RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Hilary blames everyone but herself

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/17 11:25 pm    ::: Hilary blames everyone but herself Reply Reply with quote

So she gave an interview on why she lost the election. It's the Russians fault, it's Comey's fault, it's all due to misogyny, it's everybody's fault but hers.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with you being a shitty candidate who ran a shitty campaign.

Naaaa, that couldn't be it.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5978
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/17 11:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah. That was bad. It was almost Trump-like.

I don't mind her suggesting that all of those had a role in it, as I am sure they did. But ultimately you have to take some ownership. I kept waiting for her to say something like: "But in the end it all comes down to me. I had to do better. Be better. And we failed." Hell, even throw in a good barb at Trump: "I feel like I let the American people down, letting them get stuck with such a terrible president. We dropped the ball at the worst possible time."



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/17 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's not Hillary's fault she lost. I'm confident Hillary voted for Hillary.

It's the fault of the people who didn't vote for her that she lost.

Regardless, she does talk about what she needed to do better. .

https://www.yahoo.com/news/misogyny-played-role-election-loss-clinton-233904460.html



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/17 6:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hillary doubles down.

Repeats again today that it wasn't her fault. It was Comey's and the Russians.

Classic Hillary. Never met a responsibility she was willing to accept. This arrogance is precisely why she lost.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5978
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/17 7:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There is significant data to suggest that Comey (and the media's reaction to his letter) cost her the election. It seems very likely that had the election taken place on October 27, she would be president.

However, and this is a huge "however", it was HER fault that the election was so close as to turn on such things. It's like blaming the refs for a questionable call at the end of the game. Do what it takes to not be in that position. There were so many missteps and regrettable choices along the way that need to be acknowledged and addressed, and saying it was "Comey's fault" is missing the forest for the trees.

It would be like me dumping a bunch of flamable liquids out in a forest and then blaming the fact that lightning struck for causing the massive forest fire.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/17 11:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Hillary doubles down.

Repeats again today that it wasn't her fault. It was Comey's and the Russians.

Classic Hillary. Never met a responsibility she was willing to accept. This arrogance is precisely why she lost.


Lmao

You didn't actually watch the interview did you. She told no lies.

You sound like every other Misogynist foaming at the mouth whenever she speaks. It's gross.

Justin, I'm curious..are you this critical about Sanders not taking full responsibility? because last I checked, him and his supporters are still falsely blaming the DNC.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 8:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Hillary doubles down.

Repeats again today that it wasn't her fault. It was Comey's and the Russians.

Classic Hillary. Never met a responsibility she was willing to accept. This arrogance is precisely why she lost.


Lmao

You didn't actually watch the interview did you. She told no lies.

You sound like every other Misogynist foaming at the mouth whenever she speaks. It's gross.

Justin, I'm curious..are you this critical about Sanders not taking full responsibility? because last I checked, him and his supporters are still falsely blaming the DNC.


I see you dug out that Hillary playbook again.
Turn realty on its head, deny responsibility, sling some slurs, and, attack, attack, attack. Hillary would be proud of you. Laughing Laughing Laughing


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8073
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 9:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Came here expecting the usual Hillary-hating male commentary and wasn't disappointed.

Denial of the impact of (and motivation for) Comey's red herring email statement when Clinton was up 13 pts, and of Comey's (along w/ McTurtle and the boys') refusal to do the same re: the investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign is a critical component for any Clinton campaign basher.

Malcolm Nance's book "The Plot to Hack America" may be useful.

All but the duped demented know Trump is an incompetent moron acting as POTUS.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 9:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The most hilarious parts of the "it's not my fault" bullshit is:

1). If Podesta and her other cronies hadn't been playing games, and if she hadn't been telling her big money backers "don't pay any attention to what I say publicly, I'm not really going to do any of that stuff", there wouldn't have been anything about which to be embarrassed by WikiLeaks. She just got caught with her hand in the cookie jar, that's all. It's still her own damn fault. Whining about how the truth came out is ridiculous.

2) If her own arrogance, obsession with secrecy, and attempt to circumvent public disclosure rules hadn't compelled her to use a PC in her home closet for her official business, there never would have been an FBI investigation, and if she'd actually complied with the various subpoenas and produced the emails in the first place instead of resorting to her usual obstruct, obfuscate, conceal, delay tactics, there wouldn't have been a late-discovered batch for Comey to write about. It too is still all her own fault.

And neither Comey nor the Russians told her not to campaign in the Midwest. That was her own arrogance.

BTW, here's a good article on some of the emails from that notoriously right wing pro-GOP group, the British Broadcasting Company -
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5978
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 11:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Justin, I'm curious..are you this critical about Sanders not taking full responsibility? because last I checked, him and his supporters are still falsely blaming the DNC.

These are two wholly different situations that share little in common. And even so, I am annoyed by the whole "blame the DNC" bit. I think the DNC made a tragic error in their choices, but it serves no one to blame them for it all. There were many other factors also at work.

But Sanders was in a much different position than Clinton. Sanders was always the underdog in this election. Going into it he was largely unknown. And yet he put together a furious charge against all odds and made it a competitive race. And he did it against a DNC that had pretty much already anointed Clinton as the nominee.

So when we look back at the Sanders campaign, and we look for missteps, there really aren't any to find. He did just about as well as was possible under the circumstances; in fact, he did far better than anyone thought possible (likely even he and his campaign staff) going into it.

Clinton, on the other hand, should have won this election running away. She was going up against a despised man that was a historically bad candidate. And unlike Sanders, there are numerous places were we can see she made terrible missteps that cost her what should have been a landslide in her favor. Some of those were outside of her control, some of them were directly her fault, and some of them were consequences of her own making.

Ultimately, the "why she lost" narrative is only important going forward. The problem with blaming Comey and the Media's reaction to it is that it seems to be saying "we'll be fine in the future as long as Comey and the Russians are non-factors". And that is false. What they need to be doing is figuring out why they hemorrhaged Obama voters, especially in the Midwest. And yes, recognize that the next time the party has a choice between one of the most disliked candidates in history and the candidate that has proven to be the most popular person in Washington, maybe not throw their weight behind the unpopular one.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13652
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
So while one can debate the magnitude of the effect, there’s a reasonably clear consensus of the evidence that the Comey letter mattered6 — probably by enough to swing the election. This ought not be one of the more controversial facts about the 2016 campaign; the data is pretty straightforward.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
And yes, recognize that the next time the party has a choice between one of the most disliked candidates in history and the candidate that has proven to be the most popular person in Washington, maybe not throw their weight behind the unpopular one.


So you think that the Democratic party should have united behind Biden? So do I.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53887
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
And yes, recognize that the next time the party has a choice between one of the most disliked candidates in history and the candidate that has proven to be the most popular person in Washington, maybe not throw their weight behind the unpopular one.


So you think that the Democratic party should have united behind Biden? So do I.


It's hard to unite behind a guy who's not running



_________________
I'm not afraid of anyone. I'm not shy about anything. Not even my big nose.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Quote:
So while one can debate the magnitude of the effect, there’s a reasonably clear consensus of the evidence that the Comey letter mattered6 — probably by enough to swing the election. This ought not be one of the more controversial facts about the 2016 campaign; the data is pretty straightforward.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/


Even if we were to assume this is true (a dubious proposition at best), focusing on Comey and his letter completely ignores where the true responsibility for the entire imbroglio lies.

If Clinton had for once in her life stepped up to the plate, accepted responsibility for her (at a minimum) errors in judgement, honestly cooperated with the investigation, and complied with the various subpoenas and document requests, the entire affair would have been water under the bridge a year before the election. There wouldn't have been any new information and new discoveries or new letters pushing up against the election.

As the BBC writes concerning the email exchange between Podesta and Neera Tanden:

"In the email exchange, Mr Podesta also complained that Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall, and former State Department staffers Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines "sure weren't forthcoming here on the facts here". Mrs Tanden responds "Why didn't' they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy."

She later answered her own question saying, "I guess I know the answer. They wanted to get away with it.""


And this assessment of Hillary's "terrible instincts" didn't come from Republican enemies, it came from her closest friends and advisers.

Focusing on the Comey letter is just a diversionary excuse. Comey didn't create the mess; his letter just refocused some people on it at an inconvenient time. There never would have been a letter, there never would have been issue by the time the election rolled around, but for Hillary's own arrogance and standard lifelong tactics. Hillary dug her own grave.

But she'll never admit it or accept responsibility. It will always be somebody else's fault. That's the way she rolls.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Clinton Derangement Syndrome.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13652
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
Quote:
So while one can debate the magnitude of the effect, there’s a reasonably clear consensus of the evidence that the Comey letter mattered6 — probably by enough to swing the election. This ought not be one of the more controversial facts about the 2016 campaign; the data is pretty straightforward.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/


Even if we were to assume this is true (a dubious proposition at best), focusing on Comey and his letter completely ignores where the true responsibility for the entire imbroglio lies.

If Clinton had for once in her life stepped up to the plate, accepted responsibility for her (at a minimum) errors in judgement, honestly cooperated with the investigation, and complied with the various subpoenas and document requests, the entire affair would have been water under the bridge a year before the election. There wouldn't have been any new information and new discoveries or new letters pushing up against the election.

As the BBC writes concerning the email exchange between Podesta and Neera Tanden:

"In the email exchange, Mr Podesta also complained that Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall, and former State Department staffers Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines "sure weren't forthcoming here on the facts here". Mrs Tanden responds "Why didn't' they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy."

She later answered her own question saying, "I guess I know the answer. They wanted to get away with it.""


And this assessment of Hillary's "terrible instincts" didn't come from Republican enemies, it came from her closest friends and advisers.

Focusing on the Comey letter is just a diversionary excuse. Comey didn't create the mess; his letter just refocused some people on it at an inconvenient time. There never would have been a letter, there never would have been issue by the time the election rolled around, but for Hillary's own arrogance and standard lifelong tactics. Hillary dug her own grave.

But she'll never admit it or accept responsibility. It will always be somebody else's fault. That's the way she rolls.


If only the piece that I posted and you responded to had addressed this ...


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Nobody seems to want to address this simple reality.

Yelling "it was Comey's fault" completely ignores the reason WHY Comey's letter existed or was news. It was only because Hillary had been playing hide-the-ball for two years. If, as her own people like Podesta and Tanden discussed, all this stuff had been out in the open 18 months before, there would have been no news. Or, if in the unlikely event the disclosure had actually mattered to the electorate, the Democrats would have had plenty of time to choose a different candidate. Either way, there would have been no late-in-the-game Comey letter to talk about.

The only person responsible for Hillary's loss is Hillary.


Richard 77



Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 3707
Location: Lake Mills, Wisconsin


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Nobody seems to want to address this simple reality.

Yelling "it was Comey's fault" completely ignores the reason WHY Comey's letter existed or was news. It was only because Hillary had been playing hide-the-ball for two years. If, as her own people like Podesta and Tanden discussed, all this stuff had been out in the open 18 months before, there would have been no news. Or, if in the unlikely event the disclosure had actually mattered to the electorate, the Democrats would have had plenty of time to choose a different candidate. Either way, there would have been no late-in-the-game Comey letter to talk about.

The only person responsible for Hillary's loss is Hillary.


No. Hillary wasn't the only one to blame. She was a part of the problem, but only one part of the problem.



_________________
If you cannot inspire yourself to read a book about women's basketball, or any book about women's sports, you cannot inspire any young girl or boy to write a book about them. http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Richardstrek
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 4:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
And yes, recognize that the next time the party has a choice between one of the most disliked candidates in history and the candidate that has proven to be the most popular person in Washington, maybe not throw their weight behind the unpopular one.


So you think that the Democratic party should have united behind Biden? So do I.


It's hard to unite behind a guy who's not running


If the party establishment and money men (largely controlled by the Clinton machine) hadn't anointed Hillary early on, Biden might well have come to a different conclusion. When he decided not to run, she appeared to be a shoe-in both for the nomination, and to easily beat whichever Republican survived their mess of nomination process. That assessment greatly underestimated her unpopularity and did not foresee her horrible campaign.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 6:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Nobody seems to want to address this simple reality.

Yelling "it was Comey's fault" completely ignores the reason WHY Comey's letter existed or was news. It was only because Hillary had been playing hide-the-ball for two years. If, as her own people like Podesta and Tanden discussed, all this stuff had been out in the open 18 months before, there would have been no news. Or, if in the unlikely event the disclosure had actually mattered to the electorate, the Democrats would have had plenty of time to choose a different candidate. Either way, there would have been no late-in-the-game Comey letter to talk about.


Bullshit. If she had been "out in the open" there would have been a new fake Clinton scandal.

ArtBest23 wrote:

The only person responsible for Hillary's loss is Hillary.


LOL. Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Anyone assigning complete blame to any particular piece of the Trump puzzle has an agenda.

You continue to ignore that she has taken responsibility. She has just also acknowledged things outside of her control..which quite frankly, played a larger role in her loss than she did.

BTW: Love the "She should have campaigned in the midwest." Ignores reality and math.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10538
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/17 11:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/03/obama-adviser-axelrod-clinton-election-loss-trump-comey/22067535/

"President Barack Obama's former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told CNN on Wednesday that Hillary Clinton should take full responsibility for her mistakes in the 2016 campaign, noting that "it takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump."



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 11:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/03/obama-adviser-axelrod-clinton-election-loss-trump-comey/22067535/

"President Barack Obama's former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told CNN on Wednesday that Hillary Clinton should take full responsibility for her mistakes in the 2016 campaign, noting that "it takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump."


He also said -

"Jim Comey didn't tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. . . . Jim Comey didn't say 'don't put any resources into Michigan until the final week of the campaign.'"


I guess it's just another obvious case of "Clinton Derangement Syndrome". Rolling Eyes Laughing Laughing Laughing

I'd say "Clinton refusal to accept responsibility syndrome" seems to be more common among her zealots.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8073
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 12:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Let's see....emails on a server, done like most before her,

VS

Russian hacking and releasing only info denigrating the Clinton campaign and possible connection with Trump campaign

AND

FBI director et al refusing to acknowledge one investigation (Russia hack/Trump campaign) and then FBI director releasing Oct. 28 letter re: Wiener's laptop emails which later proved to be NOTHING OF IMPORT OR INTEREST.

