Merged into the general Hillary Clinton thread, the woman already has two threads at the top of the North America Forum.
The conflict of interest between the media sources defending Clinton while reporting on this issue are simply astounding. Not that they exist, but that the media fails to mention them trying to leave the impression that there is no conflict of interest.
For example one of the 'analysts' CNN is using to push the evil Comey innocent Hillary meme is David Gregory. The same David Gregory whose wife is a lawyer for Hillary Clinton's staff. His wife is a lawyer for Cheryl Mills and three other Team Hillary members, a defense lawyer. Not that he mentioned the huge conflict of interest.....
With this level of 'analysis' how can any of the voters who just accept whatever they are spoon fed even have a clue what they are being told is a smoke screen?
This kind of thing is exactly why I use as broad a range of news sources as I can access, from AlJazeera and BBC and RT overseas to TheBlaze/Fox/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/TheHuffPo. When you only listen to one very small slice of news opinion you make yourself dependent on whatever agenda those sources believe in. There interests are not necessarily bad, but they are also not necessarily the agenda that is bet for you as an individual or the county/state/nation/planet.
PeakOil is You
Hillary Clinton Pt. 2
Re: Hillary Clinton Pt. 2
by Tanada » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:38:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Re: Hillary Clinton Pt. 2
by AgentR11 » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 11:02:55
Thing about these "conspiracy" type investigations is that they generally, in modern times, hurt the accuser at the polls much more than they hurt the target. The web of people and facts gets so complicated and detailed, that most swing voters end up with just a glazed over view of the thing, and get annoyed at the constant harping, while the motivated supporters of the accuser get amped into a frenzy.
Bill Clinton was not harmed by the impeachment process. The Republican party was. It'll be the same deal here. That Trump keeps on running with it illustrates how shallow his campaign organization is; he wants his 40% to really get out there and make a scene, and then reject, perhaps violently, the inevitable result of the election when he loses. Seriously, look at 270towin; the blue marked states total to 272; and I don't see a one of them that Trump has any chance of winning; and not only does Trump have to win ALL of the undecided ones, he has to flip a blue. Its just beyond insane to suggest some meaningless national poll or resurgent energy can reverse that. Demographics > All.
In any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.
Bill Clinton was not harmed by the impeachment process. The Republican party was. It'll be the same deal here. That Trump keeps on running with it illustrates how shallow his campaign organization is; he wants his 40% to really get out there and make a scene, and then reject, perhaps violently, the inevitable result of the election when he loses. Seriously, look at 270towin; the blue marked states total to 272; and I don't see a one of them that Trump has any chance of winning; and not only does Trump have to win ALL of the undecided ones, he has to flip a blue. Its just beyond insane to suggest some meaningless national poll or resurgent energy can reverse that. Demographics > All.
In any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
- AgentR11
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 6589
- Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
- Location: East Texas
Re: Hillary Clinton Pt. 2
by Sixstrings » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 20:20:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'T')hing about these "conspiracy" type investigations is that they generally, in modern times, hurt the accuser at the polls much more than they hurt the target. The web of people and facts gets so complicated and detailed, that most swing voters end up with just a glazed over view of the thing, and get annoyed at the constant harping, while the motivated supporters of the accuser get amped into a frenzy.
Bill Clinton was not harmed by the impeachment process. The Republican party was. It'll be the same deal here. That Trump keeps on running with it illustrates how shallow his campaign organization is; he wants his 40% to really get out there and make a scene, and then reject, perhaps violently, the inevitable result of the election when he loses. Seriously, look at 270towin; the blue marked states total to 272; and I don't see a one of them that Trump has any chance of winning; and not only does Trump have to win ALL of the undecided ones, he has to flip a blue. Its just beyond insane to suggest some meaningless national poll or resurgent energy can reverse that. Demographics > All.
In any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.
Bill Clinton was not harmed by the impeachment process. The Republican party was. It'll be the same deal here. That Trump keeps on running with it illustrates how shallow his campaign organization is; he wants his 40% to really get out there and make a scene, and then reject, perhaps violently, the inevitable result of the election when he loses. Seriously, look at 270towin; the blue marked states total to 272; and I don't see a one of them that Trump has any chance of winning; and not only does Trump have to win ALL of the undecided ones, he has to flip a blue. Its just beyond insane to suggest some meaningless national poll or resurgent energy can reverse that. Demographics > All.
In any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.
+1
Well welcome aboard, Agent. For whatever it's worth -- I think it's pretty darn cool you and me wound up supporting the same candidate.
Personally -- I left the Republican Party, after W. Bush. I could just see that some things weren't getting done, that could help the economy and working and middle class. And Republicans didn't have any plans.. but Democrats did. And, I fell for Obama and "hope and change," hehe.
On foreign policy, McCain and Romney would have done better.
A nice thing about HRC, is she is like Romney, on foreign policy. And then, Democrats have moved farther left on domestic policy since '08. She's actually the perfect candidate, for my views. And she doesn't curse, and she's a nice lady, and she'd be a steady hand at the helm. TOUGH, too.. sticks up for human rights, she's solid on the Constitution and American values.
So anyhow..
I was a lifelong Republican, and have already been a D for eight years now.
So if you're coming aboard, then welcome aboard.
Honestly, a lot of more centrist Republicans should feel comfortable in the Democratic Party. Clinton herself, has a lot of the old Bush team, on her team. (and no, that's not "neocon," it's just competent)
There's a lot of good D senators, in the Senate, like Diane Feinstein (she's good on national security, I like her overall)
Really, Hillary embodies what the Republican Party should be -- she's like how R's were a long time ago, back around Eisenhower, or HW Bush, or even Nixon.. Nixon was Republican on foreign policy, but actually a lot of progressive domestic policies.
Also, Hillary has the support of almost all the generals and admirals, and military / intel establishment. These are men that went to west point and the naval academy etc., and they are educated and have good values -- and the vast majority support HRC.
Clinton has progressive plans and ideas to help people, but yet she's also pro business too.
HRC is a "progressive that can get things done."
and really,
She's also the REPUBLICAN, that can get things done.
-
Sixstrings - Fusion
- Posts: 15160
- Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Hillary Clinton Pt. 2
by Plantagenet » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 20:41:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')HRC is a "progressive that can get things done."
')HRC is a "progressive that can get things done."
What has she ever done except extort money from various corporations and foreign governments in order to make her and Bill extremely wealthy?
We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
-
Plantagenet - Expert
- Posts: 26765
- Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Re: Hillary Clinton Pt. 2
by Sixstrings » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 21:15:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'I')n any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.
Sorry I replied with a speech and sales pitch, you're already sold.
I don't want to push you to talk about it, but I'm really curious if you'd want to explain it more, what pushed you (or attracted you) to HRC?
I remember two things you said before, that actually Trump would be riskier even on the Russia issue, because he's volatile (he and Putin would wind up at odds).
And then I remember you saying something like, R's have become too bigoted or something, I can't remember what you said exactly.
So anyhow, I certainly agree with you, Agent.
I've got a lot of FAMILY, voting Trump. And I know where they're coming from.. they actually don't approve of him, and they just assume the rest of the government would "keep him in line."
Personally -- I read international news, and I know a bit about economics, and how the world works.. and Trump is just too much risk. And unlike some Trump voters, I know -- I'm not completely sure the government could keep him in line.
The vote we have in this country is a sacred thing -- I think about the Constitution, #1. We're voting for someone to "protect, preserve, and defend" that document.
There's no way I could ever vote for any candidate that even gives me a hint of concern, about that, so that made me HRC for sure 100%.
But anyhow, I wonder where you're coming from, what your reasons are?
-
Sixstrings - Fusion
- Posts: 15160
- Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
