(June 11, 2016 at 8:27 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: You can't have a sensible discussion with Hilary supporters. They're too brainwashed. Even ifHilary shot somebody on 5th Avenue in New York they'd still vote for her -like how Trump said people would support him even if he shot somebody on 5th Avenue.

No, nobody is worshiping her blindly. It is simply bullshit to claim anything she "might" have done, especially since no charges have been filed, as even coming close to the crimes Bush and Cheney have gotten away with. 

The feds are not all democrats. I think you are being stupid about the role of OUR government in investigating ANY politician. There is a bigger picture going on as far as civility. I'd love for Bush and Cheney to be put on trial because that is a much bigger smoking gun. But, civil unrest and more domestic violence or attempts at a revolution are why they are not being charged.

But to claim if something Hillary did doesn't get prosecuted does not mean our government has never or will not bust politicians is fucking bullshit. I was around when Nixon got caught. I was around when Reagan got away with Iran Contra. And of course Bush lied his way into Iraq. But democratic politicians have bee busted in that time as well. 

My only point is "I will believe it when I see it". And as of now, I simply don't see it happening. Nobody is saying you have to like it.

You are still trying to compare at best what would be jaywalking to what Bush did which was far more destructive and cost far more military and civilian lives.

(June 11, 2016 at 6:28 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Today we learn this:
Hillary Clinton Was Advised On Nuclear Weapons by a Donor  (see video below).

Clinton had a commodities trader put on the State Department advisory board which discussed tactical nuclear weapons, e-mails released this week show. This person, Mr. Fernando, a frequent donor to the Clintons, has no background in nuclear science, but Hillary wanted him to advise her on nuclear weapons. In July of 2011 he was given a seat on the International Security Advisory Board, despite not being qualified to take up the position (the panel included high ranking national security experts and people from the military). He was, therefore, given top level security information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4NqFhP855w

Remind me, who am I supposed to be more afraid of? Hilary or Donald? Donald is driven by a love of money, which I think makes him less dangerous than Hilary.

Want to have access to top secret goverment information? Just donate a million or two the Clinton Foundation or hack into her BlackBerry or into her e-mail server. If Hilary is president, enemy nations now know all they have to do to get access to top secret information will be have an agent become a Clinton Foundation donor and have Hilary put them in a top goverment position in exchange for that money.

Give her a Monica and she will tell everything she knows. Huma might get jealous but they could do a three-some.

Time's up for this thread. The Primaries are over. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next President. Unless you're stumping for Trump, this shrill, anti-Hillary crap is pointless.

I hadn't considered what Brian37 pointed out about Trump and Cheney. If those two weren't indicted, good luck to the FBI trying to justify indicting Hillary.

(June 11, 2016 at 8:43 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Time's up for this thread. The Primaries are over. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next President. Unless you're stumping for Trump, this shrill, anti-Hillary crap is pointless.

I hadn't considered what Brian37 pointed out about Trump and Cheney. If those two weren't indicted, good luck to the FBI trying to justify indicting Hillary.

Its not even over the Super Delegates haven't even voted yet. Then there is the election fraud case going on because
of the exit polling. Then the FBI and the White house now calling it a criminal investigation. Yeah..... i wouldn't call it a hillary vs trump
because let's be honest... if it turns out if its trump vs hillary trump is going to win

(June 11, 2016 at 9:42 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 8:43 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Time's up for this thread. The Primaries are over. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next President. Unless you're stumping for Trump, this shrill, anti-Hillary crap is pointless.

I hadn't considered what Brian37 pointed out about Trump and Cheney. If those two weren't indicted, good luck to the FBI trying to justify indicting Hillary.

Its not even over the Super Delegates haven't even voted yet. Then there is the election fraud case going on because
of the exit polling. Then the FBI and the White house now calling it a criminal investigation. Yeah..... i wouldn't call it a hillary vs trump
because let's be honest... if it turns out if its trump vs hillary trump is going to win

No, the super delegates are not going to vote against a candidate with a majority of the vote and a majority of pledged delegates and there sure as hell is no election fraud here. And no, Trump is not going to beat Hillary. She may have a closet full of skeletons but Trump has a warehouse full of them.

Dyre, I really think you're coming from a good place but I think this is naive.

(June 11, 2016 at 9:42 pm)dyresand Wrote: Its not even over the Super Delegates haven't even voted yet.

Yeah, but hundreds of them are publicly on record as saying they *will* vote for Clinton. The superdelegates are, by definition, establishment democrats. To reneg on their initial commitment would be political suicide, and they would have to do so in great numbers, numbers that would be statistically impossible barring a ridiculous coordinated effort (which is somehow being kept a secret from the media).

Quote:Then there is the election fraud case going on because
of the exit polling.

The only source for the statement that "all of the polls are showing Bernie winning but Clinton is inexplicably getting more votes" is... whoever made that statement up. In the kinds of polls that people who sign change.org petitions demanding recounts of every state's democratic primary elections (that is, internet polls where participation is voluntary and encouraged and such), sure Bernie's winning. That's because Bernie Sanders has a lot more supporters who spend a ton of time on the internet and on forums and reddit and such. In the kinds of polls that actually try to predict results (that is, phone and live polls controlled for demographic factors), they've predicted the correct result - be it a Bernie win or a Hillary win - almost every time (Michigan being the notable exception).

Nationally, in all of the primaries, Hillary has received approximately 13.5 million votes, and Bernie has gotten 10.5 million (don't know if that was before or after the California primary). To say that "Clinton and the DNC have stolen the primary from Sanders," you would need to allege massive voting fraud coordinated from the top down to the level of practically every local polling place to the tune of 1.5 million votes being switched from Bernie to Hillary. Such fraud would be ubiquitous across the country, and you'd have to believe that it was hidden from either every single reporter everywhere (each of whom would cut off a limb to get the kind of story that would make their career and let them retire to a mansion somewhere) or that *every single person who knows about this* is 1) in the DNC's pocket for more than it would be worth to break the story or 2) so utterly incompetent as to be unable to provide proof of fraud affecting at least 1 out of every 16 votes in the country.

As I said: naive.

Quote:Then the FBI and the White house now calling it a criminal investigation.

There are factions who badly want this to be criminal. There is an "ongoing investigation," and we'll see what comes of it. To me, it seems like she was a dumb stupid idiot to not make sure everything was aboveboard if she was considering another presidential run, but it also doesn't seem worse, from the facts we know, than what the two Secretaries of State before her did. If she is charged with a crime, so be it: she'll have a chance to defend herself.

Quote:Yeah..... i wouldn't call it a hillary vs trump
because let's be honest... if it turns out if its trump vs hillary trump is going to win

I just don't think this is true. Every national poll (the predictive kind I mentioned, not the internet kind) has Hillary winning by 2 to 5 percentage points. There are far more reasons to think that number will go up after the DNC than down. The demographics simply aren't there for Donald at present. They may get there, but it's quite unlikely.

And, listen: I voted for Bernie in the primary. But the fact that he lost - fair and square, I might add - means that I've now got to choose between a woman who, despite her many faults, will work to preserve most of the gains we've made over the last 8 years (and push for some new ones, even if they're not as dramatic as we'd like) and a man who will literally make America the laughingstock of the world, as well as less safe, less free, less great.

Easy decision.

Wow, stellar post, TRJF. The voice of sanity.

1. Election fraud is not just change.org petitions. Have you been living under a rock?

There are a number of different lawsuits. You have Election Justice USA in the states New York and Arizona for example. And you have Alliance for Democracy; in particular eection fraud experts Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis say they have proof that Hillary Clinton's campaign has benefited from election fraud. Loads of polling stations were closed (such as 2/3s in Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, Arizona, etc)  and, as has already been mentioned, the exit polls.

Who are Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis? They've been tackling election fraud since 2004. So they know their stuff. I'll let the below video, posted June 9th, explain - where they talk about their lawsuit. In summary, Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis wanted the exit polls to be made public, which they said would prove election fraud. So, in response, New Jersey and California cancelled the exit pols. The video also mentioned that in 2012, these people probably saved Obama's reelection.

This Lawsuit Might End Hillary's Run & Prove Election Fraud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibK4de85IKw

Karl Rove was not told the election fraud was off in 2012 because the scrutiny was on in 2012, so that's why he went nuts:





2. Collin Powell did not own a private server. Hilary Clinton did. That's the difference. If Hilary is not charged with criminality then it sets dangerous precedent. She put the lives of CIA operative at risk, siphoned information so secretive the US government denies its very existence and nobody knows who exactly used her unauthorized and unsecured (for three whole months) sever.

The State Department report showed that all of Hilary's excuses were baloney. She lied about her e-mail sever. And she has also tried to stop the FBI from doing its job. She deleted over 30,000 e-mails which she deemed as "personal and private". That's another offense. I don't know why Hilary is so afraid of the Freedom of Information Act laws.

Hillary has my blue ribbon stamp of approval. As for all the criticism she gets, you know, haters just gonna hate I guess.

Unfortunate, but Hillary is the best option at this point, now that it's absolutely clear Sanders is not going to win.