Those who argue the significance/impact of the duplicitous dealing by Comey w/ respect to these two issues are as full of shit as House Republicans claiming today "Trump Care" is anything other than a tax cut for their wealthy donors.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 53887
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Let's see....emails on a server, done like most before her


Yes, so you can quit protesting when people say Dems and Reps are the same. They both do the same bullshit.



_________________
I'm not afraid of anyone. I'm not shy about anything. Not even my big nose.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8073
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 12:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
Let's see....emails on a server, done like most before her


Yes, so you can quit protesting when people say Dems and Reps are the same. They both do the same bullshit.


Yeah, they both shit with their pants down, too. You really got me. Laughing



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8073
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 1:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And, btw, I've argued for decades the two are flip sides of the same coin. I say that Democrats suck but republicans suck more.

Be honest Pilight. There's a difference. And you know it.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 4:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Clinton derangement syndrome crosses party lines. It's a (mostly) white male affliction.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 4:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
And, btw, I've argued for decades the two are flip sides of the same coin. I say that Democrats suck but republicans suck more.

Be honest Pilight. There's a difference. And you know it.


Don't be silly..I mean for instance..let's look at the healthcare plans from either side..exactly the same.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 293



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 4:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump has brought up the election results, what, every other day, no?
Hillary responds once.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-takes-blame-but-points-to-comey-russia-sexism-for-election-loss-1493760050
Hillary Clinton Takes Blame ...
Hillary Clinton took the blame for her election defeat in comments Tuesday ...

Did not know the Wall Street Journal was now a pinko-commie org.



http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-clinton-blames-misogyny-fbi-russia-1493751381-htmlstory.html
Clinton blames the FBI, Russia, WikiLeaks and also herself for 2016 loss.
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday took some responsibility for her historic loss in the presidential election.


Full video of the event, is now up on youtube. I'm sure a transcript will be along soon enough.

It's all in the framing, and who's doing the dirtywork for whom --- intentional or otherwise.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3588
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 4:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Clinton derangement syndrome crosses party lines. It's a (mostly) white male affliction.


Trump won white women 53% to Clinton's 43%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-white-women-we-messed-this-up-election-2016_us_582341c9e4b0aac62488970e
akronborn



Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 1452
Location: Right Hynaw -- Cartman


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 6:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The tally is going up, it's B. Clinton's fault:https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4f96769b-fcd3-3236-8f77-1d8b688a3b32/ss_the-decision-bill-clinton.html

Glad I avoided 4-8 years of this.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/17 8:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Clinton derangement syndrome crosses party lines. It's a (mostly) white male affliction.


Trump won white women 53% to Clinton's 43%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-white-women-we-messed-this-up-election-2016_us_582341c9e4b0aac62488970e


1. Clinton Derangement Syndrome isn't the act of voting for Trump. It's the foaming at the mouth and subsequent twisting and criticism of every fucking thing Clinton says. It's not an exclusive white male problem, but it's seems to be a vast majority.

2. It's nice of you to bring that up. With all the talk of "who is to blame.." Comey, the Media, Hillary, Russia..the actual voters aren't talked about it much. Which is silly..they vote. It's funny that minorities weren't fooled by Russia, wikileaks, Donalds gaslighting..and seemed to like Hillary well enough.

So yes..let's talk about how Donald Trump..a man spouting bigotry..literally being supported by white supremacists..won a majority of white people..no matter how much you slice up the demographic. (Except educated white women, but even that was only barely.) What exactly does that say?

We won't accurately get to the bottom of "what went wrong" until THAT question is answered. And quite frankly, when discussing data analysis.."economic anxiety" was not the cause.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5152
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/09/17 1:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Clinton derangement syndrome crosses party lines. It's a (mostly) white male affliction.


Trump won white women 53% to Clinton's 43%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-white-women-we-messed-this-up-election-2016_us_582341c9e4b0aac62488970e


1. Clinton Derangement Syndrome isn't the act of voting for Trump. It's the foaming at the mouth and subsequent twisting and criticism of every fucking thing Clinton says. It's not an exclusive white male problem, but it's seems to be a vast majority.

2. It's nice of you to bring that up. With all the talk of "who is to blame.." Comey, the Media, Hillary, Russia..the actual voters aren't talked about it much. Which is silly..they vote. It's funny that minorities weren't fooled by Russia, wikileaks, Donalds gaslighting..and seemed to like Hillary well enough.

So yes..let's talk about how Donald Trump..a man spouting bigotry..literally being supported by white supremacists..won a majority of white people..no matter how much you slice up the demographic. (Except educated white women, but even that was only barely.) What exactly does that say?

We won't accurately get to the bottom of "what went wrong" until THAT question is answered. And quite frankly, when discussing data analysis.."economic anxiety" was not the cause.


I am not male and have been ardently feminist my entire adult life - including right now. Dislike for HRC comes from so many different directions, it's hard to pinpoint and includes MANY feminists like me. The fact that she is so disliked made her a VERY BAD candidate. PERIOD. You can scream till the cows come home that we are all misogynists and misogyny does explain some of the dislike of her, but FAR from all of it.

This HRC whining is extremely unbecoming and does not help with electing good candidates in the future. A simple "Their dirty tricks were better than our dirty tricks" would suffice. And, the last thing the resistance needs right now is HRC. If she wants to leverage money behind the scenes, that's what she does best. So just do it and keep quiet.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5152
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/09/17 1:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
Clinton derangement syndrome crosses party lines. It's a (mostly) white male affliction.


Trump won white women 53% to Clinton's 43%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-white-women-we-messed-this-up-election-2016_us_582341c9e4b0aac62488970e


1. Clinton Derangement Syndrome isn't the act of voting for Trump. It's the foaming at the mouth and subsequent twisting and criticism of every fucking thing Clinton says. It's not an exclusive white male problem, but it's seems to be a vast majority.

2. It's nice of you to bring that up. With all the talk of "who is to blame.." Comey, the Media, Hillary, Russia..the actual voters aren't talked about it much. Which is silly..they vote. It's funny that minorities weren't fooled by Russia, wikileaks, Donalds gaslighting..and seemed to like Hillary well enough.

So yes..let's talk about how Donald Trump..a man spouting bigotry..literally being supported by white supremacists..won a majority of white people..no matter how much you slice up the demographic. (Except educated white women, but even that was only barely.) What exactly does that say?

We won't accurately get to the bottom of "what went wrong" until THAT question is answered. And quite frankly, when discussing data analysis.."economic anxiety" was not the cause.


I am not male and have been ardently feminist my entire adult life - including right now. Dislike for HRC comes from so many different directions, it's hard to pinpoint and includes MANY feminists like me. The fact that she is so disliked made her a VERY BAD candidate. PERIOD. You can scream till the cows come home that we are all misogynists and misogyny does explain some of the dislike of her, but FAR from all of it.

This HRC whining is extremely unbecoming and does not help with electing good candidates in the future. A simple "Their dirty tricks were better than our dirty tricks" would suffice. And, the last thing the resistance needs right now is HRC. If she wants to leverage money behind the scenes, that's what she does best. So just do it and keep quiet.


Do you think those who voted against LePen were also misogynists?



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/09/17 6:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:


This HRC whining is extremely unbecoming and does not help with electing good candidates in the future. A simple "Their dirty tricks were better than our dirty tricks" would suffice. And, the last thing the resistance needs right now is HRC. If she wants to leverage money behind the scenes, that's what she does best. So just do it and keep quiet.



Yeah, that sounds pretty misogynistic.

The Resistance is made up of Clinton voters.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5978
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/09/17 6:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
readyAIMfire53 wrote:


This HRC whining is extremely unbecoming and does not help with electing good candidates in the future. A simple "Their dirty tricks were better than our dirty tricks" would suffice. And, the last thing the resistance needs right now is HRC. If she wants to leverage money behind the scenes, that's what she does best. So just do it and keep quiet.



Yeah, that sounds pretty misogynistic.

The Resistance is made up of Clinton voters.

How is that misogynistic? It is not misogynistic to hate HRC. It is misogynistic to hate her because she is a women. It is not misogynistic to think that she specifically needs to keep quiet and out of the spotlight; it is misogynistic if this is because she is a woman.

The whole misogyny angle is logically inconsistent when in the next breath they are asking Elizabeth Warren to lead the charge and commending her on speaking up. Sometimes a detestable person is just detestable for their own reasons. Le Pen comes to mind as a good example.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/09/17 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
readyAIMfire53 wrote:


This HRC whining is extremely unbecoming and does not help with electing good candidates in the future. A simple "Their dirty tricks were better than our dirty tricks" would suffice. And, the last thing the resistance needs right now is HRC. If she wants to leverage money behind the scenes, that's what she does best. So just do it and keep quiet.



Yeah, that sounds pretty misogynistic.

The Resistance is made up of Clinton voters.

How is that misogynistic? It is not misogynistic to hate HRC. It is misogynistic to hate her because she is a women. It is not misogynistic to think that she specifically needs to keep quiet and out of the spotlight; it is misogynistic if this is because she is a woman.

The whole misogyny angle is logically inconsistent when in the next breath they are asking Elizabeth Warren to lead the charge and commending her on speaking up. Sometimes a detestable person is just detestable for their own reasons. Le Pen comes to mind as a good example.


