American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
Also, what is it? Day 268 now without a press conference from Hillary. Unheard of for a presidential candidate.
Not it's not. Why your obsession with a "press conference" anyway? Clinton talks to the press every day. Neither candidate has "press conferences" in the sense of a free for all. You have to control the message, don't you get that?unrepentant said:
Not it's not. Why your obsession with a "press conference" anyway? Clinton talks to the press every day. Neither candidate has "press conferences" in the sense of a free for all. You have to control the message, don't you get that?
Even the WP seems unable to stretch on this one. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/201...
Many of us know why -- she is mired in scandal and cannot think on her feet when answering anything other than softballs in a presser. Then there is her questionable health ...
scherzkeks said:
unrepentant said:
Not it's not. Why your obsession with a "press conference" anyway? Clinton talks to the press every day. Neither candidate has "press conferences" in the sense of a free for all. You have to control the message, don't you get that?
Even the WP seems unable to stretch on this one. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/201...
Many of us know why -- she is mired in scandal and cannot think on her feet when answering anything other than softballs in a presser. Then there is her questionable health ...
Is there a link to a serious website as opposed to a wingnut anti-Clinton one?
I did see a comment that she is refusing to release her medical records -- not sure why anyone should?
unrepentant said:
Whether you like her or not Clinton is one of the most qualified people ever to run for the office. She has a wealth of relevant experience and will be a perfectly good president and is easily the best of all the candidates on both sides who ran. That is underlined by the huge number of people on both sides who have endorsed her.
Calling her "Crooked Hillary" just marks you down as an unthinking moron with no clue so why even bother to post? Seriously, why do you bother?
Calling her "Crooked Hillary" just marks you down as an unthinking moron with no clue so why even bother to post? Seriously, why do you bother?
She's crooked because she's dishonest - she's a compulsive liar. What was it Obama said about her trustworthiness in 2008? "She will say anything and change nothing".
Countdown said:
Her health is probably as "questionable" as the scandals she's mired in..... 
Still, if you keep repeating it often enough, and referring to Epi-pens etc etc it might gain traction....
It has gained traction, which is why you are posting. Her behavior has been undeniably odd at several campaign events. From the freeze-ups, being dragged up steps, to her bizarre involuntary movements. Still, if you keep repeating it often enough, and referring to Epi-pens etc etc it might gain traction....
Even if we set that aside, it is fact that she suffered a concussion and blood clots, with post symptoms severe enough to require prism glasses.
BC himself spoke of the long recovery process, and Dr. Drew's interview was also quite interestig. There is most definitely something up.
As for the scandals. They aren't going away either, it would seem. Still waiting on those transcripts with Goldman Sachs. And the CF speaks for itself.
scherzkeks said:
It has gained traction, which is why you are posting. Her behavior has been undeniably odd at several campaign events. From the freeze-ups, being dragged up steps, to her bizarre involuntary movements.
Trust me, I'm only posting because I'm bored rigid from writing a report for work which is due tomorrow scherzkeks said:
Even if we set that aside, it is fact that she suffered a concussion and blood clots, with post symptoms severe enough to require prism glasses.
BC himself spoke of the long recovery process, and Dr. Drew's interview was also quite interestig. There is most definitely something up.
This may well be true. i don't know enough about her health either way. The thing is, in one of your earlier posts you made reference to epi pens which even I know is hooey, and something which the only the nuttier websites in the US keep espousing. So if that is where you are getting your evidence from then it has the same credence as your epi pen statement. BC himself spoke of the long recovery process, and Dr. Drew's interview was also quite interestig. There is most definitely something up.
scherzkeks said:
As for the scandals. They aren't going away either, it would seem. Still waiting on those transcripts with Goldman Sachs. And the CF speaks for itself.
Speeches for money aren't a scandal as such (and IMO). They are what politicians do. They do it for personal gain rather than public service which can smell a bit fishy but rather than pointing at the speeches themselves, critics should be pointing at the actions of the politicians if they are behaving corruptly.TL:DR taking money from anybdy for a speech isn't corrupt. Implementing a policy as a result of receiving money IS corrupt. Rather than pointing out the first critics of HRC should be giving examples of the second. If you keep on repeating insinuations rather than facts it all becomes a bit "boy who cried wolf".
Countdown said:
Trust me, I'm only posting because I'm bored rigid from writing a report for work which is due tomorrow
Well, that makes two of us.Countdown said:
This may well be true. i don't know enough about her health either way. The thing is, in one of your earlier posts you made reference to epi pens which even I know is hooey, and something which the only the nuttier websites in the US keep espousing. So if that is where you are getting your evidence from then it has the same credence as your epi pen statement.
If you read my original post, I called the pic of the purported epi-pen "interesting," and made no further comment.Her behavior, however, is bizarre to the point that it's striking. Her campaign is also working overtime to smother it; smoke and fire and all ... Maybe this is also the work of the Russians?
Anyways, the Dr. Drew interview is worth a watch.Countdown said:
Speeches for money aren't a scandal as such (and IMO). They are what politicians do. They do it for personal gain rather than public service which can smell a bit fishy but rather than pointing at the speeches themselves, critics should be pointing at the actions of the politicians if they are behaving corruptly.
I've made my case for this before. No left-wing voter of any principle could vote for this woman when she is taking vast sums of money from Goldman Sachs, etc. She needs to come clean about her relationships here. It is a huge sticking point for anyone who is not a shill. The email scandal should already have disqualified her, IMO. But perhaps Wikileaks can drive another nail in the coffin. Countdown said:
TL:DR taking money from anybdy for a speech isn't corrupt. Implementing a policy as a result of receiving money IS corrupt. Rather than pointing out the first critics of HRC should be giving examples of the second.
It is a catch 22. The problem with much of her questionable activity is that we don't know enough to connect all the dots. And part of the reason we don't know enough is because she has taken measures to ensure that information is not accessible. The destruction of reasonable protections in the form of campaign finance laws has done the rest.scherzkeks said:
It is a catch 22. The problem with much of her questionable activity is that we don't know enough to connect all the dots. And part of the reason we don't know enough is because she has taken measures to ensure that information is not accessible. The destruction of reasonable protections in the form of campaign finance laws has done the rest.
What we do know is that Trump IS a crook.We also know that the right have been digging as hard as they can into the Clintons for 30 years and basically there's nothing, no illegality, nothing really questionable at all, hence the obsession with emails and inventions. It's pathetic but it's politics.
At least 110 republican leaders who won't vote for Trump. Unprecedented and a shocking indictment of an appalling candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/29/us/p...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/29/us/p...
still - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-29/huffingon...
HuffPo "Revoked Publishing Access" Of Journalist After 'Hillary Health' Story: "It's Orwellian...I'm Scared"
It's farcical that the best that the US can deliver for leadership are those two.
Someone like Biden - who isn't even that good or popular - would wipe the floor with a clown like Trump. From the other side, I guess there's less choice, but still, Trump?
HRC is an old woman with visibly fragile health and - with the best of goodwill - a dodgy track record across the board.
Come on
I read yesterday that her audiences as Secretary of State were granted mostly to those who had contributed to the Clinton Foundation.
Ah, the Clinton Foundation, (from their own sources), actual donations = 2.9%
As bad as each other.
HuffPo "Revoked Publishing Access" Of Journalist After 'Hillary Health' Story: "It's Orwellian...I'm Scared"
It's farcical that the best that the US can deliver for leadership are those two.
Someone like Biden - who isn't even that good or popular - would wipe the floor with a clown like Trump. From the other side, I guess there's less choice, but still, Trump?
HRC is an old woman with visibly fragile health and - with the best of goodwill - a dodgy track record across the board.
Come on
I read yesterday that her audiences as Secretary of State were granted mostly to those who had contributed to the Clinton Foundation.
Ah, the Clinton Foundation, (from their own sources), actual donations = 2.9%
As bad as each other.
unrepentant said:
We also know that the right have been digging as hard as they can into the Clintons for 30 years and basically there's nothing, no illegality, nothing really questionable at all, hence the obsession with emails and inventions. It's pathetic but it's politics.
no illegality 
You keep on trotting out that horse s
t line when it's demonstrably false.scherzkeks said:
It is a catch 22. The problem with much of her questionable activity is that we don't know enough to connect all the dots. And part of the reason we don't know enough is because she has taken measures to ensure that information is not accessible. The destruction of reasonable protections in the form of campaign finance laws has done the rest.
No kidding. The emails weren't just deleted, they were nuked from orbit. Destroyed so completely as to make the recovery of them impossible.https://www.neowin.net/news/hillary-clinton-used-b...
"Wiped, like with a cloth?"
Must have been some seriously personal yoga emails on that server.
Article said:
Assange said 1,700 emails were released related to Hillary’s involvement in Libya but perhaps none more damaging than the ‘Libya Tick Tock’ email or Hillary’s “internal brag sheet of how she was the person behind the Libyan catastrophe”.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/biggest-wikileaks-email-find-yet-attached-hillary-claims-responsibility-for-libya-coup-which-led-to-thousands-of-deaths-and-eventual-isis-takeover/
amusingduck said:
No kidding. The emails weren't just deleted, they were nuked from orbit. Destroyed so completely as to make the recovery of them impossible.
https://www.neowin.net/news/hillary-clinton-used-b...
"Wiped, like with a cloth?"
Must have been some seriously personal yoga emails on that server.
"Nothing to see, move along. No criminality suspected."https://www.neowin.net/news/hillary-clinton-used-b...
"Wiped, like with a cloth?"
Must have been some seriously personal yoga emails on that server.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff