DrunkBomber Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 10, 2016 -> 10:07 PM) Yep. Because Trump clearly isn't appealing to a white nationalist demographic that is unprecedented in my lifetime. But both side amirite... Nobody is defending Trump though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 10, 2016 -> 09:29 PM) Nobody is defending Trump though. So Trump=Clinton, well, just because they've been trying to nail her for 38 years. Must be frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 11, 2016 -> 07:54 AM) So Trump=Clinton, well, just because they've been trying to nail her for 38 years. Must be frustrating. The fact that people are realizing Hillary is just as vile as Donald Trump is quite refreshing actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 11, 2016 -> 07:58 AM) The fact that people are realizing Hillary is just as vile as Donald Trump is quite refreshing actually. I don't see how one remark she quickly apologized for equates to the last 18 months of Trump. That sort of false equivalency is dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2016 -> 08:02 AM) I don't see how one remark she quickly apologized for equates to the last 18 months of Trump. That sort of false equivalency is dangerous. My opinion of her isnt just from that. Attacking the women who accused Bill of rape and sexual assault is something I dont think is really forgivable for a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Hillary should have stayed in the shadows. What a moronic comment to make. You may not agree with someone's views but it's America, and if someone wants to be "deplorable" that's their prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 11, 2016 -> 07:05 AM) My opinion of her isnt just from that. Attacking the women who accused Bill of rape and sexual assault is something I dont think is really forgivable for a politician. Name one politician's wife in the history of the U.S. who had this instinct at the very first hint of marital problems. What should she have done differently? How would we expect our wives to react in that same situation? The key word in your sentence is accused...do you honestly think Jackie Kennedy didn't do the same thing? The difference is how the media feels it's their business to report things that used to be kept private and confidential. Some even believe that Jackie O. threatened Marilyn Monroe or was complicit indirectly in her murder/suicide. Edited September 11, 2016 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Sep 11, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) Hillary should have stayed in the shadows. What a moronic comment to make. You may not agree with someone's views but it's America, and if someone wants to be "deplorable" that's their prerogative. She should like you say, but can't stay in the shadows forever. My guess is she started believing her press clippings, that she is the runaway winner over this buffoon/evil man Trump and finally relaxed a bit by making herself media accessible last week and in that relaxed state her real personality came out. She is not a saint, folks, she is a very rich, entitled person with a very big ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 The big damage the Hillary illness does isn't with the Republicans who weren't going to vote for her anyway. This damage is done in two ways. #1, because they weren't in front of this story, instead of waiting for it to happen, it goes right back to the trust factor. So many people don't trust her, and here is a great reason why. #2 it introduces the seed of doubt into her own supporters about what she might be hiding with how this was handled, and what else she is denying, that could actually be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Axelrod poured some fuel onto the fire as well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 ...but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Hillary's IT person pleads the 5th, refuses to testify before Congress re: the email scandal. http://thehill.com/policy/national-securit...LHgZiiI.twitter Allows her supporters to continue to claim "no evidence!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 07:32 PM) Hillary's IT person pleads the 5th, refuses to testify before Congress re: the email scandal. http://thehill.com/policy/national-securit...LHgZiiI.twitter Allows her supporters to continue to claim "no evidence!" Trump isn't lying when he calls her "Crooked Hillary." She's nobody for the U.S. to be proud of as our President. Problem is Trump and his insane takes on issues like immigration and love of Putin make him putrid as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 These new Guccifer email leaks are going to be an issue for the democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) Found this on Reddit Edited September 14, 2016 by DrunkBomber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 11:59 PM) Found this on Reddit Better pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Ambassadors are definitely old school patronage jobs, pretty much always have been. Doesn't look good but it's always that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 There is a lot more. These emails are the worst thing by far that has happened to Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 12:07 AM) There is a lot more. These emails are the worst thing by far that has happened to Hillary. Media isn't picking it up at all though (granted it's been about 4 hours and still breaking). Seems a lot worse than the DNC DNC leaks. The tapping into local election databases and such would seem to be the most damning so far, but also the most complex and hardest to understand. I would imagine the pay to play stuff will grab headlines. We shall see. Edited September 14, 2016 by Buehrle>Wood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 11:28 PM) That particular email has Google hits back to July, not really seeing any Google news links with anything all that negative right now? For that specific email, "pay to play" seems to have specific legal SEC definition here and not necessarily the common connotation https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/pay-to-play-faq.htm Edited September 14, 2016 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 12:31 AM) That particular email has Google hits back to July, not really seeing any Google news links with anything all that negative right now? I just got it off twitter. I should probably just wait till tomorrow and Im sure everything will be all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 06:31 AM) That particular email has Google hits back to July, not really seeing any Google news links with anything all that negative right now? I think by now most Americans believe Hillary is a liar and crooked. I just think most poor to lower middle class for some reason believe the Democrats will help put some money in their pockets (which I kinda think is a fallacy), and women overwhemingly hate Trump, thus you've got a lot of people overwhelmingly picking Hillary as the best of two evils. That's it in a nutshell, right? No hate on greg here, just tell me I'm right in my assessment. Thanx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 This is gonna be really bad for Obama too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) People didnt know how ambassador jobs work? Ironically Strangesox posted an article today about the ambassador to Denmark. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archiv...denmark/497543/ Gifford explains to viewers, whom he helped Obama defeat in 2012 by raising $1.2 billion. If this is the worst that they found, then honestly the Democratic party is a lot cleaner than I would have expected. Ambassador positions have always been this way. George W Bush. UK Ambassador- Robert Tuttle He had raised more than $200,000 for Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and inauguration ceremony. He also held the post of United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom from July 2005 to February 2009. Other examples are Canada, David Wilkins, Sweeden, Teel Bivens, etc. Its so common, it actually has a name: Patronage Appointment. And if anyone thinks that Clinton or Trump wont make them, I have a really big bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale. In fact, you probably couldnt pick 2 candidates who were more likely to make patronage appointments. They both love nepotism. Anyway, I think theres a cliche, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The more they hack, the more I wonder what their true motivation is. Because I just dont believe that hackers are trying to do what is best for me. Maybe I am an old cynic, but something just seems odd about hackers all of a sudden becoming altruistic. Edited September 14, 2016 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts