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

Hilary blames everyone but herself
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



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.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



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.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 540



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: 8151
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: 1472
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: 19725



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.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7354
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: 7354
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: 19725



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.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
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.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



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.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
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.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7354
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: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15690
Location: OREGON (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.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"


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



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
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.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



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: 8407
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.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



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: 15690
Location: OREGON (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'.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


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 might be waking up.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/17 1:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So she's still at it.

According to AOL News, in her book

"She writes, in part, that Sanders’ frequent mentions of her well-compensated corporate speeches, “caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign." "


So, the problem wasn't her taking the cash for her well-compensated corporate speeches to Wall Street firms, it was Sanders mentioning it during the campaign.

If only she could have kept it hidden from the public, everything would have been ok.

Classic Hillary at her best. Never would occur to her that maybe she shouldn't have sold herself in the first place.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/17 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

and the beat goes on...



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.


Last edited by cthskzfn on 09/07/17 7:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
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