login
Hillary (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-03-08 12:54 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Veteran  1019  St. Louis |  Subject: RE: HillaryOriginally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Except nothing.... NOTHING.... Nada, zip, zero..... Was Classified when she sent it. They were all classified after the fact. Millions of dollars, a Select Committee that has met longer than the 9/11 committee, and what do we have? What is the big, take-away? Nothing. If it's proven she broke the law I'll be the first to cast a stone, but right now you ain't got a cup to pee in. How does 'Ma'dam President' sound?? Just out of curiosity, what is your source confirming that nothing was classified? Reason I ask is that most conservative outlets state "as fact" that many were classified before they were sent and that her and her staff even removed the classification in order to send them. Objectively, I admit that I have no idea so I'm letting the investigation play its course. However, I do suspect that even if there is a blatant classified email that was sent the administration will protect her. I'd like to think that our laws are above politics, but I think you and I both know that's not true (on either side). General Petraeus received 2 years probation. That's pretty much all you need to know about how this will play out if Hillary is ever charged with anything. Petraeus was charged with a felony and it was pleaded down to a misdemeanor. Yes, he received probation, a pretty common sentence for any misd. offense. Do you think he could make a successful run for the Presidency with that hanging over him? He resigned as head of CIA over it.......that's a bit down the food chain from President. Hillary Clinton has no business being the President of this country. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but this isn't hurting Hillary one bit. I honestly don't think Dems care at all about this. I think they view it as a big GOP witch hunt at the tax payers' expense. Or maybe they do kind of care just a little bit, but they feel she has a better chance to beat the Donald than Bernie does and are just willing to overlook it. Either way, this is not a new story and yet it hasn't stopped her from racking up primary wins. But I can promise you this, if she ever is convicted of anything (which is a yuuuuge if), she'll get a slap on the wrist no different than Petraeus. Everyone in Washington acts like they're above the law because, well, they are. Dems might not care, but Republicans do. I saw a stat the other day that I think is the most interesting one so far........up to this point in the primary season 8,XXX,XXX Republicans have voted as opposed to 5,XXX,XXX Dems. (I can't remember the exact number other than the 8 and 5) In the last Primary is was exactly opposite. I think you will see a huge Republican turnout on election day........and many of them will be just like me,,,,,ANYBODY BUT HILLARY. I'll make an election day guarantee; if Hillary ends up with the nomination, she will carry all of the blue states regardless of Republican turnout. Just like Trump or Cruz (or Romney!) will carry every red state. The days of a Mondale-like candidate losing all but one state are long gone. Killed by a two party system that has the divided the entire country up and convinced everyone it's us vs. them. These emails and other scandals may very well cost her the overall election if the handful of swing states share your sentiment, but not before she's racked up an easy 200 electoral college votes from California, Illinois, New York, etc. Plus, I feel like there's an equal amount of people that think like my wife...ANYBODY BUT TRUMP. So we'll have to wait and see who the swing states decide is the lesser of two evils. If you go by favorability polls, for every 10 people that don't like Hillary, there's 11 people that don't like Trump. I totally understand why the Republican establishment is freaking out. If they had anyone, literally anyone, other than Trump or Cruz going up against Hillary, I believe they'd sweep the swing states and win easy. But they're looking at nominating either the most hated man in Congress or the most hated candidate in this election. |
| 2016-03-08 1:44 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802   Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood I feel I have to double check just about everything you post Tony, and you didn't disappoint here - yet again, another post from a right wing site, the Daily Caller. This article from them comparing turnout etc. from 2008 to 2016 primaries is like comparing apples and oranges: Different candidates, different states, some primaries then, some caucuses now... And, in general, primary turnout doesn't have much to do with general election turnout. You can find any number of elections over the past 30 years that buck the "trend" you are so excited to display. Lots of statistical and other analyses have been done that dig into this. Interesting reading, but sorry, no correlation. Even conservative David Brooks agrees; "There’s no correlation between primary turnout and wins in the fall in the last 11 elections," Brooks said on Meet the Press on March 6. Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Except nothing.... NOTHING.... Nada, zip, zero..... Was Classified when she sent it. They were all classified after the fact. Millions of dollars, a Select Committee that has met longer than the 9/11 committee, and what do we have? What is the big, take-away? Nothing. If it's proven she broke the law I'll be the first to cast a stone, but right now you ain't got a cup to pee in. How does 'Ma'dam President' sound?? Just out of curiosity, what is your source confirming that nothing was classified? Reason I ask is that most conservative outlets state "as fact" that many were classified before they were sent and that her and her staff even removed the classification in order to send them. Objectively, I admit that I have no idea so I'm letting the investigation play its course. However, I do suspect that even if there is a blatant classified email that was sent the administration will protect her. I'd like to think that our laws are above politics, but I think you and I both know that's not true (on either side). General Petraeus received 2 years probation. That's pretty much all you need to know about how this will play out if Hillary is ever charged with anything. Petraeus was charged with a felony and it was pleaded down to a misdemeanor. Yes, he received probation, a pretty common sentence for any misd. offense. Do you think he could make a successful run for the Presidency with that hanging over him? He resigned as head of CIA over it.......that's a bit down the food chain from President. Hillary Clinton has no business being the President of this country. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but this isn't hurting Hillary one bit. I honestly don't think Dems care at all about this. I think they view it as a big GOP witch hunt at the tax payers' expense. Or maybe they do kind of care just a little bit, but they feel she has a better chance to beat the Donald than Bernie does and are just willing to overlook it. Either way, this is not a new story and yet it hasn't stopped her from racking up primary wins. But I can promise you this, if she ever is convicted of anything (which is a yuuuuge if), she'll get a slap on the wrist no different than Petraeus. Everyone in Washington acts like they're above the law because, well, they are. Dems might not care, but Republicans do. I saw a stat the other day that I think is the most interesting one so far........up to this point in the primary season 8,XXX,XXX Republicans have voted as opposed to 5,XXX,XXX Dems. (I can't remember the exact number other than the 8 and 5) In the last Primary is was exactly opposite. I think you will see a huge Republican turnout on election day........and many of them will be just like me,,,,,ANYBODY BUT HILLARY. more large red states have voted. how many dems do you think come out and vote in texas? Here's an article discussing it. It was in comparison to Super Tuesday voter turnout this year compared to 2008. 5.8M Democrats voted this year compared to 8.56M in the same states in 2008. It was Obama vs Hillary in 2008 and Hillary vs Sanders this time around. In contrast the Republican turnout was up 61% compared to 2008 and 73% compared to 2012. 8.2 million voters cast a vote in 11 Super Tuesday states this year, compared to 5.1 million who showed up in 2008 and 4.7 million who voted in 2012. Notice how the numbers are almost perfectly flipped between the two parties. So what is factually inaccurate? Different candidates? Duh It’s important to note that not all 11 presidential cycles had competitive primary contests on both sides. Primary turnout was low in five elections simply because one party’s nomination was locked up by incumbent presidents, and thus not predictive of general election results. In 1984, for example, the Democratic primary turned out about three times more voters than the Republican primary. Nonetheless, President Ronald Reagan won re-election with almost 60 percent of the popular vote. I didn’t say the numbers are inaccurate – the numbers are the numbers and I trust he got them right. I am saying the comparison of D and R primary turnout between 2008 and 2016 is mostly a meaningless undertaking and concludes nothing other a bunch of maybe interesting numbers. The author is being disingenuous to his readers by not going to the next level in his analysis and offer explanations as to why there might be differences. He also states that the Ds are “worried that the trend will continue through to the general election”, but doesn’t bother backing that up with any cites or quotes. It is a right wing rag written to feed their red-meat eating readers a tasty bone, without actually digging beneath the surface very deeply. You say “Notice how the numbers are almost perfectly flipped between the two parties”. Interesting, but then I could say, “Look at the orange I just bought, it is bigger than this apple. But last week when I bought them, the apple was bigger!” Both true, both not very meaningful. On your state data, let’s take Texas (note, all states you mentioned are southern and the same logic could apply). One reason for the difference is that in 2008 the race between Obama and Hillary was very close and competitive: Hillary won Texas by only 3.5%. This year, the polling had Hillary crushing Bernie, and it proved accurate as she won by 32 percentage points. Why vote in a primary or caucus when your candidate is a shoo-in? Bernie has also not done that well in any southern state. Competitive primary races and ones with more candidates (like the clown car on the R side) generate more enthusiasm and higher turnout. And I will say again, extrapolating primary turnout data to forecast general election turnout does not yield a high correlation and is not supported by the research. Each year is too different and unique to draw meaningful conclusions from that type of analysis. One is better off using polling data than extrapolating primary turnout data. |
