The Clinton Discussion Thread

[cduggles]

Ah the male metaphor. Easy choice compared to the turd sandwich. :D

 

[Xorkoth]

Mainly, it was a South Park reference.

 

[cduggles]

Was that episode 3,231, at 26 mins? :D

Too much of a great thing.

My favorite was Raisins, when the mother realized the waitress probably "lacked potential".

Ima look it up now. Derp!!!!

 

[Speed King]

^ you'l have to ask shimmer fade, i was just noting your avoidance of the request for a source.

"Seems like wildly dishonest speculation" - when you bdon't support your claims with evidence, it does. i've lost track of which bit of dishonest speculation on your part he was referring to.


why? we're talking about trump. stop changing the subject.


now - regarding these "fire and fury" comments about North Korea.
how's trump going as a peacemaker diplomat? seems to be stumbling into nuclear holocaust.

this is just great, thanks for electing a braindead mutant, america.

Did you ever see the South Park episode with voting for a douche bag or turd sandwich?

I thought you lived in Oz SJ?


Seriously though. He has handlers and people to help him. If Hilary was in office, some key things would be different. Neither of them would be perfect. He is hard nose but things are getting done. I hate politics. I admit I have to do some real research to get a bigger view.

For me, I have been able to better myself. If there was no drama, the news wouldn't know what to do. I support him. I actually had to do work to earn some government assistance. That in turn put me on a career path. I wen't from getting a hand out to not wanting any. I actually want to be in business for myself.

I apologise for going OT if I did, but what are the repercussions for each canidate besides bitching and moaning from people. One side has a shady track record, the other made some mistakes but in the end, at minimum, the lesser of two evils, "I believe". I said that to placate any easily upset people.



First time poster in any political thread here. If people want change in the US, get off your ass and vote.

This election was a better turnout at the polls, but sub par for all the back and forth and hating.

thanks for your time.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I don't think Hillary was very corrupt.

 

[JGrimez]

Clinton is corrupt. I prefer to focus on Trump's corruption and ineptitude, however, as it's far more relevant and damaging at the moment. The longer he stays in office, the more damage he and his people can do. I'd have preferred Clinton be elected than Trump but I'm glad Clinton wasn't elected too. When you're given the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich, nobody wins...

Why not prefer to focus on all corruption?
It's actually hilarious how you don't seem to care about the damage Obama did and that Clinton was going to continue, providing she won which luckily she didn't, and now it's all being exposed and actually properly investigated (or so it seems). The FBI were not doing their job with the email investigation, Peter Strzok just testified. His text messages show how they covered for Clinton and went after Trump. FBI isn't supposed to do that. Now we know that Bill Clinton organized a meeting with Loretta Lynch a few days before his wife was cleared of some pretty serious stuff. They lied and said it was a chance encounter.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Obama helping Iran out with canceling that DEA investigation into Hezbollah was shady as hell.

Bailing out the industries again and again. Bank corruption as he continually looked the other way.

No reason to think Clinton would have continued all his failures though.

 

[Speed King]

Obama helping Iran out with canceling that DEA investigation into Hezbollah was shady as hell.

Bailing out the industries again and again. Bank corruption as he continually looked the other way.

No reason to think Clinton would have continued all his failures though.

Why not? Same platform.

This isn?t complete speculation, but for arguments sake, how do you think the basic immigration issue would differ if we went democratic?

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Why not? Same platform.

This isn?t complete speculation, but for arguments sake, how do you think the basic immigration issue would differ if we went democratic?

I'm all for open borders. Hillary wanted to go in that direction.

The R's sadly jumped down her throat at the idea of it.

 

[JGrimez]

Few off-topic posts..

No reason to think Clinton would have continued all his failures though.

We have evidence that Clinton and Obama have been colluding and conspiring to continue this perversion of the FBI/DOJ and to attack Trump.
They are on the same team with the same donors pushing the same goals and feeding the public the same lies
"When did you find out about Clinton's extremely illegal private server that was unlawfully storing classified documents?" ?The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports" - Obama. Why lie?
Thank God she didn't win. I'm also not saying that Trump is the savior to all our problems, but at least we have some chance with Trump who has stated he wants to improve relations with other states.
Clinton was threatening Russia with war.... (while allegedly selling them state secrets and provably selling and allowing them to export uranium).

I'm all for open borders.

This is probably a discussion for a different thread, but why?
Would it be better to radically alter foreign policy and "fix" other countries financially and politically, as opposed to just opening up the borders?
Think about what immigrants want, why are they immigrating? Would they prefer to have a better situation in their home countries, or do they actually love the USA culture that much?
The USA is fucking up other countries and not taking responsibility.
I can't believe this is actually a serious suggestion.

 

[swilow]

Immigration discussion is getting quite off topic, guys.

We have evidence that Clinton and Obama have been colluding and conspiring to continue this perversion of the FBI/DOJ and to attack Trump.

If Trump has been colluding, its not a perversion or an attack.

You'll dismiss off-hand any evidence presented against Trump by the Mueller investigation, I don't know your source for any of your claims but I bet its not half as rigorous.

Boggles the mind that you guys give a fuck about Clinton anymore. Genuine question, do most losing candidates still generate so much hubbub 18 months after being defeated?

 

[JGrimez]

How many recent losing candidates have walked away from direct evidence of felonies, plus involvement with unlawfully surveilling an opposing presidential candidate? I'm talking evidence by the way stuff we can prove.
Mishandling classified information, destroying evidence that was subpoena'd, among much more. Loretta met with Bill. Comey wrote an exoneration letter before interviewing Clinton. She wasn't interviewed under oath. All the co-accused were allowed to communicate. All were given immunity.

What if Trump was caught doing any of this? < A question not many want to answer. Does the law apply to everyone or are ex-lawyer career-politicians exempt while political-outsider businessmen are not?

Even if Trump did collude - which I'm confident to say that he didn't since years later absolutely zero evidence has been presented to the public proving so - anything found would be fruit from the poisonous tree, and some people inexplicably don't seem to care. (I also have to point out the irony of you telling me I was veering off-topic and then you bringing up Trump in this thread.)

 

[swilow]

I'll never understand Comey reopening the investigation so close to the election. That just doesn't seem to fit the narrative.

(I also have to point out the irony of you telling me I was veering off-topic and then you bringing up Trump in this thread.)

I addressed the general cohort here, not just you.

colluding and conspiring to continue this perversion of the FBI/DOJ and to attack Trump

As you can see, brought up Trump. Stay on topic Mr Grimez

 

[cduggles]

Post UA'd because this is a harm reduction site.

 

[quiet roar]

<SNIP>

Here you go Captain:

http://www.newsweek.com/how-robert-mueller-connected-probe-hillary-clintons-uranium-one-deal-688548

 

[Xorkoth]

Why not prefer to focus on all corruption?
It's actually hilarious how you don't seem to care about the damage Obama did and that Clinton was going to continue, providing she won which luckily she didn't, and now it's all being exposed and actually properly investigated (or so it seems). The FBI were not doing their job with the email investigation, Peter Strzok just testified. His text messages show how they covered for Clinton and went after Trump. FBI isn't supposed to do that. Now we know that Bill Clinton organized a meeting with Loretta Lynch a few days before his wife was cleared of some pretty serious stuff. They lied and said it was a chance encounter.

I do care, but they're not the president right now. Trump is the president and he's basically running around breaking everything. Among so many other things, the tariffs are hurting us more than they're hurting anyone else.

You mentioned in a post that Trump wants to improve relations with other states... well he's doing a terrible job of it so far. Yeah, Russia's happy with him, but he's alienating our longtime allies.

 

[JGrimez]

If allies are taking advantage and we're re-negotiating deals to make them more mutually beneficial, then those leaders are choosing to alienate us.

And yeah sure that's fine if you think Trump is guilty of super illegal stuff, keep investigating but so far there is zero solid evidence just a lot of circumstantial theories.

Meanwhile we have direct evidence of Clinton and co committing crimes and the FBI failing to investigate.

Also Xorkoth what do you say about the FBI & DOJ unlawfully colluding and wiretapping Trump? It's basically a coup, have you read Peter Strzok's text messages?

 

[Xorkoth]

If you believe that these "renegotiations" are mutually beneficial and other leaders are getting mad about it for no reason, then I'm not sure where to go from here in this conversation. Do they just not like Trump so they're choosing to get mad over nothing? What about the "trade war"/tariffs? So far they've succeeded in hurting quite a few American industries. And of course they've pissed our allies off.

And as I've said before, you and I don't KNOW whether there is evidence or not. There is an active investigation, how would we know? That stuff is kept secret until they drop the hammer, otherwise the people they're investigating would have a heads up. This is how investigations work. Two years is not a long time at all, tons of investigations into major organizations and powerful criminals take much longer than 2 years... and this one is about the president of the United States and other powerful people, and it involves our most significant rival country in the world as well.

If they unlawfully did something, then I'm against that. But even if they did, it has no bearing on whether or not Trump and his people are criminals.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

<SNIP>

Here you go Captain:

http://www.newsweek.com/how-robert-mueller-connected-probe-hillary-clintons-uranium-one-deal-688548

The Republican majority House approved Uranium One. Big nothingburger.

There’s better conspiracy theories out there, like the 9/11 truthers.

 

[JGrimez]

If you believe that these "renegotiations" are mutually beneficial and other leaders are getting mad about it for no reason, then I'm not sure where to go from here in this conversation. Do they just not like Trump so they're choosing to get mad over nothing? What about the "trade war"/tariffs? So far they've succeeded in hurting quite a few American industries. And of course they've pissed our allies off.

I don't know what you've been told that Trump is doing but he's bringing manufacturing back to America (some of these jobs Obama said were never coming back).
There is a lot of unnecessary rhetoric emanating from the media about trade wars.

And as I've said before, you and I don't KNOW whether there is evidence or not. There is an active investigation, how would we know?

Whenever I say the evidence I'm talking about what's publicly available. And they should have presented at least something to the public by now proving that Trump did something illegal. So far there is nothing that been made public. However with Clinton I can safely say that there is enough evidence there to put Hillary, Abedin, Mills, Weiner, Bryan Pagliano, Strzok, Comey, Obama + more in jail. I'm not guessing here about what investigators might have in their back pockets after half a decade, I'm talking today right now. Xorkoth you keep skirting this and saying "but Trump", sorry but there's no solid evidence against Trump. So if you care about the law and justice then you should be rallying for all the above to be tried and if guilty convicted.

If they unlawfully did something, then I'm against that. But even if they did, it has no bearing on whether or not Trump and his people are criminals.

It actually does. Because if you break the law trying to bust someone then evidence can be thrown out. You cannot use knowingly false evidence to obtain a warrant (and if you're going to do that, at least be sure that you're going to turn up something illegal!!)