Actually, since Sanders supporters love polls so much..they did a poll that suggested that any random Democrat would have a better chance at the nomination than Elizabeth Warren. Because women look like good options until they are actually an option.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/poll-trump-democrats-elizabeth-warren-235026

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, you can't separate the hate from the misogyny attached to it. (Getting into it would involve writing a book). Yes, even from women. She is hated because she is an ambitious woman. Period. Her faults are no worse (and most of the time better) than her male colleagues. And yet she is demonized. Figure it out.

Likewise, telling the first female nominee (from a major party) to shut up, is pretty damn misogynistic. Particularly when we are talking about a person who has spent her entire life fighting injustices, and whom many people (believe it or not) find inspiring.

And comparing Clinton to Le Pen is gross. But, that doesn't mean Le Pen (or other horrid women) isn't subject to sexism. A big example is Palin. Who was, and continues to be, subject to extreme sexist attacks.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5978
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/09/17 11:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:

Likewise, telling the first female nominee (from a major party) to shut up, is pretty damn misogynistic. Particularly when we are talking about a person who has spent her entire life fighting injustices, and whom many people (believe it or not) find inspiring.

No, it's not. That's not how misogyny works. People are allowed to not like other individuals. Just because that person happens to be a woman, does not automatically make the person who dislikes them misogynistic.

Are there people out there who dislike Clinton and that are misogynists? Absolutely. By here you are concluding that rAf's statement is couched in misogyny, even though she is offering a personal opinion about a specific leader that she does not like. So why is it misogyny to dislike Clinton and want her to not be a public face of the democratic party anymore, and not misogyny to feel that Ann Coulter is gross and needs to shut up (even to the point where people will protest her speaking)?

The easy test for misogyny is to see if people would be saying the same thing about a male political figure who was in Clinton's place. And I think it fair to say that a good chunk of people would be telling him to be quiet and take a backseat. I really don't think you grasp just how much HRC is reviled by a sizeable portion of the country. Way more than can be blamed on sexist assholes.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5152
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/19/17 6:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Likewise, telling the first female nominee (from a major party) to shut up, is pretty damn misogynistic. Particularly when we are talking about a person who has spent her entire life fighting injustices, and whom many people (believe it or not) find inspiring.

No, it's not. That's not how misogyny works. People are allowed to not like other individuals. Just because that person happens to be a woman, does not automatically make the person who dislikes them misogynistic.

Are there people out there who dislike Clinton and that are misogynists? Absolutely. By here you are concluding that rAf's statement is couched in misogyny, even though she is offering a personal opinion about a specific leader that she does not like. So why is it misogyny to dislike Clinton and want her to not be a public face of the democratic party anymore, and not misogyny to feel that Ann Coulter is gross and needs to shut up (even to the point where people will protest her speaking)?

The easy test for misogyny is to see if people would be saying the same thing about a male political figure who was in Clinton's place. And I think it fair to say that a good chunk of people would be telling him to be quiet and take a backseat. I really don't think you grasp just how much HRC is reviled by a sizeable portion of the country. Way more than can be blamed on sexist assholes.


Thank you justintyme for understanding my viewpoint on HRC. Hearing her say she was part of the resistance was bizarre. No, you're not. Because that would cause too many to run away and we need to win. I dream of a woman candidate who has the kind of personality that attracts people rather than repels them. The female Obama. This woman might be white, but probably won't be. Welcome to the (soon to be) non-white majority.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8073
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/19/17 9:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

Likewise, telling the first female nominee (from a major party) to shut up, is pretty damn misogynistic. Particularly when we are talking about a person who has spent her entire life fighting injustices, and whom many people (believe it or not) find inspiring.

No, it's not. That's not how misogyny works. People are allowed to not like other individuals. Just because that person happens to be a woman, does not automatically make the person who dislikes them misogynistic.

Are there people out there who dislike Clinton and that are misogynists? Absolutely. By here you are concluding that rAf's statement is couched in misogyny, even though she is offering a personal opinion about a specific leader that she does not like. So why is it misogyny to dislike Clinton and want her to not be a public face of the democratic party anymore, and not misogyny to feel that Ann Coulter is gross and needs to shut up (even to the point where people will protest her speaking)?

The easy test for misogyny is to see if people would be saying the same thing about a male political figure who was in Clinton's place. And I think it fair to say that a good chunk of people would be telling him to be quiet and take a backseat. I really don't think you grasp just how much HRC is reviled by a sizeable portion of the country. Way more than can be blamed on sexist assholes.


Thank you justintyme for understanding my viewpoint on HRC. Hearing her say she was part of the resistance was bizarre. No, you're not. Because that would cause too many to run away and we need to win. I dream of a woman candidate who has the kind of personality that attracts people rather than repels them. The female Obama. This woman might be white, but probably won't be. Welcome to the (soon to be) non-white majority.


