The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[cybrguy]

to simply dismiss everything that comes out as lies because nothing has stuck so far seems like a mistake

And that is exactly what they have intentionally, and with foresight, created. A situation where, rather than giving Clinton reasonable doubt, instead you are meant to believe the worst. EVEN THO IT HAS ALL BEEN FOUND TO BE MADE UP BULLSHIT so far.

And every time you repeat the lies and assume the worst, you help them and hurt Hillary. You are an accomplice, whether you see it or want to admit it or not. You are working for Trump. Sorry if you don't like that idea, but it is the case.

 

[Joel W.]

And every time you repeat the lies and assume the worst, you help them and hurt Hillary. You are an accomplice, whether you see it or want to admit it or not. You are working for Trump. Sorry if you don't like that idea, but it is the case.

You are welcome to your opinion. In that same example, if Clinton is actually found guilty in the end and you have kept saying she is innocent, it's just as bad if trump wins.

If Clinton comes out of this on top, I will apologize for doubting her and to this thread. My word is good and I admit my mistakes. I make a lot of them but I do not think I am wrong on this issue, from what I have seen.

 

[gangababa]

Candidates being Presidential...
...Trump in Mexico, fail.

...Jill Stine flying to the wrong city, fail.
Green Party supporters stare at empty podium after Jill Stein accidentally flies to the wrong city
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/gre...l-stein-accidentally-flies-to-the-wrong-city/
...Clinton? She fell down once and that is proof that her bad health killed Foster before he could reveal the goods on her Benghazi.

 

[ReggieB]

The right is mad about stuff because it looks good to their user base, faux-rage is all the rage...

 

[His_Highness]

And that is exactly what they have intentionally, and with foresight, created. A situation where, rather than giving Clinton reasonable doubt, instead you are meant to believe the worst. EVEN THO IT HAS ALL BEEN FOUND TO BE MADE UP BULLSHIT so far.

And every time you repeat the lies and assume the worst, you help them and hurt Hillary. You are an accomplice, whether you see it or want to admit it or not. You are working for Trump. Sorry if you don't like that idea, but it is the case.

Reasonable doubt, or innocent till proven guilty may be in order and I am as guilty as anyone of assuming the worst. I would debate whether these are lies though and that's where my frustration comes in. I would agree that they haven't charged her but I would disagree that it's been found to be bullshit. Not being charged isn't the same as being found innocent.

I'd prefer not to hear any more about potential HRC wrong doing unless she is charged with something. Good luck with that one though.

 

[ReggieB]

They are conveniently only providing some of the facts, just enough to make it look bad but not enough to disprove it at a glance because they are relying on you not doing anything to fact check.

 

[Joel W.]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The FBI released Friday the notes from Hillary Clinton’s interview with the bureau along with the report the agency put together on its investigation.

The documents contained numerous instances in which Clinton did not recall specific emails or incidents, including on classified information procedures.

Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she “could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information,” according to the FBI’s notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton.

http://q13fox.com/2016/09/02/fbi-releases-hillary-clinton-email-report/

I do not recall... I do not recall... I do not recall...

She seems to smart, not to remember anything. Just sayin...

"The phrase "I do not recall" is popular among Hollywood criminals as a way of neither lying nor telling the truth in a court of law or deposition. Obviously if a mobster killed a man, for example, he wouldn't want to confirm that he was at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder, but if the prosecutor later produced evidence that proved he was, he wouldn't want to be on the hook for perjury either. So he would just say "I do not recall being there.", giving him deniability so later when if the prosecutor does produce such evidence, he can say "Oh yeah that's right, you've refreshed my memory. Yeah sure I was there, but only for a minute to do something else that totally didn't involve death."

 

[ReggieB]

but fox...

 

[Gunky]

[in the voice of Don Adams from Get Smart]

Ahah! Oh.... whoops.

Ahah! Aw rats....

AHAH! Oh gosh, oops.

Ahah! .....

 

[gangababa]

I find so much information here! Just enough, followed by innuendo presented as fact.
I never need spend any time asking for verification, second opinion, alternate realities, nor otherwise expect extraordinary proofs of extraordinary claims. I guess I can stop reading; cease palin around with (numerous) journalists and give up "all of them".

But what the hell, Fact free Fox fixed the education problem in the USA and now our children is learning 6000 year-old facts super good, best ever, people say.
Except, why are human bones NEVER found in-situ with dinosaur bones?

In other news, taco-trucks-trump-talker turns out to be a vulture scammer (see how I connected Trump to 47% of Romney).
"The California Department of Real Estate has also brought actions against Gutierrez. In a 2011 action, they sought to revoke and/or suspend Gutierrez' license for collecting advance fees for a home retention action, only to take additional funds from the homeowner's checking account to pay his Comcast and Sprint bills instead of helping them to keep their home."
...
"Apparently Mr. Gutierrez is also a serial bankruptcy filer. According to court documents from 2014, Gutierrez has filed bankruptcy at least 14 times. A potential creditor and former friend explained how they used bankruptcy filings as sort of a pyramid scheme"
...
"This is the man who created the "Latinos for Trump" group. He aspires to be Donald Trump, clearly. Serial bankruptcies, scamming immigrants, trying to use a federal program to help people save their homes as a personal piggy bank. These are characteristics of the man he supports so fervently."

By one's words and deeds, friends and followers, one shows who they are; others then know the fallacies and veracity of that person.

 

[Joel W.]

but fox...

Fact free Fox

Q13fox may be owned by fox but it's just a local news station. They really are middle of the road here and I am a bit surprised, check it out with your link of choice..Still pretty fresh so not many sources just yet. LOL
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...0.0.154.154.0j1.1.0...0.0...1ac.2.6j30YU02-Yc

 

[lwien]

Hilary can't remember if she had any training on how to handle classified emails? WTF ?????

I mean, I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday but I'd sure as hell remember if I had any kind of specific training.

And to take bizarreness a step further, Trump is going to be interviewed by a pastor of a black church in an effort to reach out to the black community but the NYT reported that the pastor submitted all of the questions to the Trump campaign ahead of time so that they could prepare their answers. WTF is THAT all about? Not only that, the pastor than defends his position and says that he didn't see anything wrong with doing that.

This campaign has always been crazy but it just got a bit crazier.

 

[His_Highness]

The next time someone says it's impossible to get someone to change their minds in these threads I can be used as an example. I used to argue that HRC IS untrustworthy because of the mountain of bad acts being brought up every other second.

I've changed my stance to......if they could charge and/or convict of her of something.......they would have and..... until they do.....I'm sitting on the fence.

What's on either side of the fence? One side says its all a ploy to disgrace her and the other says look at all these crimes.

One thing I can definitely tell you....sitting on the fence like this hurts.

 

[lwien]

One thing I can definitely tell you....sitting on the fence like this hurts.

Yup. It's like one of your nuts is pulling you one way and your other nut is pulling you the other way and your prick is doing one of these.............

While I grow more disenchanted with Hillary every day, the choice is still pretty clear to me. While I totally get that she's a manipulative, dishonest person that lacks integrity on many different levels, the other choice also has these exact same flaws except that he has a mountain of crap that goes way beyond just those flaws.

If I even thought for a minute that any other third party candidate of any kind of merit had a chance of winning, I'd vote for them in heartbeat

 

[Joel W.]

There is no fence really for me.

We all need to vote for Clinton, if she is the viable candidate there in Nov (not talking about violence for fuks sake) . We just don't agree on guilty or innocent on whatever the daily topic is. But even if I think she is guilty of this stuff..It won't stop me from voting for her over trump....

 

[CarolKing]

You would have thought that after everything that the Clintons went through in the 1990s they would have been more careful and more transparent. I realize that Hillary wasn't found that she broke the law but all this shady stuff with all the different phones (7) and the personal server. She knew she was going to run for president probably at the time all this was going on. It doesn't look very honest. Trump will have a field day with all this info.

Sometimes I feel like I need a primary do over. This doesn't seem very fair to the American people IMO. I think the democrats drew the short straw even though Trump is a horrible opponent.

It really depends on what is uncovered between now and the election. Timing is everything. If we would have had Bernie as the democrat candidate he would have had a better chance of winning. I'm worried.

She really needs to level with the American people and do some explaining. We need a little one on one time with some answers that we can understand.

I'm curious how this woman sleeps at night with all of this out there?

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Didn't know this was going to be private. Maybe there will be a press conference at some point. If the meeting itself is private Trump will only have to show his new presidential demeanor in front of a camera without a back and forth conversation. Feels like a set up to me.

Waiting for the moment when NO-ONE will take a private meeting with Trump for any reason: say what you want fruit-face, but the cameras will roll the whole time - not cleaning you off of me again....

If nothing else, people will need to defend themselves against charges of bribery and extortion where the DT is concerned, so, I predict(!)

==

Fair enough. Time will tell but they don't sound like yoga emails.

IF you're that familiar with the content of these just-recovered email, it would be nice if you'd tell use what they DO sound like, instead of being coy

Edit: Also, the right is now screaming that Clinton sent classified information from her server, after she left the State Dept. Fyi..

It happens all the time, people realize they're throwing hot air, not substance, so they change the frequency of the screeching - making everyone look again.

==

[reasonable-sounding message content from 'Chelsea', deleted]
They buried their own daughter's email, which was later leaked.

Nothing you've posted so far provides any real basis for either of these assertions - that they "buried" (as in, intentionally hid) a then-germane piece of hardly-classifiable intelligence from a trusted not-secret resource for no guessable reason, or that it was "leaked" at any time (leaking being likewise an intentional act).

It just seems real...different for you, you don't seem conclusion-jumpy much.

(Can I say that without people thinking I must be calling someone a name?)

 

[CarolKing]

For people that volunteer with the Trump campaign they need to sign a public disclosure agreement that you won't say anything bad about Trump, his family or his business for LIFE. That's one paranoid person. He's really worried about any negative talk about him. How will he ever survive being president?

He's really too thin skinned for the job, among many other problems.

Trump hired David Bossie? Ha ha ha ha the new campaign asst manager. He is the head of Citizens United. He's been after the Clintons for years.

Edit
The Citizens United president will take a leave of absence from the non-profit to work for the Trump campaign. He’ll also leave his anti-Hillary Clinton political group — dubbed the “Defeat Crooked Hillary” super PAC, borrowing Trump’s nickname for the Democrat — for his new Trump gig.

Citizens United is best known for bringing the landmark Supreme Court case, “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” which was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010.

The court came down in favor of the conservative non-profit when it sued for the right to broadcast ads for an anti-Clinton movie during the 2008 election season, meant to derail her first bid for the White House. Previously, campaign laws had largely barred corporations and unions for buying media to advance political agendas or candidates.

Hundreds of protesters march in New York City in 2012 to mark the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.
(JEFFERSON SIEGEL)
The case dramatically scaled back regulations on unions and corporations’ political spending — and critics claimed it ushered in a dangerous era where corporations can influence elections through virtually unlimited campaign spending.

Latinos for Trump founder warns of ‘taco trucks on every corner’

President Obama slammed the 2010 ruling at the time, saying it “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

Bernie Sanders — the 2016 Democratic candidate whose supporters Trump has desperately tried to woo — made overturning the Citizens United decision a top priority during his campaign.


74 PHOTOSVIEW GALLERY
New York Daily News covers of Donald Trump through the years
“Any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of their first decisions,” he tweeted in January.

 

[cybrguy]

She seems to smart, not to remember anything. Just sayin...

There you go again.

She said she “could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information,” according to the FBI’s notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton.

Tell me, why must this be a lie? Is it not possible that she could not recall such training or briefing BECAUSE SHE NEVER GOT IT! Has anyone come out and said they gave it to her? Wouldn't someone have done that if they HAD?

I don't mean to pick on you, Joel, but you are among the best examples of the folks WHO KEEP SAYING THIS SHIT LIKE IT IS FACTS. It is not factual, it is only speculation. And to treat it like it is fact is to serve no one but Trump. And you know that, and you continue anyway.

But here is the thing. You could produce unalterable video of Hillary BITING THE HEADS OFF BUNNIES AND KITTENS AND I WOULD STILL VOTE FOR HER 10 TIMES BEFORE VOTING FOR TRUMP! And you probably would too. (poor kitties)

 

[Joel W.]

Tell me, why must this be a lie? Is it not possible that she could not recall such training or briefing BECAUSE SHE NEVER GOT IT! Has anyone come out and said they gave it to her? Wouldn't someone have done that if they HAD?

I don't mean to pick on you, Joel, but you are among the best examples of the folks WHO KEEP SAYING THIS SHIT LIKE IT IS FACTS. It is not factual, it is only speculation. And to treat it like it is fact is to serve no one but Trump. And you know that, and you continue anyway.

It's cool man. Have you read the FBI's report yet? I have. You keep telling yourself what you need to hear but the cat is out of the bag on this one I think now...

I will step away, as I agree when Clinton looks bad, it helps trump and I don't want that either as I have stated over and over and over.... I want another option.

I really wish you were right about Clinton, but it's clear what happened here now. Still more to come , every day, more damaging info.. She doesn't need any help from me now...


Drip...



Drip....



Drip...

 

[Snappo]

Isn't it also just speculation to suggest that if someone had legitamitely trained HRC in the do's & don't s of covert emailism that they would necessarily be quick to come forward of their own volition with that admission? Really? ...willingly, dutifully, and eagerly become implicated in this mess without being first identified and called upon? And while it may be possible that one can forget some of the procedures and protocols instructed, it is a far less plausible claim to make that no memory whatsoever exists that such highly specialized training ever took place. She did many things right and by the book (she's told us so herself) often enough to indicate having such specialized knowledge through training. It is not a naturally intuitive set of procedural codes. Plausible deniability in courtroom parlance has pulled more feet out of the fire than can be counted, and hot footed square dancing is HRC'S ballroom forte.

 

[lwien]

Tell me, why must this be a lie? Is it not possible that she could not recall such training or briefing BECAUSE SHE NEVER GOT IT!

I find it implausible that she can't remember if she got the training or not. Can you? I mean, we all forget things but forgetting a training on security issues when those security issues are so paramount to the job that you are doing?

If you never got the training, you say, "I never got the training". You don't say, "I don't recall.", 'cause that statement leaves room for doubt.

 

[grokit]

Even if she wasn't the sos, she was a two-term sitting senator for chrissakes.
Of course hillary has had training on handling top-secret information.
She also saw reagan and north successfully use "I don't recall".

There's one born every minute on both sides

 

[lwien]

Of course hillary has had training on handling top-secret information.

I've had that training and believe me, you don't forget if you've had it or not. I mean who in the fuck has the word "vigilant" at the top of their vocabulary list other than those who've had that kind of training, eh?

Of course, using that logic, considering this who e-mail server thing, maybe she never did get the training but for some legal reason, like she skipped out on the training 'cause she felt she didn't need it, or something else , it just made more sense to say, "I don't recall."

Ya know, when we first invaded Iraq, I thought to myself, "WTF??. Here all this time I thought the guys running our country were smart". This whole fiasco just validates that.

 

[grokit]