Bill was looking pretty sickly during her coronation speech, falling asleep and all. Expect a Bill death to be this year's "October Surprise," so she can play grieving widow at a state funeral.
FBI director Comey said she is clearly guilty of "criminal negligence" at the very least, but for reasons that made no sense, did not recommend indictment.
The FBI is still investigating Hillary Clinton (and Bill) for the Clinton Foundation corruption, and for perjury regarding testimony about the Benghazzi attacks.
Trump publicly plotting revenge on Cruz = vindictive bitch, lol. Or do you think that is presidential?
I haven't seen anything in the news about Trump targeting Cruz. But I have seen many pundits declare Cruz politically dead after this.
But assuming that was true, that would be different from Hillary's campaign threatening Bernie Sanders he "will pay a price for not endorsing Hillary" ... how? The severity might vary, but in any party, someone not on board will pay a price in party support going forward. Conversely, if Trump loses, Cruz's political stock goes up for having the foresight to not support a losing candidate.
FBI director Comey said she is clearly guilty of "criminal negligence" at the very least, but for reasons that made no sense, did not recommend indictment.
So, not an indicted criminal.
You guys too easily get yourselves into a frenzy over Clinton. It clouds your thinking.
Really, if you want a middle-of-the-road Republican as a candidate, you have one on the other side of the fence. She is only veering left right now to capture Bernie Sanders' supporters, and she'll veer back to the right soon enough to capture corporates.
Respectfully, T-Dave, you don't know Hillary's past.
She is an Alinsky-trained cultural Marxist. She is a radical pursuing a leftist agenda, to the detriment and further destruction of the nation.
The best possible scenario is that she's still a leftist, but for whom money, greed and power are now more important. In which she is a political chameleon who will say and do anything to get elected and get access to money and power. The Clintons used the IRS to audit and harass their political enemies. (As has Obama, though with plausible deniability that they orchestrated it.) There's no limit to what these leftist end-justifies-the-means fanatics would do in office. We've gotten some sample of it in both the Bill Clinton and the Obama years.
Some other recent examples:
1) Loretta Lynch/James Comey, a backroom deal that made the charges go away.
2) The rigging of the DNC nomination process, leveraging out Bernie Sanders, even though they would have eventually leveraged out Bernie if they'd just done it by the rules.
3) The strong-arm tactics and suppression of Bernie Sanders dissenters during the DNC convention, taking away their signs, forcing many to leave. Surrogates chanting "Hillary! HILLARY! HILLARY!" to drown out and hide chants of dissent.
5) The Hillary Newspeak media, that largely hid the obvious dissent that was going on at their own convention! Only if you were watching Fox News was it covered that there was widespread dissent and protest.
That's just a sampling of the corruption, lies, and iron-fisted crackdown on dissenting speech that would accompany a Hillary Clinton/DNC victory.
I only half-jokingly call her Frau Hitlery. The Clintons have definitely made manifest their capacity for abuse of power and targeting their political opposition, using the branches of government. As has Obama.
Saying "Not an indicted criminal" ignorantly bypasses the fact that the FBI director said in his press conference recommendation not to indict, and in his testimony with Rep Trey Goudy in congressional hearings, that Hillary Clinton absolutely >>>IS<<<<< guilty of having an illegal private e-mail that definitely compromised national security and almost certainly but not provably was hacked by foreign governments like Russia and China.
Not directly related to Clinton, but also of note is David Crowley's death in January, which was dubbed a murder-suicide. Allegedly, he shot his wife and child before writing "Allah Akhbar" on the wall of his home in blood and shooting himself. Everyone saw fit to blame it on PTSD...or some bullshit.
He was writing and developing Gray State, but couldn't get production off the ground:
Respectfully, T-Dave, you don't know Hillary's past.
She is an Alinsky-trained cultural Marxist. She is a radical pursuing a leftist agenda, to the detriment and further destruction of the nation.
The best possible scenario is that she's still a leftist, but for whom money, greed and power are now more important. In which she is a political chameleon who will say and do anything to get elected and get access to money and power. The Clintons used the IRS to audit and harass their political enemies. (As has Obama, though with plausible deniability that they orchestrated it.) There's no limit to what these leftist end-justifies-the-means fanatics would do in office. We've gotten some sample of it in both the Bill Clinton and the Obama years.
Some other recent examples:
1) Loretta Lynch/James Comey, a backroom deal that made the charges go away.
2) The rigging of the DNC nomination process, leveraging out Bernie Sanders, even though they would have eventually leveraged out Bernie if they'd just done it by the rules.
3) The strong-arm tactics and suppression of Bernie Sanders dissenters during the DNC convention, taking away their signs, forcing many to leave. Surrogates chanting "Hillary! HILLARY! HILLARY!" to drown out and hide chants of dissent.
5) The Hillary Newspeak media, that largely hid the obvious dissent that was going on at their own convention! Only if you were watching Fox News was it covered that there was widespread dissent and protest.
That's just a sampling of the corruption, lies, and iron-fisted crackdown on dissenting speech that would accompany a Hillary Clinton/DNC victory.
I only half-jokingly call her Frau Hitlery. The Clintons have definitely made manifest their capacity for abuse of power and targeting their political opposition, using the branches of government. As has Obama.
That may all be true but Daves point is also true. She might have done all that but "indicted" is a legal term with a specific meaning, namely, "formally charged with a crime by a grand jury."
That being said, based on what we know if it were anyone but her and the highly politicized Obama Justice Department involved, she would be indicted by now, on that server issue if nothing else
Wanting somebody to be guilty isn't the same as actually being guilty. The FBI guy is a republican and you were all fine with him till he didn't deliver the results you want.
I did. He said she didn't lie to the FBI and wasn't guilty of committing a crime.
He confirmed that she mishandled and inappropriately disseminated classified information, as well as Secret Access Passes. That's acknowledgement of guilt. The only discrepancy is that Killary won't be charged for her crimes, whereas I would be dishonorably discharged and thrown in Leavenworth for the rest of my life.
I think you probably shouldn't be in the military in the first place. You talk about freedom but you choose the most regimented life possible. And I don't think the guy who donated to the McCain, Romney presidential campaigns after serving in the Bush administration treated Hillary any differently than the other sec of state. There is a legal standard that was applied. Sorry but you guys just accuse and shout guilty all the while Trump and Putin are getting it on.
Julian Assange just hinted that Seth Conrad Rich was an informant for Wikileaks. He's awarding twenty grand to anyone with information regarding his murder.
I think you probably shouldn't be in the military in the first place. You talk about freedom but you choose the most regimented life possible. And I don't think the guy who donated to the McCain, Romney presidential campaigns after serving in the Bush administration treated Hillary any differently than the other sec of state. There is a legal standard that was applied. Sorry but you guys just accuse and shout guilty all the while Trump and Putin are getting it on.
Typical liberal. Insulting people in the military.
Where was the insult? Military life is very regimented and contrary to the virtues Pariah expresses here. Plus when somebody thinks states should stop being united, no I don't think it's fitting that they be in the United States military. Do you?
Respectfully, T-Dave, you don't know Hillary's past.
She is an Alinsky-trained cultural Marxist. She is a radical pursuing a leftist agenda, to the detriment and further destruction of the nation.
The best possible scenario is that she's still a leftist, but for whom money, greed and power are now more important. In which she is a political chameleon who will say and do anything to get elected and get access to money and power. The Clintons used the IRS to audit and harass their political enemies. (As has Obama, though with plausible deniability that they orchestrated it.) There's no limit to what these leftist end-justifies-the-means fanatics would do in office. We've gotten some sample of it in both the Bill Clinton and the Obama years.
Some other recent examples:
1) Loretta Lynch/James Comey, a backroom deal that made the charges go away.
2) The rigging of the DNC nomination process, leveraging out Bernie Sanders, even though they would have eventually leveraged out Bernie if they'd just done it by the rules.
3) The strong-arm tactics and suppression of Bernie Sanders dissenters during the DNC convention, taking away their signs, forcing many to leave. Surrogates chanting "Hillary! HILLARY! HILLARY!" to drown out and hide chants of dissent.
5) The Hillary Newspeak media, that largely hid the obvious dissent that was going on at their own convention! Only if you were watching Fox News was it covered that there was widespread dissent and protest.
That's just a sampling of the corruption, lies, and iron-fisted crackdown on dissenting speech that would accompany a Hillary Clinton/DNC victory.
I only half-jokingly call her Frau Hitlery. The Clintons have definitely made manifest their capacity for abuse of power and targeting their political opposition, using the branches of government. As has Obama.
That may all be true but Daves point is also true. She might have done all that but "indicted" is a legal term with a specific meaning, namely, "formally charged with a crime by a grand jury."
That being said, based on what we know if it were anyone but her and the highly politicized Obama Justice Department involved, she would be indicted by now, on that server issue if nothing else
I don't think there's ever been or will be another case where the FBI director, or any law enforcement official ever came forward and said The subject of our investigation is demonstrably guilty of all charges, but for unclear reasons we're not going to prosecute despite an abundance of incriminating evidence. James Comey might as well have concluded, I've been paid off.
There is all the citing of evidence of an indictment, and a choice not to do so that makes absolutely no sense. General David Petraeus and at least one State Department official while Hillary Clinton was State Secretary were convicted on far less.
It's on the level of calling the Fort Hood shooting "office violence". It is OBVIOUSLY something different than what the official statement says.
Saying "Not an indicted criminal" ignorantly bypasses the fact that the FBI director said in his press conference recommendation not to indict, and in his testimony with Rep Trey Goudy in congressional hearings, that Hillary Clinton absolutely >>>IS<<<<< guilty of having an illegal private e-mail that definitely compromised national security and almost certainly but not provably was hacked by foreign governments like Russia and China.
Another name to add to the list of mysterious deaths, DNC official Seth Rich, who Julian Assange came just short of acknowledging today was about to give documents to WikiLeaks, when he was shot in the back on the street for no explainable reason. The Washington DC police chief alleged a "botched robbery attempt" but his wallet, cel phone, watch and other possessions were untouched.
Respectfully, T-Dave, you don't know Hillary's past.
She is an Alinsky-trained cultural Marxist. She is a radical pursuing a leftist agenda, to the detriment and further destruction of the nation.
Um. I am a trained Marxist. I vote conservative in Australian elections. Doesn't mean I am a Marxist.
That's just so much Sophistry. In the sense that I have been educated in the basic concepts of Marxism, and in Marxism's history, I am a trained Marxist as well. That doesn't mean you or I are practicing Marxists, or zealous true believers in the Marxist cause. Hillary is.
She is a practitioner of Alinsky's tactics. As is Obama, who when working for ACORN taught Alinsky RULES FOR RADICALS tactics to classrooms of ACORN "Community Organizers" (i.e., Marxist street agitators, stoking angry mobs to intimidation and violence to advance their cause.)
Both Obama and Hillary are demagogues who ruthlessly attack their opposition by any deceit or circumnavigation of the law available to them.
The allegation is that Hillary has a pair of nuts? I am confused.
Quote:
That's just so much Sophistry.
Stop flirting with me, you.
The sense of the "negative", why Clinton shouldn't be elected position (as opposed to the "positive", why Trump should be elected position) I get out of all of this is:
a. Obama is a dangerous Marxist-trained agitating deceitful demagogue; b. Hillary is cut from the same clothe; c. Middle Eastern immigrants rape and kill and Clinton will accelerate that; d. Mexicans do the same thing (not sure if you guys have bought into that assertion or not but I seem to recall it); e. Clinton will embroil the US in a war in Central Asia with Russia; f. Clinton will continue the stultifying effects of globalisation because of her ties to big business.
Not sure where you all stand on China.
What I have noticed is that, over the past 3-4 years, is how far Tea Party (anti-establishment) right you have all swung.
Back in the day, Wonder Boy was on the right wing of the mainstream Republican Party, G-Man was more mainstream again, and Pariah was out there in Libertarian Limbo Land, getting ready for post-Apocalypse survivalism. I'm kind of joking - in any event, you didn't really buy into mainstream politics.
(To make it plain, I broadly regard Obama as a wonderful President, except on foreign policy where I think he has been disinterested and happy to leave things to his Secretaries of State, and I think Russia and China have taken advantage of that and that Israel/Palestine has become worse without the United States as a voice of reason. As a citizen of a non-US Western democracy, that should be no surprise: we all tend to like Democrats because they're closer to our chunk of the political spectrum.)
But it seems to me that you three have all veered hard right, and that is because of eight years of the Obama administration.
So what does this mean if you're typical of GOP voters? There is a good chance - objectively by any measure, a very decent chance - that you'll have another eight years of a Democrat president. That would mean that since 1993, only eight years will have been under a Republican administration.
(And let's face it, with the benefit of hindsight: despite his nutty advisors and their internationalist interventionist instincts, Dubya was more centrally balanced than a ballerina. He helped big business and he didn't really cause much of a ruckus on the domestic front. He even set aside the world's largest environmental exclusion zone in his last days in office.)
Dubya left office in 2009. Clinton wins and she is in office, most feasibly, until 2024. And that ignores her husband's administration, 1993-2001.
That's a long time in the cold.
And the funny thing is that, if the GOP loses, then instead of saying, well, we need to work on Hispanic or young voters and get them to understand the benefits of conservative politics (and there are many, many benefits - I am a conservative voter in my country), you'll be doing your best to deny Hispanics citizenship rights, curtail the rights of ex-cons to vote because they're black and likely to be Dem supporters and so on.
There needs to be a positive narrative in the GOP. Jobs - get competitive with manufacturing in advanced technologies instead of the shit manufacturing that is now done in Vietnam and Cambodia because even the Chinese can't undercut them. Security - have a gun, if you must, but lock it up and don't let nutjobs have them so as to prevent your kids getting shot. Christian values - and to appeal to young voters, that means modern Christian values around forgiveness and tolerance. Recognise that lots of people pray to Jesus. Be inclusive about that.
But, right now... Fucked if I can see any positive narrative at present with the current freakshow.
If the GOP keep focussing on securing the votes of that diminishing demographic, the old white dudes, the GOP will never be back in office.
Very nicely put Dave. I can remember a time having and liking republican governors but the party is in full destruct mode. Trump's economic plan when compared to Clinton's actually increases the deficit. That use to be a conservative value. It isn't with the party anymore though other than in the sense that they have used it to cut Obama down. Years have been spent trying to make Obamacare be less effective. They could have worked with democrats to build that into a program that worked for both parties. More importantly, the American people that they are supposed to be serving. Not sure what happens next but hope Trump is their rock bottom and the party gets back to being something more positive.
MEM - I don't even see it being a Trump issue. Trump hasn't properly articulated GOP policies at all, but what are they now?
It can't be Reaganesque trickle down economics, because Trump is anti-big business. Trickle-down economics is a rational platform for not taxing large companies. Its an anaethema to Democrats. But it is logical. Paul Ryan, a respected, credible, honourable GOP politician who gets economics and is committed to conservative economic principles, has gone very, very quiet on that.
It can't be national security because Trump wants to be a pal of Putin's and has threatened to withdraw from places like Japan and Korea unless the Japanese (which pay for 50% of the cost of US bases) and Korea pull their weight on cost. What they hey? How about the US Navy keeping open shipping lanes for US commerce if you want a purely fiscal debate about that? Plus Trump threatens the integrity of NATO, which has kept Europe and the North Atlantic safe for 70 years. Zombie Eisenhower would be endorsing Clinton on that basis alone. So who else in the GOP now thinks that the GOP has turned a hard left on national security? John McCain, the GOP hawk who is beyond reproach on service to his country, is shutting his trap on it.
It can't be Christian values, because notwithstanding what Pariah says about Trump being "open" to them and "listening", Trump is the antithesis of Christian values. He is all about the Godless dollar - the art of the deal. The GOP can fall back upon Pence on that front I guess.
It is a hell of a way to achieve party platform recalibration - let the guy with the microphone make it up as he goes along.
I don't see Trump being anti-big business. Sure he's talked tough but his economic policies boil down to more trickle down economics. Tax cuts for everyone but especially for the wealthy. That has gotten us a large distribution of wealth to fewer people already. Paul Ryan might be polite but his economic policies would only make things worse with some exceptions like not taxing large companies that you mention. I do get that.