HRC was a desirable candidate when juxtaposed with the current Snowflake/Dunce/Baby/Grifter/Douche-In-Chief. The past 118(?) days have made that clear to all but the brainwashed/braindead.

Otherwise, she was the personification/face of the Wall St Democratic Party machine. I don't like her much. But compared to the Real Criminal in the White House, I adore her.

Bernie was the only Democratic candidate worth supporting, imo.

That said, the double-standard re: Clinton is obvious, tiresome, and pathetic.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10538
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/21/17 3:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
HRC was a desirable candidate when juxtaposed with the current Snowflake/Dunce/Baby/Grifter/Douche-In-Chief. The past 118(?) days have made that clear to all but the brainwashed/braindead.

Otherwise, she was the personification/face of the Wall St Democratic Party machine. I don't like her much. But compared to the Real Criminal in the White House, I adore her.

Bernie was the only Democratic candidate worth supporting, imo.

That said, the double-standard re: Clinton is obvious, tiresome, and pathetic.


ALL of this, x 1000. _________________________________ Cool

justintyme wrote:
I really don't think you grasp just how much HRC is reviled by a sizeable portion of the country.


I know *I* certainly will never grasp the 'how much', nor the WHY!!! Though I'm generally over this conversation amongst personal friends, I did just have dinner with one of the very few Republican friends I respect for their intelligence. I know his biggest concerns were 2nd amendment-related, but when I pressed him with WHAT/WHY, precisely, was Hillary so "evil", there were no obvious explanations made. I have yet, to this day, never met anyone who can give me ANY reason or characteristic about her that is egregious enough to NOT vote for her, ESPECIALLY, as mentioned above, in the context of whom she ran against. And, til I'm shown something convincing, I will always believe there's a VERY special Hell for any "Christians" or gays who voted for Trump.

PLEASE: someone tell me ONE EVIL THING SHE DID that was not fabricated by Donald or Fox news.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire


Last edited by Howee on 05/21/17 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5978
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/21/17 4:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:

PLEASE: someone tell me ONE EVIL THING SHE DID that was not fabricated by Donald or Fox news.

I don't think most people feel that she is "evil", at least outside of right wing media. I think most people dislike/hate her because they feel that she is shady. It's the same reason most people dislike/hate Trump (though with Trump there is a lot more factual reasons to feel that way).

Ultimately, I think it just cones down to perception of personality. There is a perception of Clinton as being secretive and being mutable in her stances and ideas (backed up by things like having a public and a private position on things). This is all fed by her reaction to Republican spin/accusations. When she is made the center of some issue, her instinct is to pull her cards inward and hold them close rather than open herself up. This gives the impression of having something to hide, whether true or not.

"Truth" matters so little in politics (and in life in general). It is all about perception and the image that a very large chunk of the country has of her is not a favorable one.

Is it fair? Probably not. But the fact that being a leader is as much playing a role and convincing people of who you are as anything else has been a subject since Shakespeare and beyond.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/21/17 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
This is all fed by her reaction to Republican spin/accusations.


Bullshit.

As but two examples:

The Republicans didn't have anything to do with her sweetheart Tyson's food commodities trading.

The Republicans didn't have anything to do with her vanishing subpoenaed law firm billing records that just happened to show up in the White House.

This same stuff has been going on since the 70s. Her playing hide-the-ball in response to the subpoenas for her emails is right out of the same playbook she's followed for forty years. She evidently thinks the law is just an inconvenience for her to try and weasel her way around. Honesty and candor are not part of her vocabulary.

And then she and her cult followers always want to blame someone else for her own character defects.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5978
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/21/17 7:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
This is all fed by her reaction to Republican spin/accusations.


Bullshit.

As but two examples:

The Republicans didn't have anything to do with her sweetheart Tyson's food commodities trading.

The Republicans didn't have anything to do with her vanishing subpoenaed law firm billing records that just happened to show up in the White House.

This same stuff has been going on since the 70s. Her playing hide-the-ball in response to the subpoenas for her emails is right out of the same playbook she's followed for forty years. She evidently thinks the law is just an inconvenience for her to try and weasel her way around. Honesty and candor are not part of her vocabulary.

And then she and her cult followers always want to blame someone else for her own character defects.

But these examples feed exactly what I was talking about. Neither of them were proof of anything. What they were was things that could be signs of skirting the law. So it comes down to trust. If someone who was fully trusted did these things, people would shrug them off (excluding the natural cynics who believe that almost everyone is corrupt). Yet if it is someone who is generally disliked or not trusted, these things become damning in their eyes. They become obvious attempts to weasel around the law.

But my larger point is that none of this matters because perception is everything. It is a leader's responsibility to manage their reputations. It is no one else's fault if it becomes tarnished, because that is the entire name of the game in politics. And it has always been so.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/21/17 9:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
This is all fed by her reaction to Republican spin/accusations.


Bullshit.

As but two examples:

The Republicans didn't have anything to do with her sweetheart Tyson's food commodities trading.

The Republicans didn't have anything to do with her vanishing subpoenaed law firm billing records that just happened to show up in the White House.

This same stuff has been going on since the 70s. Her playing hide-the-ball in response to the subpoenas for her emails is right out of the same playbook she's followed for forty years. She evidently thinks the law is just an inconvenience for her to try and weasel her way around. Honesty and candor are not part of her vocabulary.

And then she and her cult followers always want to blame someone else for her own character defects.

But these examples feed exactly what I was talking about. Neither of them were proof of anything. What they were was things that could be signs of skirting the law. So it comes down to trust. If someone who was fully trusted did these things, people would shrug them off (excluding the natural cynics who believe that almost everyone is corrupt). Yet if it is someone who is generally disliked or not trusted, these things become damning in their eyes. They become obvious attempts to weasel around the law.

But my larger point is that none of this matters because perception is everything. It is a leader's responsibility to manage their reputations. It is no one else's fault if it becomes tarnished, because that is the entire name of the game in politics. And it has always been so.


Are you serious? There was more "proof" than there is about any Trump allegations.

Oh, a subpoena for my billing records? I have no idea where they could be ( and anyone who has ever worked in a big law firm knows that is not even remotely plausible.). Oh, they're in my office in the White House? Now how could they have gotten there? I have no idea.

John Mitchell demonstrated that lying that you don't know is every bit as much perjury and obstruction as any other lie.

If you think there's no proof, I have a bridge to sell you.

And it was admitted that she knew zip about commodities options, was told what to trade by Tysons Foods execs, starting with $1000 (far under CME margin requirements) made more money in six months than their combined annual income, and hubby then gave special treatment to Tysons as AG and Governor.

That's a lot more certainly bribery then telling Comey "I hope you can find your way to get past this" is obstruction of justice.

No proof. That's a laugh.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10538
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/21/17 10:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

And it was admitted that she knew zip about commodities options, was told what to trade by Tysons Foods execs, starting with $1000 (far under CME margin requirements) made more money in six months than their combined annual income, and hubby then gave special treatment to Tysons as AG and Governor.

That's a lot more certainly bribery then telling Comey "I hope you can find your way to get past this" is obstruction of justice.


....and....lemme guess.....that's the BEST ya got? Rolling Eyes OooohhHH! I'm shocked they didn't shoot her right on the fricken spot where she hid all those documents. POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL GAIN BY UNETHICAL METHODS: It's the American Way.

The Tyson Deal was not considered ILLEGAL, though 'shady' applies. I still don't know how it compares unfavorably to her opponent's dealings/character. I will never contend she's a candidate for sainthood. But we MUST elect people who are competent in the field of governing AND OF THE 2 OPTIONS she was the better choice....AND WAAAAY LESS 'EVIL'.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8073
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/22/17 9:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:

And it was admitted that she knew zip about commodities options, was told what to trade by Tysons Foods execs, starting with $1000 (far under CME margin requirements) made more money in six months than their combined annual income, and hubby then gave special treatment to Tysons as AG and Governor.

That's a lot more certainly bribery then telling Comey "I hope you can find your way to get past this" is obstruction of justice.


....and....lemme guess.....that's the BEST ya got? Rolling Eyes OooohhHH! I'm shocked they didn't shoot her right on the fricken spot where she hid all those documents. POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL GAIN BY UNETHICAL METHODS: It's the American Way.

The Tyson Deal was not considered ILLEGAL, though 'shady' applies. I still don't know how it compares unfavorably to her opponent's dealings/character. I will never contend she's a candidate for sainthood. But we MUST elect people who are competent in the field of governing AND OF THE 2 OPTIONS she was the better choice....AND WAAAAY LESS 'EVIL'.




Again, clear to all but the brainwashed/dead.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8073
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 8:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Classic, if true:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-dubious-russian-document-influenced-the-fbis-handling-of-the-clinton-probe/2017/05/24/f375c07c-3a95-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.bb8f95cc4a83


A secret document that officials say played a key role in then-FBI Director James B. Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has long been viewed within the FBI as unreliable and possibly a fake, according to people familiar with its contents.

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season, the FBI received what was described as a Russian intelligence document claiming a tacit understanding between the Clinton campaign and the Justice Department over the inquiry into whether she intentionally revealed classified information through her use of a private email server.

The Russian document cited a supposed email describing how then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had privately assured someone in the Clinton campaign that the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter. If true, the revelation of such an understanding would have undermined the integrity of the FBI’s investigation.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin