• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The Clinton Discussion Thread

Yes, and in the DNC's charter they claim to be impartial. This was the basis of the class-action fraud lawsuit against them.
Their excuse in court? (paraphrasing) "Not many people would have actually read the Charter therefore they would not have been under the impression that we claimed impartiality".
But ya still did, deceptive cunts..
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said, it was a civil suit, with the bylaws at issue, settled in court, with a payout to Bernie. As exciting as explaining political parties.

My point is they could have started at that point, so bland is this "scandal" of yours. Knowing they would be sued, and lose anyway, they could have openly violated their charter. And Sanders knew this too.

Not a lot of Americans use phrasing like "ya still did, deceptive cunts." That could get you a meet'n'greet with Hr in the more uptight departments.

No, that's not saying you're lying. I'm sure we're all curious as to the origin story of Liquid Method. That's all.
 
LiquidMethod said:
You are correct that I am wasting my time here, but not for the reasons that you imagine.
Click to expand...

Oh no, if we click on one of your links do we get malware? Or is your IP collected like on that anti-Trump site?

I usually don't click, but I did on that Sarborg of Racecar link in the post where you got completely pwned, so just let us know if your nefarious purpose affects Apple or PC or both.

Scrofula said:
I'm sure we're all curious as to the origin story of Liquid Method. That's all.
Click to expand...

I'm riveted. Absolutely this.
 
It's surprising to see people defending the actions of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her replacement, and Hilary. It's hard not to see this as some kind of doublethink, duck talk, or some other Orwellian form of submission. Do you all think it was fair the way the DNC treated Sanders? A private club it may be, but according to its charter, it is supposed to be unbiased.

The thought that this was not a big deal is disappointing. It's a form of Denial. Until the DNC and its leaders start asking some painful questions, they will never learn. Their behaviour cost the Democrats the election and gave the Whitehouse to Trump. When it's Hilary 2020 or Chelsea 2020 vs Trump, the same thing is going to happen.

I read a few excerpts from HRCs book. It was enough to know that the thing is not worth buying or reading in full. She has a lot of fun mocking Trump and spent a lot of time telling us What Happened!!! Not What Happened??? She only Bible Thumps us with her version of the events. Nowhere does she ask the deep questions or do any soul searching.
 
Nope, not defending the DNC at all. I know they settled and she got fired and bernie got money. Really don't know or care about anything else.

What i've been doing is trying to explain how political parties work in the USA, you know, what primaries are, things of that nature. Because if you base a complicated theory on the motivations of people involved in that, you should understand the actual procedures you're talking about.

Better yet, understand the process first, then theorize based on it.

At the very least, while you educate yourself about the things you're theorizing (doing your due research) you modify your theory as new facts become available.

That is just being a good researcher. But the reason is because when someone reads your stuff, and sees that it's based on something that works in a completely different or impossible way, you blow your theory and you lose a lot of credibility.

I mean, why bother reading further? You've already debunked yourself.
 
Which part of it confuses you? Let me know and I'll break it down for you.

ETA: OK, some of what I'm referring to is Liquid Methods unusual take on events. I thought at first glance you'd be familiar with them, but if you're not, it's all good.
 
LiquidMethod said:
Podesta emails reveal that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg wanted Hillary Clinton to win "badly", provided research to her in March 2015 and met privately with her on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...

SNOOOOOOOOORE


Mark Zuckerberg Had Secret Meeting with John Podesta, Colluded to Rig the Election
Click to expand...

Except she lost anyway a year ago. Snooooooore.
 
^I know, how glorious.

You wouldn't be snoring if it was Trump's people that were illegally colluding with Facebook.

Are you completely fine with these emails and what they infer?
 
So the saga continues....

Comey’s original Clinton memo released, cites possible violations

Ex-FBI Director James Comey’s original statement closing out the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server was edited by subordinates to remove five separate references to terms like “grossly negligent” and to delete mention of evidence supporting felony and misdemeanor violations, according to copies of the full document.

Comey also originally concluded that it was “reasonably likely” that Clinton’s nonsecure private server was accessed or hacked by hostile actors though there was no evidence to prove it. But that passage was also changed to the much weaker “possible,” the memos show.
Click to expand...


FBI launches new Clinton Foundation investigation

The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.

FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.
Click to expand...

Next minute:

Fire breaks out on Bill and Hillary Clinton's property.
 
Welcome back sir. It's late and I'm not allowed to light fires here.

But I'll be seeing you.



Edit, dammit, you been back awhile, I thought I nailed your first post.

I see, I forgot to unsubscribe to this thread.

Funny, no one told me. Welcome back anyway.
 
^oh you're a moderator now? Congratulations, I'll have to be nicer to you.

And I'm just going to make a little prediction here:

It seems that Trump and his alliance (white hats, patriots in the government) are taking back the country for the people. There were many very bad, powerful criminals operating in what was ostensibly an international, institutionalized criminal network. These people are currently being taken down. There are currently over 9-10,000 sealed indictments that have amassed in just a short time (usually you won't get much more than 1,000 over an entire year), and there are operations taking place all over the country behind the scenes. Worried people are trying to flee and planes are being turned around mid-air. There is also a large amount of unmarked air traffic going in and out of Guantanamo Bay along with an increased troop presence. All the criminal elites are in trouble. It is no coincidence that after Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia hundreds of corrupt government officials and princes were rounded up and arrested.

Brace yourselves people, this year is going to be VERY interesting.
 
For the record, I totally would've hit Young Hillary Clinton. That's right, from the Wellesley days. I don't know if that's what we're discussing here, but, there you go guys. Middle-Aged Hillary Clinton, however, is a criminal of the highest caliber.
 
^ I had a crush on her in the early '90s ;)


JPrKsL2.jpg
 
LiquidMethod said:
^oh you're a moderator now? Congratulations, I'll have to be nicer to you.

And I'm just going to make a little prediction here:

Brace yourselves people, this year is going to be VERY interesting.
Click to expand...

^On this we agree. This year will be interesting.?

Thank you for your congrats! I'm controversial. ;)

How are you? Has life been treating you well?

OT: I'm so tired of hearing about the Clintons that I'm probably ignoring some interesting things. Once I see the words "private email sever" or "uranium", I'm completely turned off. For all I know she personally dismembered someone but it's in paragraph three.
 
I'm doing well thank you for asking.

cduggles said:
OT: I'm so tired of hearing about the Clintons that I'm probably ignoring some interesting things. Once I see the words "private email sever" or "uranium", I'm completely turned off. For all I know she personally dismembered someone but it's in paragraph three.
Click to expand...

What about "endangering state secrets" or "letting Russian hackers easily steal top secret intelligence" or "putting government passwords on a pedo's laptop" or "Bill meeting privately with Putin before getting $500,000 in rubles"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top