Joe Manchin were okay with stepping out of the way, others like Al Gore were not but had little choice as he had already had his shot. There were a few up-commers like Cory Booker, but he was put in his place with a few promises, mainly that if he beat Hillary in the primaries she would personally put every dollar she had and give it to her opponent in the general. In short she sweetalked, made deals and threatened to keep anyone of consequence running against her.
I mean think about it. In the end her main opponent was Bernie Sanders. Martin, O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee also threw their hats in the ring but unless you were from the state they represented, you had no idea who they were. They were there for legitimacy. It would have really looked suspicious Hillary just walked away with the nomination with no opposition, but at the same time, she couldn't chance what happened last time when a young Senator who was supposed to be no threat, became more popular than her. Hillary was really afraid of Cory Booker could repeat what Obama did.
In the end the Democrat debates were boring and her emails were never brought up, except once, after the other 3 filler candidates had dropped out and even then Bernie Sanders shut the question down. If ANY of the 4 other candidates really wanted the nomination, they would have hit Hillary at her weakest point, which was the email scandal and the fact she continued to lie about sending/receiving/storing classified documents over and on an unsecured server. None did. So the fix was in.
We also know from leaked DNC emails that the DNC executives were working behind the scenes to help Hillary and hinder Bernie.
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Oct 23, 2016 16:03:38 GMT -5
She dropped out of being Sec of state in 2012. This gave her four years to do many more speeches and start her campaign for 2016. Now some might say Hillary's endorsement of Obama meant that Obama had to endorse Hillary 8 years later, that isn't the case. Obama paid Hillary back by making her his Sec of State. This helped build her resume, allowed her to travel and gain 'experience'. It also allowed her to make deals with foreign governments to give to her Clinton Foundation where 80-83% goes to paying administrative costs like her, Bill, Chelsea's salaries. In the end there were a few Democrats that would have loved a shot at the 2016 race, but Hillary's folks were out & about starting in 2012 quelling those fires. Some folks like Joe Manchin were okay with stepping out of the way, others like Al Gore were not but had little choice as he had already had his shot. There were a few up-commers like Cory Booker, but he was put in his place with a few promises, mainly that if he beat Hillary in the primaries she would personally put every dollar she had and give it to her opponent in the general. In short she sweetalked, made deals and threatened to keep anyone of consequence running against her. I mean think about it. In the end her main opponent was Bernie Sanders. Martin, O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee also threw their hats in the ring but unless you were from the state they represented, you had no idea who they were. They were there for legitimacy. It would have really looked suspicious Hillary just walked away with the nomination with no opposition, but at the same time, she couldn't chance what happened last time when a young Senator who was supposed to be no threat, became more popular than her. Hillary was really afraid of Cory Booker could repeat what Obama did. In the end the Democrat debates were boring and her emails were never brought up, except once, after the other 3 filler candidates had dropped out and even then Bernie Sanders shut the question down. If ANY of the 4 other candidates really wanted the nomination, they would have hit Hillary at her weakest point, which was the email scandal and the fact she continued to lie about sending/receiving/storing classified documents over and on an unsecured server. None did. So the fix was in. We also know from leaked DNC emails that the DNC executives were working behind the scenes to help Hillary and hinder Bernie. I have zero interest in defending Hillary Clinton. But there are some inaccuracies in this post that I'd like to discuss because I do believe in facts and truth. > "Now some might say Hillary's endorsement of Obama meant that Obama had to endorse Hillary 8 years later, that isn't the case." Obama is certainly out on the trail endorsing her. So is Michelle Obama. So I'm not understanding what this means. > "Obama paid Hillary back by making her his Sec of State. This helped build her resume, allowed her to travel and gain 'experience'." She had already been FLOTUS for 8 years and a Senator. SoS did add to her resume but that resume was already in good shape as far as experience goes. She didn't need to be SoS to travel. She did plenty of that as FLOTUS and Senator as well. > "It also allowed her to make deals with foreign governments to give to her Clinton Foundation where 80-83% goes to paying administrative costs like her, Bill, Chelsea's salaries." Extremely inaccurate comment here. I'm a huge "factcheck" guy. I read through sites like Politifact and Factcheck.org quite a bit. Non-bias and unaffiliated, as it should be. According to Politifact on the salary thing: > www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/"Bill Clinton is currently a member of the foundation’s board of directors, while Chelsea Clinton is vice chair. Hillary Clinton was a board member between leaving the State Department in 2013 through the launch of her presidential campaign in 2015. In the most recent year for which tax forms are available, 2014, the foundation reported that Chelsea Clinton worked 35 hours per week for the foundation and other related organizations, Bill Clinton worked 25 hours per work, and Hillary Clinton worked 20 hours per week.
The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit. Other Clinton Foundation leaders take home six-figure salaries, according to tax documents.
The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead."As for "deals with foreign governments" and pay for play, there hasn't been any solid proof that his has actually occurred although it does appear it could have. I'm looking forward to more honest information on this. > Other possible Democratic opponents If other people felt like they could have run a campaign against her then they should have. If they didn't have the balls to do so then shame on them. I have a hard time believing Hillary is so powerful that she can dictate who runs against her and who doesn't. That's just giving her way too much credit imo .. lol. Primary voters did have others to choose from. Millions of Primary voters made the decision, not Hillary. Was her campaign well-planned? Absolutely. I don't see anything wrong with that part of it. > In the end the Democrat debates were boring and her emails were never brought up, except once, after the other 3 filler candidates had dropped out and even then Bernie Sanders shut the question down. If ANY of the 4 other candidates really wanted the nomination, they would have hit Hillary at her weakest point, which was the email scandal and the fact she continued to lie about sending/receiving/storing classified documents over and on an unsecured server. None did. So the fix was in. This is pretty much all conjecture and like I said at the beginning, I have zero desire to be a defender of Hillary Clinton. Therefore, I have nothing to add to this part except one thing - I find it next to impossible to believe that Bernie Sanders, of all people, was in on a fix
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Oct 23, 2016 16:43:43 GMT -5
I have zero interest in defending Hillary Clinton. But there are some inaccuracies in this post that I'd like to discuss because I do believe in facts and truth. > "Now some might say Hillary's endorsement of Obama meant that Obama had to endorse Hillary 8 years later, that isn't the case." Obama is certainly out on the trail endorsing her. So is Michelle Obama. So I'm not understanding what this means. Obama is out there for one reason, himself. He and Michele hate the Clintons, but the only thing worse than Hillary would be a Republican and especially Trump, overturning everything he accomplished in the last 8 years, starting with Obamacare. His legacy and the worry that the GoP would completely ruin it is the only reason he is doing what he is doing. In 8 years he never had Bill & Hillary to the private residence for dinner. Yes the hate is real.> "Obama paid Hillary back by making her his Sec of State. This helped build her resume, allowed her to travel and gain 'experience'." She had already been FLOTUS for 8 years and a Senator. SoS did add to her resume but that resume was already in good shape as far as experience goes. She didn't need to be SoS to travel. She did plenty of that as FLOTUS and Senator as well. Being FLOTUS is nothing. Being a Senator did indeed help Hillary make connections and to be fair she did work hard during her time as as a Senator. After losing to Obama, she needed to remain relevant, lest people forget you like Al Gore after he lost to Bush Jr. She needed also some foreign affairs experience. Neither she nor Obama wanted her as VP which is mainly a symbolic position that has no true duties other than overseeing the Senate during ties as spelled out in the Constitution. As Sec of State tho, this allowed two things. First her to gain some much needed foreign affairs experience & it put her in a position where she wouldn't be butting heads with Obama all the time. I could go on about how she needed to pad her resume by overthrowing a Lybian dictator but I'll save that if you have further questions.> "It also allowed her to make deals with foreign governments to give to her Clinton Foundation where 80-83% goes to paying administrative costs like her, Bill, Chelsea's salaries." Extremely inaccurate comment here. I'm a huge "factcheck" guy. I read through sites like Politifact and Factcheck.org quite a bit. Non-bias and unaffiliated, as it should be. According to Politifact on the salary thing: > www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/"Bill Clinton is currently a member of the foundation’s board of directors, while Chelsea Clinton is vice chair. Hillary Clinton was a board member between leaving the State Department in 2013 through the launch of her presidential campaign in 2015. In the most recent year for which tax forms are available, 2014, the foundation reported that Chelsea Clinton worked 35 hours per week for the foundation and other related organizations, Bill Clinton worked 25 hours per work, and Hillary Clinton worked 20 hours per week.
The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit. Other Clinton Foundation leaders take home six-figure salaries, according to tax documents.
The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead."As for "deals with foreign governments" and pay for play, there hasn't been any solid proof that his has actually occurred although it does appear it could have. I'm looking forward to more honest information on this. What you don't realize is when 'they don't take salaries' that doesn't mean they aren't getting paid. Trump uses this for his business. He draws no salary, why? Because it is taxable income. Hillary doesn't take a salary because 1. it looks good. 2. it is taxable. You better believe, however that ANYTHING she wants or needs is expensed to the foundation. Travel, luggage, that dress she wants to wear for that speech, all paid for by the foundation. Where the payment comes in is the speeches that Bill got paid for (oh and that 1 million dollar gift for his birthday from Qatar). Also for Chelsea the 600k a year job for MSNBC where she did like 8 pieces for them and was making 2-3 times more than those with 20x more experience. Prior to Hillary being Sec of State, Bill was getting a few paid speeches and making 50-100k per speech. Their income from those speeches was a few million. While she was Sec of state he was getting paid 250-750k per speech and they made $150+ million. So while it may be true the foundation didn't pay them directly, they used her position and the foundation as a front to get HIM paid.> Other possible Democratic opponents If other people felt like they could have run a campaign against her then they should have. If they didn't have the balls to do so then shame on them. I have a hard time believing Hillary is so powerful that she can dictate who runs against her and who doesn't. That's just giving her way too much credit imo .. lol. Primary voters did have others to choose from. Millions of Primary voters made the decision, not Hillary. Was her campaign well-planned? Absolutely. I don't see anything wrong with that part of it. This had nothing to do with "balls". Her camp didn't want a repeat of 2008 where a minority Senator came out and stole the nomination from her, so after she left government, her people went into overdrive, making the deals and doing the work to ensure no one of any name recognition would dare to run against her. Is it legal? Probably. Did she work to fix it much like her parachuting into New York, in a county that no GoP had won in 50 years, to ensure she would get into the Senate? Absolutely. In the end the DNC who is supposed to be neutral, we found were keeping resources from Sanders and the six administration folks from the DNC who resigned once it was found out, were actively working against Sanders to keep him from winning the nomination. So yes she won with the votes, but the primaries were heavily stacked in her favour.> In the end the Democrat debates were boring and her emails were never brought up, except once, after the other 3 filler candidates had dropped out and even then Bernie Sanders shut the question down. If ANY of the 4 other candidates really wanted the nomination, they would have hit Hillary at her weakest point, which was the email scandal and the fact she continued to lie about sending/receiving/storing classified documents over and on an unsecured server. None did. So the fix was in. This is pretty much all conjecture and like I said at the beginning, I have zero desire to be a defender of Hillary Clinton. Therefore, I have nothing to add to this part except one thing - I find it next to impossible to believe that Bernie Sanders, of all people, was in on a fix Bernie wanted to run a 'principled' campaign without the mudslinging. He almost made it through until he decided to hammer her on the Goldman Sachs and major bank speeches. Once again we found out that Bernie was 100% right in what he said and Hillary 100% lied about what she said she didn't say. My personal opinion is that Bernie never thought he had a chance to win at the beginning when the debates were going, thus he didn't want to piss her off and the DNC by hammering her on the emails. It was only after he started winning some states that he felt he did have a movement and started striking back. He never did go with the emails, instead only saying he would wait for the FBI investigation to conclude, but that wasn't what his movement was about, it was about entitlements and big banks. There he hit her hard, but once again only after he started realizing he had a chance. Also I believe he felt that if the FBI charged her, he wanted to be able to take the high road saying he never cut Hillary with that subject, because HE would have become the nominee had she been indicted.
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Oct 23, 2016 19:59:03 GMT -5
I have zero interest in defending Hillary Clinton. But there are some inaccuracies in this post that I'd like to discuss because I do believe in facts and truth. > "Now some might say Hillary's endorsement of Obama meant that Obama had to endorse Hillary 8 years later, that isn't the case." Obama is certainly out on the trail endorsing her. So is Michelle Obama. So I'm not understanding what this means. Obama is out there for one reason, himself. He and Michele hate the Clintons, but the only thing worse than Hillary would be a Republican and especially Trump, overturning everything he accomplished in the last 8 years, starting with Obamacare. His legacy and the worry that the GoP would completely ruin it is the only reason he is doing what he is doing. In 8 years he never had Bill & Hillary to the private residence for dinner. Yes the hate is real.> "Obama paid Hillary back by making her his Sec of State. This helped build her resume, allowed her to travel and gain 'experience'." She had already been FLOTUS for 8 years and a Senator. SoS did add to her resume but that resume was already in good shape as far as experience goes. She didn't need to be SoS to travel. She did plenty of that as FLOTUS and Senator as well. Being FLOTUS is nothing. Being a Senator did indeed help Hillary make connections and to be fair she did work hard during her time as as a Senator. After losing to Obama, she needed to remain relevant, lest people forget you like Al Gore after he lost to Bush Jr. She needed also some foreign affairs experience. Neither she nor Obama wanted her as VP which is mainly a symbolic position that has no true duties other than overseeing the Senate during ties as spelled out in the Constitution. As Sec of State tho, this allowed two things. First her to gain some much needed foreign affairs experience & it put her in a position where she wouldn't be butting heads with Obama all the time. I could go on about how she needed to pad her resume by overthrowing a Lybian dictator but I'll save that if you have further questions.> "It also allowed her to make deals with foreign governments to give to her Clinton Foundation where 80-83% goes to paying administrative costs like her, Bill, Chelsea's salaries." Extremely inaccurate comment here. I'm a huge "factcheck" guy. I read through sites like Politifact and Factcheck.org quite a bit. Non-bias and unaffiliated, as it should be. According to Politifact on the salary thing: > www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/"Bill Clinton is currently a member of the foundation’s board of directors, while Chelsea Clinton is vice chair. Hillary Clinton was a board member between leaving the State Department in 2013 through the launch of her presidential campaign in 2015. In the most recent year for which tax forms are available, 2014, the foundation reported that Chelsea Clinton worked 35 hours per week for the foundation and other related organizations, Bill Clinton worked 25 hours per work, and Hillary Clinton worked 20 hours per week.
The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit. Other Clinton Foundation leaders take home six-figure salaries, according to tax documents.
The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead."As for "deals with foreign governments" and pay for play, there hasn't been any solid proof that his has actually occurred although it does appear it could have. I'm looking forward to more honest information on this. What you don't realize is when 'they don't take salaries' that doesn't mean they aren't getting paid. Trump uses this for his business. He draws no salary, why? Because it is taxable income. Hillary doesn't take a salary because 1. it looks good. 2. it is taxable. You better believe, however that ANYTHING she wants or needs is expensed to the foundation. Travel, luggage, that dress she wants to wear for that speech, all paid for by the foundation. Where the payment comes in is the speeches that Bill got paid for (oh and that 1 million dollar gift for his birthday from Qatar). Also for Chelsea the 600k a year job for MSNBC where she did like 8 pieces for them and was making 2-3 times more than those with 20x more experience. Prior to Hillary being Sec of State, Bill was getting a few paid speeches and making 50-100k per speech. Their income from those speeches was a few million. While she was Sec of state he was getting paid 250-750k per speech and they made $150+ million. So while it may be true the foundation didn't pay them directly, they used her position and the foundation as a front to get HIM paid.> Other possible Democratic opponents If other people felt like they could have run a campaign against her then they should have. If they didn't have the balls to do so then shame on them. I have a hard time believing Hillary is so powerful that she can dictate who runs against her and who doesn't. That's just giving her way too much credit imo .. lol. Primary voters did have others to choose from. Millions of Primary voters made the decision, not Hillary. Was her campaign well-planned? Absolutely. I don't see anything wrong with that part of it. This had nothing to do with "balls". Her camp didn't want a repeat of 2008 where a minority Senator came out and stole the nomination from her, so after she left government, her people went into overdrive, making the deals and doing the work to ensure no one of any name recognition would dare to run against her. Is it legal? Probably. Did she work to fix it much like her parachuting into New York, in a county that no GoP had won in 50 years, to ensure she would get into the Senate? Absolutely. In the end the DNC who is supposed to be neutral, we found were keeping resources from Sanders and the six administration folks from the DNC who resigned once it was found out, were actively working against Sanders to keep him from winning the nomination. So yes she won with the votes, but the primaries were heavily stacked in her favour.> In the end the Democrat debates were boring and her emails were never brought up, except once, after the other 3 filler candidates had dropped out and even then Bernie Sanders shut the question down. If ANY of the 4 other candidates really wanted the nomination, they would have hit Hillary at her weakest point, which was the email scandal and the fact she continued to lie about sending/receiving/storing classified documents over and on an unsecured server. None did. So the fix was in. This is pretty much all conjecture and like I said at the beginning, I have zero desire to be a defender of Hillary Clinton. Therefore, I have nothing to add to this part except one thing - I find it next to impossible to believe that Bernie Sanders, of all people, was in on a fix Bernie wanted to run a 'principled' campaign without the mudslinging. He almost made it through until he decided to hammer her on the Goldman Sachs and major bank speeches. Once again we found out that Bernie was 100% right in what he said and Hillary 100% lied about what she said she didn't say. My personal opinion is that Bernie never thought he had a chance to win at the beginning when the debates were going, thus he didn't want to piss her off and the DNC by hammering her on the emails. It was only after he started winning some states that he felt he did have a movement and started striking back. He never did go with the emails, instead only saying he would wait for the FBI investigation to conclude, but that wasn't what his movement was about, it was about entitlements and big banks. There he hit her hard, but once again only after he started realizing he had a chance. Also I believe he felt that if the FBI charged her, he wanted to be able to take the high road saying he never cut Hillary with that subject, because HE would have become the nominee had she been indicted.A lot of speculation there. But just to be clear: You said "Obama had to endorse Hillary 8 years later, that isn't the case." I responded that he certainly is. I didn't offer any reasons why. I don't care why. I was just pointing out that he is on the trail endorsing her, contrary to "that isn't the case". I wouldn't underestimate the connections one can make being FLOTUS. I'm not saying that being SoS wasn't helpful, of course it was. Everything ielse s speculative about staying relevant. She could have stayed in Congress or done some other things to keep herself in the pipeline. But just like Obama endorsing her, I'm not pondering the reasons why. Salaries from Clinton Foundation. If you have a link to a non-bias site (or sites) that shows the paper trail of the Clintons pocketing money from their foundation, I'd love to read it. That would be awesome (seriously). It's possible I haven't seen it but I would like to if it exists. I like proof over speculation. And I've got to give them credit for releasing their tax info going back several years as well as the tax forms for the foundation. That's a "nothing to hide" move and you know conservatives went over that stuff with a fine tooth comb looking for smoking guns. Other Dem opponents. It has everything to do with balls imo. Grow a sack or go home. Again, not my position to ponder why or why not but Hillary Clinton is not the Emperor of the Democratic party where they simply do what she wants them to do. Opposition comes in many forms, even under one's own roof. From my point of view, the Dems really didn't have much to offer up in the first place. Their biggest advantage is the GOP had even less and missed voting for their best chance (Kasich) in their primary. Finally, I give Bernie more credit for wanting to win and fighting the good fight. I wish more people would have voted for him in their primary. Everything else is just speculation about what was in the minds of millions of different people when they casted their votes in the primaries. Nonetheless, here we are... a couple of weeks out and not much to choose from. Primary voters failed us. Neither of the 4 candidates are all that great. None of them are trustworthy. None of them are honest. Yet, I will vote for one simply because there have been too many brave souls who gave their lives for us to have this awesome right, regardless of how screwed up it can be at times. I'm not sure who I am voting for but I know who I am NOT voting for - Trump. Screw that clown lol.
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Oct 23, 2016 21:14:13 GMT -5
What exactly would you consider a 'non-biased' site? All the media has a built in bias, depending who their demographic is. Some flaunt it more than others, but all media has a slant. Anyone that tells you differently is selling something.
As I stated before, Obama did NOT want Hillary. He begged Joe who wouldn't run unless he knew 100% that Hillary would be indicted. After that, Elizabeth Warren and when she turned him down he had no choice. It is simple that he had no choice if he wanted any chance to keep his legacy.
The problem with the Clinton Foundation is that they list things like "other expenses" but don't go into details as to what those 'other expenses" are, but my previous examples of a new dress for someone would definitely fit into that or in Trump's case a 12 foot portrait of himself. That is the problem with reports like this, unless you do an audit of each expense, you'd never know. Still in 4 years $500 million taken in 290 million goes to 'other expenses'. I could give you several websites but I'm not if you would consider them biased or not.
Also according to their own tax returns, the Clintons have used their own foundation as a charity in which they have written off over 10 million dollars to. There remains many skeptics that would even call it a 'charity'. Charity Navigator put it on its list of 23 foundations/charities that were 'problematic', this list included Al Sharpton's charity which was cited for not paying payroll taxes. The biggest problem with their charity is the simple fact that while she was Secretary of State, the Foundation accepted money from several foreign governments. Many of these were not originally listed in their tax returns and only were revealed after many investigations and when the Foundation refiled their returns to show them. It should be noted that the Foundation has refiled their tax returns over the last 8 years a total of 6 different times, each time adding more donations that weren't originally disclosed. Finally Hillary signed a memorandum of agreement with Obama saying her foundation wouldn't accept such donations while she was Sec of State. Obviously the Foundation did, without telling Obama and were only revealed after she left government.
From what you are saying, I think you are not understanding how much actual power the Clintons and the Clinton name actually has. They are like the Kennedys when it comes to a family dynasty. They have been working for 30+ years and they have a lot of major allies. If you cross them, like many have, they have the ability to literally destroy you. The fun fact here is the media folk all know this, this is why they refer to things they do as "from the Clinton playbook." No one wanted to take on Hillary because they knew they would have to deal with her 'machine' and the slush fund she created known as the Clinton Foundation. Obama was a special case. He was probably the only person who could go against Hillary and come out a winner because like her, he was trying something history, to be the first black man to become President, just as she is trying to become the first woman. Simply put if a John Kerry or Jim Brown decided to take on Hillary, and lost, she would destroy them afterwards.
I suggest you just take a look at Bernie Sanders. See what happens after this election. My guess is he isn't going to win re-election the next time he is up for the Senate.
My true fear with a Hillary as President is that she will be blackmailed by foreign governments. You see she carried that little Blackberry with her to places like China and Russia. That Blackberry had direct access to her home server and it was unsecured. An unsecured Blackberry can be hacked in under 30 seconds with tech you buy at Radio Shack and software you can get online. Russia and China are of course far superior in their cyber capability. She walked right into their countries with her unsecured device. I'm 100% that they and probably other countries have all her emails and they are going to use that against her if/when she becomes President. The remaining countries and her administration I'm sure will be up for sale for Hillary has never done ANYTHING in her life that either doesn't enhance her own personal/Clinton name status or helps her financially. Sure she'll do charitable stuff, but only because it will humanize her and make her look better to the masses.
If there is one thing we have learned through the leaked emails from Podesta is that many of the things her campaign has done is an attempt to humanize her or make her more likeable. (Ie working to get her on the season premier of SNL and on Kimmel) They know she has a likeability problem and work very hard to spin it. We also know they have gone to great lengths to mask and hide her health problems as well as control the media. In the Clinton world you are either with them or an enemy which must be destroyed or discredited. A Hillary Presidency will be a reflection of that.
NOTE. I am not advocating for Trump in no means.
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Oct 24, 2016 2:06:31 GMT -5
What exactly would you consider a 'non-biased' site? All the media has a built in bias, depending who their demographic is. Some flaunt it more than others, but all media has a slant. Anyone that tells you differently is selling something. As I stated before, Obama did NOT want Hillary. He begged Joe who wouldn't run unless he knew 100% that Hillary would be indicted. After that, Elizabeth Warren and when she turned him down he had no choice. It is simple that he had no choice if he wanted any chance to keep his legacy. The problem with the Clinton Foundation is that they list things like "other expenses" but don't go into details as to what those 'other expenses" are, but my previous examples of a new dress for someone would definitely fit into that or in Trump's case a 12 foot portrait of himself. That is the problem with reports like this, unless you do an audit of each expense, you'd never know. Still in 4 years $500 million taken in 290 million goes to 'other expenses'. I could give you several websites but I'm not if you would consider them biased or not. Also according to their own tax returns, the Clintons have used their own foundation as a charity in which they have written off over 10 million dollars to. There remains many skeptics that would even call it a 'charity'. Charity Navigator put it on its list of 23 foundations/charities that were 'problematic', this list included Al Sharpton's charity which was cited for not paying payroll taxes. The biggest problem with their charity is the simple fact that while she was Secretary of State, the Foundation accepted money from several foreign governments. Many of these were not originally listed in their tax returns and only were revealed after many investigations and when the Foundation refiled their returns to show them. It should be noted that the Foundation has refiled their tax returns over the last 8 years a total of 6 different times, each time adding more donations that weren't originally disclosed. Finally Hillary signed a memorandum of agreement with Obama saying her foundation wouldn't accept such donations while she was Sec of State. Obviously the Foundation did, without telling Obama and were only revealed after she left government. From what you are saying, I think you are not understanding how much actual power the Clintons and the Clinton name actually has. They are like the Kennedys when it comes to a family dynasty. They have been working for 30+ years and they have a lot of major allies. If you cross them, like many have, they have the ability to literally destroy you. The fun fact here is the media folk all know this, this is why they refer to things they do as "from the Clinton playbook." No one wanted to take on Hillary because they knew they would have to deal with her 'machine' and the slush fund she created known as the Clinton Foundation. Obama was a special case. He was probably the only person who could go against Hillary and come out a winner because like her, he was trying something history, to be the first black man to become President, just as she is trying to become the first woman. Simply put if a John Kerry or Jim Brown decided to take on Hillary, and lost, she would destroy them afterwards. I suggest you just take a look at Bernie Sanders. See what happens after this election. My guess is he isn't going to win re-election the next time he is up for the Senate. My true fear with a Hillary as President is that she will be blackmailed by foreign governments. You see she carried that little Blackberry with her to places like China and Russia. That Blackberry had direct access to her home server and it was unsecured. An unsecured Blackberry can be hacked in under 30 seconds with tech you buy at Radio Shack and software you can get online. Russia and China are of course far superior in their cyber capability. She walked right into their countries with her unsecured device. I'm 100% that they and probably other countries have all her emails and they are going to use that against her if/when she becomes President. The remaining countries and her administration I'm sure will be up for sale for Hillary has never done ANYTHING in her life that either doesn't enhance her own personal/Clinton name status or helps her financially. Sure she'll do charitable stuff, but only because it will humanize her and make her look better to the masses. If there is one thing we have learned through the leaked emails from Podesta is that many of the things her campaign has done is an attempt to humanize her or make her more likeable. (Ie working to get her on the season premier of SNL and on Kimmel) They know she has a likeability problem and work very hard to spin it. We also know they have gone to great lengths to mask and hide her health problems as well as control the media. In the Clinton world you are either with them or an enemy which must be destroyed or discredited. A Hillary Presidency will be a reflection of that. NOTE. I am not advocating for Trump in no means. Sites like factcheck.org, politifact, snopes and even NPR would be a few non-biased sites. I can't claim to know what these people actually want. Whether Obama didn't want Hillary and begged Joe or anything else... who knows for sure. I try to be careful about drawing a line between what i know (supported fact) and what i think may be (my own speculations). This conversation we've had, which has been great, I've stayed in line with what I know and away from opinion because I wasn't trying to invoke any of my own side of things - except that Trump is a clown Way too many conspiracy theorists out there these days. From Bush orchestrating 9/11 to Hillary Clinton ordering the death of Justice Scalia. It's insanity with these people. They should be Hollywood script writers. As for the Clinton power... yea, they are influential but I'm not sold that they have any "power" over people. A bit of my own speculation is that's more myth than legend. I don't see them as the Underwoods from House of Cards (but I bet that show is loosely based on them lol). I don't give them that much credit. I have no fear of her being blackmailed by foreign governments because I haven't seen any proof that she was ever really hacked. A lot of "could have been" statements by a lot of people but no proof of any actual hack. I'd be more concerned about Trump being influenced because he may have taken loans from foreign leaders like Putin or his associates. I'll give Hillary credit for having more integrity on that than I will Trump. I would love to see emails from all the other campaigns. I'm sure they weren't all angels either.
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Oct 24, 2016 6:45:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mrooola on Oct 24, 2016 7:15:02 GMT -5
All I gotta say is that we all missed the boat with a credible candidate with Bernie Sanders, whether or not you agreed with him. Credible...did you see this?....
Sometimes it's hard to tell if someone is serious or not... I'm guessing you are not, but the reply suggests otherwise. Not sure if I even thought it was funny.
|
|
|
Post by SweetTeeBag on Oct 24, 2016 7:26:51 GMT -5
Credible...did you see this?....
Sometimes it's hard to tell if someone is serious or not... I'm guessing you are not, but the reply suggests otherwise. Not sure if I even thought it was funny. Yeah it was to be funny. 2 things I will rarely talk about is politics and religion as it usually turns into an all out war.
|
|
|
Post by tastegw on Oct 24, 2016 7:44:06 GMT -5
Npr pushes liberal agenda
|
|