| 2016-03-08 2:11 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood I didn’t say the numbers are inaccurate – the numbers are the numbers and I trust he got them right. I am saying the comparison of D and R primary turnout between 2008 and 2016 is mostly a meaningless undertaking and concludes nothing other a bunch of maybe interesting numbers. The author is being disingenuous to his readers by not going to the next level in his analysis and offer explanations as to why there might be differences. He also states that the Ds are “worried that the trend will continue through to the general election”, but doesn’t bother backing that up with any cites or quotes. It is a right wing rag written to feed their red-meat eating readers a tasty bone, without actually digging beneath the surface very deeply. You say “Notice how the numbers are almost perfectly flipped between the two parties”. Interesting, but then I could say, “Look at the orange I just bought, it is bigger than this apple. But last week when I bought them, the apple was bigger!” Both true, both not very meaningful. On your state data, let’s take Texas (note, all states you mentioned are southern and the same logic could apply). One reason for the difference is that in 2008 the race between Obama and Hillary was very close and competitive: Hillary won Texas by only 3.5%. This year, the polling had Hillary crushing Bernie, and it proved accurate as she won by 32 percentage points. Why vote in a primary or caucus when your candidate is a shoo-in? Bernie has also not done that well in any southern state. Competitive primary races and ones with more candidates (like the clown car on the R side) generate more enthusiasm and higher turnout. And I will say again, extrapolating primary turnout data to forecast general election turnout does not yield a high correlation and is not supported by the research. Each year is too different and unique to draw meaningful conclusions from that type of analysis. One is better off using polling data than extrapolating primary turnout data. Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood I feel I have to double check just about everything you post Tony, and you didn't disappoint here - yet again, another post from a right wing site, the Daily Caller. This article from them comparing turnout etc. from 2008 to 2016 primaries is like comparing apples and oranges: Different candidates, different states, some primaries then, some caucuses now... And, in general, primary turnout doesn't have much to do with general election turnout. You can find any number of elections over the past 30 years that buck the "trend" you are so excited to display. Lots of statistical and other analyses have been done that dig into this. Interesting reading, but sorry, no correlation. Even conservative David Brooks agrees; "There’s no correlation between primary turnout and wins in the fall in the last 11 elections," Brooks said on Meet the Press on March 6. Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Except nothing.... NOTHING.... Nada, zip, zero..... Was Classified when she sent it. They were all classified after the fact. Millions of dollars, a Select Committee that has met longer than the 9/11 committee, and what do we have? What is the big, take-away? Nothing. If it's proven she broke the law I'll be the first to cast a stone, but right now you ain't got a cup to pee in. How does 'Ma'dam President' sound?? Just out of curiosity, what is your source confirming that nothing was classified? Reason I ask is that most conservative outlets state "as fact" that many were classified before they were sent and that her and her staff even removed the classification in order to send them. Objectively, I admit that I have no idea so I'm letting the investigation play its course. However, I do suspect that even if there is a blatant classified email that was sent the administration will protect her. I'd like to think that our laws are above politics, but I think you and I both know that's not true (on either side). General Petraeus received 2 years probation. That's pretty much all you need to know about how this will play out if Hillary is ever charged with anything. Petraeus was charged with a felony and it was pleaded down to a misdemeanor. Yes, he received probation, a pretty common sentence for any misd. offense. Do you think he could make a successful run for the Presidency with that hanging over him? He resigned as head of CIA over it.......that's a bit down the food chain from President. Hillary Clinton has no business being the President of this country. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but this isn't hurting Hillary one bit. I honestly don't think Dems care at all about this. I think they view it as a big GOP witch hunt at the tax payers' expense. Or maybe they do kind of care just a little bit, but they feel she has a better chance to beat the Donald than Bernie does and are just willing to overlook it. Either way, this is not a new story and yet it hasn't stopped her from racking up primary wins. But I can promise you this, if she ever is convicted of anything (which is a yuuuuge if), she'll get a slap on the wrist no different than Petraeus. Everyone in Washington acts like they're above the law because, well, they are. Dems might not care, but Republicans do. I saw a stat the other day that I think is the most interesting one so far........up to this point in the primary season 8,XXX,XXX Republicans have voted as opposed to 5,XXX,XXX Dems. (I can't remember the exact number other than the 8 and 5) In the last Primary is was exactly opposite. I think you will see a huge Republican turnout on election day........and many of them will be just like me,,,,,ANYBODY BUT HILLARY. more large red states have voted. how many dems do you think come out and vote in texas? Here's an article discussing it. It was in comparison to Super Tuesday voter turnout this year compared to 2008. 5.8M Democrats voted this year compared to 8.56M in the same states in 2008. It was Obama vs Hillary in 2008 and Hillary vs Sanders this time around. In contrast the Republican turnout was up 61% compared to 2008 and 73% compared to 2012. 8.2 million voters cast a vote in 11 Super Tuesday states this year, compared to 5.1 million who showed up in 2008 and 4.7 million who voted in 2012. Notice how the numbers are almost perfectly flipped between the two parties. So what is factually inaccurate? Different candidates? Duh It’s important to note that not all 11 presidential cycles had competitive primary contests on both sides. Primary turnout was low in five elections simply because one party’s nomination was locked up by incumbent presidents, and thus not predictive of general election results. In 1984, for example, the Democratic primary turned out about three times more voters than the Republican primary. Nonetheless, President Ronald Reagan won re-election with almost 60 percent of the popular vote. OK, I can agree with you more here. the apples/orange comparison made me laugh. I do agree that it is more complex than surface numbers. I guess we shall see how (or if) it plays out similarly in November. |
| 2016-03-08 2:16 PM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Except nothing.... NOTHING.... Nada, zip, zero..... Was Classified when she sent it. They were all classified after the fact. Millions of dollars, a Select Committee that has met longer than the 9/11 committee, and what do we have? What is the big, take-away? Nothing. If it's proven she broke the law I'll be the first to cast a stone, but right now you ain't got a cup to pee in. How does 'Ma'dam President' sound?? Just out of curiosity, what is your source confirming that nothing was classified? Reason I ask is that most conservative outlets state "as fact" that many were classified before they were sent and that her and her staff even removed the classification in order to send them. Objectively, I admit that I have no idea so I'm letting the investigation play its course. However, I do suspect that even if there is a blatant classified email that was sent the administration will protect her. I'd like to think that our laws are above politics, but I think you and I both know that's not true (on either side). General Petraeus received 2 years probation. That's pretty much all you need to know about how this will play out if Hillary is ever charged with anything. Petraeus was charged with a felony and it was pleaded down to a misdemeanor. Yes, he received probation, a pretty common sentence for any misd. offense. Do you think he could make a successful run for the Presidency with that hanging over him? He resigned as head of CIA over it.......that's a bit down the food chain from President. Hillary Clinton has no business being the President of this country. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but this isn't hurting Hillary one bit. I honestly don't think Dems care at all about this. I think they view it as a big GOP witch hunt at the tax payers' expense. Or maybe they do kind of care just a little bit, but they feel she has a better chance to beat the Donald than Bernie does and are just willing to overlook it. Either way, this is not a new story and yet it hasn't stopped her from racking up primary wins. But I can promise you this, if she ever is convicted of anything (which is a yuuuuge if), she'll get a slap on the wrist no different than Petraeus. Everyone in Washington acts like they're above the law because, well, they are. Dems might not care, but Republicans do. I saw a stat the other day that I think is the most interesting one so far........up to this point in the primary season 8,XXX,XXX Republicans have voted as opposed to 5,XXX,XXX Dems. (I can't remember the exact number other than the 8 and 5) In the last Primary is was exactly opposite. I think you will see a huge Republican turnout on election day........and many of them will be just like me,,,,,ANYBODY BUT HILLARY. I'll make an election day guarantee; if Hillary ends up with the nomination, she will carry all of the blue states regardless of Republican turnout. Just like Trump or Cruz (or Romney!) will carry every red state. The days of a Mondale-like candidate losing all but one state are long gone. Killed by a two party system that has the divided the entire country up and convinced everyone it's us vs. them. These emails and other scandals may very well cost her the overall election if the handful of swing states share your sentiment, but not before she's racked up an easy 200 electoral college votes from California, Illinois, New York, etc. Plus, I feel like there's an equal amount of people that think like my wife...ANYBODY BUT TRUMP. So we'll have to wait and see who the swing states decide is the lesser of two evils. If you go by favorability polls, for every 10 people that don't like Hillary, there's 11 people that don't like Trump. I totally understand why the Republican establishment is freaking out. If they had anyone, literally anyone, other than Trump or Cruz going up against Hillary, I believe they'd sweep the swing states and win easy. But they're looking at nominating either the most hated man in Congress or the most hated candidate in this election. I think there's a slight wild card in how Trump draws his support as well. His backing comes from some traditionally weird places for Republicans so I wonder if he jeopardizes some traditionally red states and brings into play traditionally blue states. I don't know, I'm just wondering. |
| 2016-03-09 11:09 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Another take on the Primary Effect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helmut-norpoth/trump-nearcertain-to-defe_b_9403762.html
|
| 2016-03-09 3:35 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Another take on the Primary Effect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helmut-norpoth/trump-nearcertain-to-defe_b_9403762.html
Tony, you have to quit quoting those Right Wing Racists Rags! |
| 2016-03-09 3:38 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by tuwood Another take on the Primary Effect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helmut-norpoth/trump-nearcertain-to-defe_b_9403762.html
Tony, you have to quit quoting those Right Wing Racists Rags! Shhh, I'm waiting on Eric to bag on my source... |
| 2016-03-09 5:03 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by tuwood Another take on the Primary Effect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helmut-norpoth/trump-nearcertain-to-defe_b_9403762.html
Tony, you have to quit quoting those Right Wing Racists Rags! Shhh, I'm waiting on Eric to bag on my source... Here ya go, I hate to disappoint! The source isn't the issue here as this story was really put out by the Prof who made this model and has been reported via many sites. What I would bag on is the crappy statistics involved. From what I can tell, he built a prediction model based on the "election cycle" and primary election data from 1912 through 1992 to try and predict the 1996 election. He got a good fit except for 1960, which he doesn't discuss why that is an outlier. The basic problem with his approach is one of "over fitting", where he used ALL historical data points (of which there really aren't that many/enough from a statistical perspective), threw a bunch of variables and a constant into his stats program and fiddled with it until he got a good linear multiple regression fit. A much sounder approach would have been to use only like 80% of his data points to build the model and then try and predict the other 20%, a much harder task. He claims he has predicted all elections correctly since 1996, but he really missed in 2008 IMO as he predicted a statistical tie, whereas Obama really won by quite a large margin, even outside of his model's statistical error. One could argue he missed in 2000 as well, as Gore won the popular vote as predicted, but lost the election, showing the limitation and simplicity of using the popular vote when we elect by Electoral College. Another significant issue is that his model has always erred on the high side, where a normal distribution of error would have close to 50-50 high and low. But, with only 5 predictions and one or two misses IMO (80% or 60% accurate), there is not much to go on really. Time will tell, of course, if his prediction is correct, but I would bet against him on this one as this election seems unlike any other election really between 1912 and 2012. Lots of good, juicy stat reading out there on this if one is interested. |
| 2016-03-09 6:04 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Here ya go, I hate to disappoint! The source isn't the issue here as this story was really put out by the Prof who made this model and has been reported via many sites. What I would bag on is the crappy statistics involved. From what I can tell, he built a prediction model based on the "election cycle" and primary election data from 1912 through 1992 to try and predict the 1996 election. He got a good fit except for 1960, which he doesn't discuss why that is an outlier. The basic problem with his approach is one of "over fitting", where he used ALL historical data points (of which there really aren't that many/enough from a statistical perspective), threw a bunch of variables and a constant into his stats program and fiddled with it until he got a good linear multiple regression fit. A much sounder approach would have been to use only like 80% of his data points to build the model and then try and predict the other 20%, a much harder task. He claims he has predicted all elections correctly since 1996, but he really missed in 2008 IMO as he predicted a statistical tie, whereas Obama really won by quite a large margin, even outside of his model's statistical error. One could argue he missed in 2000 as well, as Gore won the popular vote as predicted, but lost the election, showing the limitation and simplicity of using the popular vote when we elect by Electoral College. Another significant issue is that his model has always erred on the high side, where a normal distribution of error would have close to 50-50 high and low. But, with only 5 predictions and one or two misses IMO (80% or 60% accurate), there is not much to go on really. Time will tell, of course, if his prediction is correct, but I would bet against him on this one as this election seems unlike any other election really between 1912 and 2012. Lots of good, juicy stat reading out there on this if one is interested. Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by tuwood Another take on the Primary Effect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helmut-norpoth/trump-nearcertain-to-defe_b_9403762.html
Tony, you have to quit quoting those Right Wing Racists Rags! Shhh, I'm waiting on Eric to bag on my source... Yeah, I mostly posted that to give you a hard time. I felt the concept of the last one was a little better than this one, but when I saw it was on HuffPo I couldn't resist posting. I do agree without a doubt this election is unlike any other in recent history so perhaps all the traditional indicators kind of get thrown out the window. |
| 2016-03-09 10:59 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary How dare he... (Obviously he's in the tank for Trump /sarc) Jorge Ramos confronts Hillary Clinton: Will you drop out of the race if you get indicted?
|
| 2016-03-10 2:28 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood How dare he... (Obviously he's in the tank for Trump /sarc) Jorge Ramos confronts Hillary Clinton: Will you drop out of the race if you get indicted?
I feel as though that question could be asked of any politician in any debate. Ever.  |
| 2016-03-10 3:38 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I feel as though that question could be asked of any politician in any debate. Ever. How dare he... (Obviously he's in the tank for Trump /sarc) Jorge Ramos confronts Hillary Clinton: Will you drop out of the race if you get indicted?
lol, for sure. I do suspect that even if (big if) she is indicted she won't drop out. |
| 2016-03-10 4:13 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I feel as though that question could be asked of any politician in any debate. Ever. How dare he... (Obviously he's in the tank for Trump /sarc) Jorge Ramos confronts Hillary Clinton: Will you drop out of the race if you get indicted?
lol, for sure. I do suspect that even if (big if) she is indicted she won't drop out. I'm sure. It's all such a dog-and-pony-show anyway. The Administration's steadfast defense of her is just as politically motivated and disingenuous as the GOP's continued pursuit of the matter. Personally, I think if there was anything significant to be found, someone would have found it by now. More likely, they're going to come across some infinitesimal shred of something that's of questionable value-- circumstantial or inadmissible as evidence or just irrelevant or whatever, and then seize upon it and wave it around for the next six months as if they've found OJ's bloody glove. "Look! She used a smiley-face emoji six times on the same day that six Navy Seals parachuted into Ramallah! She's giving away secrets!!" Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-03-10 4:18 PM |
| 2016-03-10 4:31 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I'm sure. It's all such a dog-and-pony-show anyway. The Administration's steadfast defense of her is just as politically motivated and disingenuous as the GOP's continued pursuit of the matter. Personally, I think if there was anything significant to be found, someone would have found it by now. More likely, they're going to come across some infinitesimal shred of something that's of questionable value-- circumstantial or inadmissible as evidence or just irrelevant or whatever, and then seize upon it and wave it around for the next six months as if they've found OJ's bloody glove. "Look! She used a smiley-face emoji six times on the same day that six Navy Seals parachuted into Ramallah! She's giving away secrets!!" Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I feel as though that question could be asked of any politician in any debate. Ever. How dare he... (Obviously he's in the tank for Trump /sarc) Jorge Ramos confronts Hillary Clinton: Will you drop out of the race if you get indicted?
lol, for sure. I do suspect that even if (big if) she is indicted she won't drop out. lol, yep. I see you have described the state of our legal system as a whole pretty well right there. |
| 2016-03-11 9:42 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary |
| 2016-03-11 2:30 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
|
| 2016-03-11 8:07 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 3972 Reno | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood
I think the Captain with his hands in his pockets rocked it better. omg. I think someone played a joke on her! |
| 2016-03-12 12:13 PM in reply to: 0 |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Edited by jeffnboise 2016-03-12 12:14 PM |
| 2016-03-12 1:24 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. |
| 2016-03-12 3:43 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. Of course! Because speaking out against his rhetoric, exercising THEIR 1st Amendment Rights, absolutely warrants a physical assault. Remember when I said Trump supporters were going to find themselves so far away from the shore they couldn't swim back? Congratulations! I get it. People think this is funny. That it's some kind of 'pay back' for electing Obama. The black/Muslim/African/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist/traitor (pick one). They're so easily willing to trample the American flag underneath their feet while they fight for traction on some sick kind of perceived moral 'high ground'. The far Right Wing have obviously lost the intellectual argument (while their presidential candidates debate the size of their manhood). So, like a typical playground bully that doesn't have the capacity to outthink his opponent; they resort to violence. We'll see soon enough who gets the payback. After the Dems win in November (and they ARE going to win in November-1600 Penn Av. and likely the Senate, too) Liberals will have an even stronger say in SCOTUS nominees. And the rancor and resentment from this election will not be so easily forgotten. I could offer them my sympathy, nay, my PITY for feeling so hopeless, so helpless and so very afraid......but, I won't. 'Cuz this is a HILLARY thread.
