@ Tibbers

Do you think the polls or the bookies are a more reliable predictor of the result?

(November 2, 2016 at 5:14 am)A Theist Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 7:17 pm)Napoléon Wrote: I know, people are already butthurt before it's even happened.

If she's elected Hillary would be the first president elect to be under a criminal investigation. She's the most corrupt candidate to ever run for the office...

New batch of Wikileaks into Podesta's emails...

'Dump all those emails': Latest WikiLeaks tranche reveals #Podesta advice"

https://www.rt.com/usa/364959-clinton-po...wikileaks/

"Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, John Podesta <[email protected]> wrote:  > On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have > to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later"

https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/41841

Nothing is going to happen with this new crap. This is simply more sour grapes that is bullshit carryover because the GOP couldn't stand losing to the black secret Muslim.

Whatever you could prove is NOTHING, but jaywalking compared to Bush's two failed wars which got countless civilians and military killed. He had far more outposts attacked too. And where the fuck was the GOP outrage when he and his cabinet lost 22 million e-mails?

(November 2, 2016 at 9:17 am)Brian37 Wrote: Whatever you could prove is NOTHING, but jaywalking compared to Bush's two failed wars which got countless civilians and military killed

Which Hilary loves because she is a neo-con and is proud to have Bush era neo-cons on her side. Ground troops are in Syria right now (so-caled advisors) and Hilary is itching to create yet another failed state to add to the list.

Hilary supported Bush's failed wars whilst in Senate. She loves war. A lot..

All I know is that I can't wait for this fucking election to be over. My ultraconservative mother-in-law is firmly obsessed with the idea that Hillary is going to jail. After all, she read it on some conservative fake news/propaganda sites which routinely sensationalize non-stories in order to drag Democrats' names through the mud, so it must be true! Oh and also Obama is a secret Muslim, pass it on.

My MIL has been suffering from mental issues for some time, namely depression, so I hope she doesn't totally go off the deep end when Hillary wins. I mean, she's devoted so much mental energy into the idea that Hillary's bound for prison and Trump is going to win that next Tuesday evening might not be a happy one for her. Hillary's still leading by around 5-6 points nationally after amalgamating numerous polls, so it looks like she's still on track to win no matter how much anti-Hillary and anti-Obama stuff my MIL posts to facebook.

Uppity women. Trying to put some nice boy out of a job.[/s]

(November 2, 2016 at 5:14 am)A Theist Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 7:17 pm)Napoléon Wrote: I know, people are already butthurt before it's even happened.

If she's elected Hillary would be the first president elect to be under a criminal investigation. She's the most corrupt candidate to ever run for the office...

New batch of Wikileaks into Podesta's emails...

'Dump all those emails': Latest WikiLeaks tranche reveals #Podesta advice"

https://www.rt.com/usa/364959-clinton-po...wikileaks/

"Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, John Podesta <[email protected]> wrote:  > On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have > to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later"

https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/41841

... and if he's elected, he'll be the first President-elect who might have to put off the inauguration because of a m ongoing criminal trial. And then there's this:

Quote:STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC: David, something that doesn't work for Hillary Clinton is e-mail. And again, we know that Wikileaks, the content hasn't been verified. We are concerned about who the hackers are. But I want to ask you about the the John Podesta e-mail back in 2015 that came out of Wikileaks which says, quote, 'we're going to have to dump all those e-mails.' I mean, that's a tough one.

DAVID BROCK: As you know in Washington parlance, dump means release or make public. So, you know, again you say that these e-mails haven't been authenticated, and that is true.

RUHLE: So hold on, John Podesta wasn't saying --

BROCK: Let's just take it at its face.

No, what he was saying is we're going to have to release or make these e-mails public. Now he knew that 55,000 pages of Secretary Clinton's e-mail had already been turned over. What he was doing was saying we're going to make them public. And the fact is that Secretary Clinton asked the State Department a few days after the date of that e-mail to make these public. They were made public which people forget was really an unprecedented act of transparency to make all those business-related e-mails public. So that's what he was talking about. He references Lanny Davis in there, or Lanny, that's clearly Lanny Davis who is out on television saying the same thing. Let's put all of these e-mails out. So that's what that dump meant.

You can watch the video here. The above exchange starts at about 2:45.

I know that Clinton's a poor, poor choice, but a Trump presidency would be an absolute disaster for America.

What cracks me up is how you "family values" guys are able to close your eyes and hold your noses about this guy, who brags about committing sexual assault ... all because he's got an "R" after his name on the ballot.

(November 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 2, 2016 at 5:14 am)A Theist Wrote: If she's elected Hillary would be the first president elect to be under a criminal investigation. She's the most corrupt candidate to ever run for the office...

New batch of Wikileaks into Podesta's emails...

'Dump all those emails': Latest WikiLeaks tranche reveals #Podesta advice"

https://www.rt.com/usa/364959-clinton-po...wikileaks/

"Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, John Podesta <[email protected]> wrote:  > On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have > to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later"

https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/41841

... and if he's elected, he'll be the first President-elect who might have to put off the inauguration because of a m ongoing criminal trial. And then there's this:

Quote:STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC: David, something that doesn't work for Hillary Clinton is e-mail. And again, we know that Wikileaks, the content hasn't been verified. We are concerned about who the hackers are. But I want to ask you about the the John Podesta e-mail back in 2015 that came out of Wikileaks which says, quote, 'we're going to have to dump all those e-mails.' I mean, that's a tough one.

DAVID BROCK: As you know in Washington parlance, dump means release or make public. So, you know, again you say that these e-mails haven't been authenticated, and that is true.

RUHLE: So hold on, John Podesta wasn't saying --

BROCK: Let's just take it at its face.

No, what he was saying is we're going to have to release or make these e-mails public. Now he knew that 55,000 pages of Secretary Clinton's e-mail had already been turned over. What he was doing was saying we're going to make them public. And the fact is that Secretary Clinton asked the State Department a few days after the date of that e-mail to make these public. They were made public which people forget was really an unprecedented act of transparency to make all those business-related e-mails public. So that's what he was talking about. He references Lanny Davis in there, or Lanny, that's clearly Lanny Davis who is out on television saying the same thing. Let's put all of these e-mails out. So that's what that dump meant.

You can watch the video here. The above exchange starts at about 2:45.

I know that Clinton's a poor, poor choice, but a Trump presidency would be an absolute disaster for America.

What cracks me up is how you "family values" guys are able to close your eyes and hold your noses about this guy, who brags about committing sexual assault ... all because he's got an "R" after his name on the ballot.

Oh please. David Brock is a political hack and a Clinton apologist. I don't buy his BS for one minute. Release, means to release. To make public. Dump, means to get rid of. To hide from the public view and to hide from investigation. I think it was clearly understood what Podesta meant, trash the emails. 33,000 of them still missing from when Hillary was SOS.

Yes, Hillary is a poor poor choice, and without a doubt her presidency would be be the nail in the coffin for this country.

And what cracks me up is how you yellow dogs are so easily duped and you will vote for the most crooked and corrupt politicians as long as there's a D after their names.

(November 2, 2016 at 3:18 pm)A Theist Wrote: Oh please. David Brock is a political hack and a Clinton apologist. I don't buy his BS for one minute. Release, means to release. To make public. Dump, means to get rid of. To hide from the public view and to hide from investigation. I think it was clearly understood what Podesta meant, trash the emails. 33,000 of them still missing from when Hillary was SOS.

Yes, Hillary is a poor poor choice, and without a doubt her presidency would be be the nail in the coffin for this country.

And what cracks me up is how you yellow dogs are so easily duped and you will vote for the most crooked and corrupt politicians as long as there's a D after their names.

Was David Brock also a political hack back in the day when he was writing conservative hatchet jobs on Anita Hill, among others? Or did he only become a hack when his politics no longer squared with yours?

Also, Thump is abundantly on record here as not supporting Clinton.

(November 2, 2016 at 3:18 pm)A Theist Wrote: Oh please. David Brock is a political hack and a Clinton apologist. I don't buy his BS for one minute. Release, means to release. To make public. Dump, means to get rid of. To hide from the public view and to hide from investigation.

Not necessarily. You realize that people use terms in ways that are colloquial to them on occasion, right? For instance, when I say a guy got "dusted off", it doesn't mean that I grabbed a feather duster and went to town (by the way, in this context "went to town" doesn't mean "drove into Austin", it means got to work with alacrity.)

Point being, you're imposing your own views on that phrase when a "dump" can also be in the context of an infodump -- throwing it all out there. For that reason, I find Brock's explanation plausible, and unlike you, I'm willing to await the investigations results and then read and decide for myself.

(November 2, 2016 at 3:18 pm)A Theist Wrote: And what cracks me up is how you yellow dogs are so easily duped and you will vote for the most crooked and corrupt politicians as long as there's a D after their names.

Firstly, I probably won't be voting for Hillary anyway, because of my deep discomfort with her. I will only vote for her if Trump is defeatable here in Texas on the 8th. And -- if you think Trump isn't corrupt, you haven't been paying attention.

Secondly, "yellow dogs"? Really? Been reading Mao's Little Red Book or something lately? Juvenile rhetoric aimed at me, when I've been courteous to you ... what does that say about you, and is that really a message you wish to convey?

Thirdly, I don't vote party-line at all. I'm registered as a Libertarian, but I have voted for both Dems and Republicans as well.

Methinks this shot of yours suffers extremely poor aim. You should probably zero-in your sights next time before going off half-cocked like this again.

(November 2, 2016 at 3:26 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Also, Thump is abundantly on record here as not supporting Clinton.

Oh, stop bringing up facts. There's a narrative that needs to be told, and he's gonna tell it, by gum!