|
| 2016-03-12 4:30 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
| Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. Of course! Because speaking out against his rhetoric, exercising THEIR 1st Amendment Rights, absolutely warrants a physical assault. Remember when I said Trump supporters were going to find themselves so far away from the shore they couldn't swim back? Congratulations! I get it. People think this is funny. That it's some kind of 'pay back' for electing Obama. The black/Muslim/African/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist/traitor (pick one). They're so easily willing to trample the American flag underneath their feet while they fight for traction on some sick kind of perceived moral 'high ground'. The far Right Wing have obviously lost the intellectual argument (while their presidential candidates debate the size of their manhood). So, like a typical playground bully that doesn't have the capacity to outthink his opponent; they resort to violence. We'll see soon enough who gets the payback. After the Dems win in November (and they ARE going to win in November-1600 Penn Av. and likely the Senate, too) Liberals will have an even stronger say in SCOTUS nominees. And the rancor and resentment from this election will not be so easily forgotten. I could offer them my sympathy, nay, my PITY for feeling so hopeless, so helpless and so very afraid......but, I won't. 'Cuz this is a HILLARY thread.
How old are you and are you taking all of your prescription medicine?
|
| 2016-03-12 4:34 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. Of course! Because speaking out against his rhetoric, exercising THEIR 1st Amendment Rights, absolutely warrants a physical assault. Remember when I said Trump supporters were going to find themselves so far away from the shore they couldn't swim back? Congratulations! I get it. People think this is funny. That it's some kind of 'pay back' for electing Obama. The black/Muslim/African/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist/traitor (pick one). They're so easily willing to trample the American flag underneath their feet while they fight for traction on some sick kind of perceived moral 'high ground'. The far Right Wing have obviously lost the intellectual argument (while their presidential candidates debate the size of their manhood). So, like a typical playground bully that doesn't have the capacity to outthink his opponent; they resort to violence. We'll see soon enough who gets the payback. After the Dems win in November (and they ARE going to win in November-1600 Penn Av. and likely the Senate, too) Liberals will have an even stronger say in SCOTUS nominees. And the rancor and resentment from this election will not be so easily forgotten. I could offer them my sympathy, nay, my PITY for feeling so hopeless, so helpless and so very afraid......but, I won't. 'Cuz this is a HILLARY thread.
Do you just make stuff up to fit your preconceived view of the world? So you're totally ok with protesters going into a private event and physically assaulting the people who are attending it? You call this them exercising their first amendment rights? Seriously? I guess you'd be OK if Trump supporters rushed a Hillary event and attacked her supporters? I mean, hey they're just exercising their first amendment rights. give me a break. |
| 2016-03-12 5:12 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. Of course! Because speaking out against his rhetoric, exercising THEIR 1st Amendment Rights, absolutely warrants a physical assault. Remember when I said Trump supporters were going to find themselves so far away from the shore they couldn't swim back? Congratulations! I get it. People think this is funny. That it's some kind of 'pay back' for electing Obama. The black/Muslim/African/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist/traitor (pick one). They're so easily willing to trample the American flag underneath their feet while they fight for traction on some sick kind of perceived moral 'high ground'. The far Right Wing have obviously lost the intellectual argument (while their presidential candidates debate the size of their manhood). So, like a typical playground bully that doesn't have the capacity to outthink his opponent; they resort to violence. We'll see soon enough who gets the payback. After the Dems win in November (and they ARE going to win in November-1600 Penn Av. and likely the Senate, too) Liberals will have an even stronger say in SCOTUS nominees. And the rancor and resentment from this election will not be so easily forgotten. I could offer them my sympathy, nay, my PITY for feeling so hopeless, so helpless and so very afraid......but, I won't. 'Cuz this is a HILLARY thread.
Do you just make stuff up to fit your preconceived view of the world? So you're totally ok with protesters going into a private event and physically assaulting the people who are attending it? You call this them exercising their first amendment rights? Seriously? I guess you'd be OK if Trump supporters rushed a Hillary event and attacked her supporters? I mean, hey they're just exercising their first amendment rights. give me a break. Ok, first off.....we're discussing Trump HARD on the 'Hillary' page (because YOU went there...why? Don't want to discuss election outcomes??) #2-you owe me a keyboard cleaning. Cuz I spit kool-aid (BLUE kool-aid) ALL over my desk. #3. O...M...Gawd. I can almost feel your frustration as you frantically typed out that response. Good! I got your attention! So far I'm not aware of any anti-Trump protestor being charged with 'trespassing', at these events but I haven't looked much. The public is generally welcome to attend ALL rallys held in taxpayer provided venues, but are asked to sit in specific areas. And I would NOT be OK, I'd be mad as hell, if Trump supporters got attacked at a Hillary/Bernie rally....but.....so far..... well, you'll let me know when that happens, right? RIGHT! My pappy used to say "you wallow around with the pigs, people mistake you for a pig." Truer words were never spoken. On an unrelated note...what do you think. Trump supporters= 1) TrumpSters or 2)Trumpeters ( I was a band geek, so I like #2) Now, if you can get this moved to the TRUMP thread-BT would appreciate it |
| 2016-03-12 5:13 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. Of course! Because speaking out against his rhetoric, exercising THEIR 1st Amendment Rights, absolutely warrants a physical assault. Remember when I said Trump supporters were going to find themselves so far away from the shore they couldn't swim back? Congratulations! I get it. People think this is funny. That it's some kind of 'pay back' for electing Obama. The black/Muslim/African/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist/traitor (pick one). They're so easily willing to trample the American flag underneath their feet while they fight for traction on some sick kind of perceived moral 'high ground'. The far Right Wing have obviously lost the intellectual argument (while their presidential candidates debate the size of their manhood). So, like a typical playground bully that doesn't have the capacity to outthink his opponent; they resort to violence. We'll see soon enough who gets the payback. After the Dems win in November (and they ARE going to win in November-1600 Penn Av. and likely the Senate, too) Liberals will have an even stronger say in SCOTUS nominees. And the rancor and resentment from this election will not be so easily forgotten. I could offer them my sympathy, nay, my PITY for feeling so hopeless, so helpless and so very afraid......but, I won't. 'Cuz this is a HILLARY thread.
How old are you and are you taking all of your prescription medicine? Older than dirt. I'm high on Life and the ever-brighter looking political landscape. Thanks for asking! |
| 2016-03-12 5:39 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. Of course! Because speaking out against his rhetoric, exercising THEIR 1st Amendment Rights, absolutely warrants a physical assault. Remember when I said Trump supporters were going to find themselves so far away from the shore they couldn't swim back? Congratulations! I get it. People think this is funny. That it's some kind of 'pay back' for electing Obama. The black/Muslim/African/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist/traitor (pick one). They're so easily willing to trample the American flag underneath their feet while they fight for traction on some sick kind of perceived moral 'high ground'. The far Right Wing have obviously lost the intellectual argument (while their presidential candidates debate the size of their manhood). So, like a typical playground bully that doesn't have the capacity to outthink his opponent; they resort to violence. We'll see soon enough who gets the payback. After the Dems win in November (and they ARE going to win in November-1600 Penn Av. and likely the Senate, too) Liberals will have an even stronger say in SCOTUS nominees. And the rancor and resentment from this election will not be so easily forgotten. I could offer them my sympathy, nay, my PITY for feeling so hopeless, so helpless and so very afraid......but, I won't. 'Cuz this is a HILLARY thread.
Do you just make stuff up to fit your preconceived view of the world? So you're totally ok with protesters going into a private event and physically assaulting the people who are attending it? You call this them exercising their first amendment rights? Seriously? I guess you'd be OK if Trump supporters rushed a Hillary event and attacked her supporters? I mean, hey they're just exercising their first amendment rights. give me a break. Ok, first off.....we're discussing Trump HARD on the 'Hillary' page (because YOU went there...why? Don't want to discuss election outcomes??) #2-you owe me a keyboard cleaning. Cuz I spit kool-aid (BLUE kool-aid) ALL over my desk. #3. O...M...Gawd. I can almost feel your frustration as you frantically typed out that response. Good! I got your attention! So far I'm not aware of any anti-Trump protestor being charged with 'trespassing', at these events but I haven't looked much. The public is generally welcome to attend ALL rallys held in taxpayer provided venues, but are asked to sit in specific areas. And I would NOT be OK, I'd be mad as hell, if Trump supporters got attacked at a Hillary/Bernie rally....but.....so far..... well, you'll let me know when that happens, right? RIGHT! My pappy used to say "you wallow around with the pigs, people mistake you for a pig." Truer words were never spoken. On an unrelated note...what do you think. Trump supporters= 1) TrumpSters or 2)Trumpeters ( I was a band geek, so I like #2) Now, if you can get this moved to the TRUMP thread-BT would appreciate it Like I said, you just make stuff up. You seriously appear unstable dude. You might want to scroll up and see who typed the following on the "hillary thread" |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK