you claim to be unbiased but then go on to slam people who support hillary as lazy, yet say nothing about the other side.
Which poster did I slam? Why are you so upset that I don't like Hillary and free-loaders?
but thankfully, you're wrong and it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Wrong about what?
Our nation will be fine with Hillary running it. continue whining to somebody who will listen.
Nice. You feel the need to make a personal insult because I don't agree w/you about Hillary? And then your BB "likes" the post. You both are demonstrating just how closed-minded you are.
And you're implying that there aren't any free loaders on the conservative side.
Which is why I pointed out your lack of transparency.
And saying you're whining isn't a personal insult. But I expect nothing less from you lol.
Anyways, what the Retired SCJ said is accurate. And thankfully the majority of the country agrees with that idea.
Can't wait for the tears to flow when she starts nominating judges.
The GOP shouldve confirmed Garland. That's about to bite them in the asses so hard.
And close-minded? No matter how much you repeat that, its still false.
Kick rocks, forum mod lol (personal insult)
Last edited by Swish; 10/22/1603:15 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
This was actually from 2014 which I did not realize when I made my post. The size of the 'team' has very likely grown since then. Many of the comments you see on various sites, social media, etc. are not organic! (This is true on both sides)
Quote:
Correct the Record’s staff (18 and counting) is crammed into a newsroom-style bullpen in the back corner of the offices of American Bridge 21st Century, Brock’s Super-PAC. “They’re always there; they’re always working around the clock,” former Clinton White House adviser Paul Begala says of the crew. “I always tease David that he finds all of these nerd virgins and locks them away in a vault where they never see sunlight or have a drink or get laid. But God Bless them!”
What a nice way to talk about people on your own side.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So when you take this L on Nov. 8th, is the conservative train wreck gonna explode like fireballs? or will it be a slow moving, some people survive kinda thing?
who are you guys gonna put on the ticket in 2020?
i got money on Sarah Palin.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Elections Expert: “We Now Have 4 Million Ineligible and Dead Voters on American Voter Rolls” (VIDEO)
Jim Hoft
Oct 18th, 2016
Elections expert J. Christian Adams told FOX and Friends on Tuesday morning there are 4 million dead people on US voter rolls.
Adams, who was the Voting Section Attorney at the US Department of Justice, filed six suits in the past year against Philadelphia and Broward County, Florida where the voter rolls are corrupted.
Adams said he had one case in Texas where the person died in 1944.
Far left groups continually sue to keep the voter rolls the way they are. The Obama administration has no desire to clean up these voter rolls.
J. Christian Adams: Dead people are voting and it’s something this administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million Steve, ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust.
And you're implying that there aren't any free loaders on the conservative side.
Which is why I pointed out your lack of transparency.
And saying you're whining isn't a personal insult. But I expect nothing less from you lol.
Anyways, what the Retired SCJ said is accurate. And thankfully the majority of the country agrees with that idea.
Can't wait for the tears to flow when she starts nominating judges.
The GOP shouldve confirmed Garland. That's about to bite them in the asses so hard.
And close-minded? No matter how much you repeat that, its still false.
Kick rocks, forum mod lol (personal insult)
You bring nothing but harsh commentary and insults.
Let me be clear. I would never vote foe Hillary. And I would never vote for Trump. Both suck. Don't try to paint me in a certain color just because I don't like the biggest liar in all of politics.
You guys are closed-minded. There are many of you who only argue one side of the argument. You refuse to acknowledge transgressions for "your candidate" and hurl insults over and over. It used to be the right that did that. They made me so sick that I never even posted in this forum. I leaned more left because of how freaking intolerable they were. However, this time around, it's the left that is far more insulting and closed-minded. I still lean a bit to the left, but you guys are disgusting in your one-sided, insulting, narrow-minded rhetoric. Pound that, Reggie.
And if you wanna keep running your mouth about the Roman Empire, I will post so many articles that this thread will be locked due to length that says you are full of crap and what I said was correct, so be careful, little man.
Coming from a guy who does nothing but make insult.
Blah blah blah, quit whining. Your third party candidate is trash. It's ok. Maybe Sarah Palin will run in 2020.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Not exactly. Four years ago, the Pew Center published a report on errors and inefficiencies in the nation’s voter-registration system, which the research organization concluded is in need of a systemic upgrade. It did find, for example, that roughly 1.8 million deceased people were still on voter registration rolls nationwide and should be removed.
But that’s not evidence of fraud. Sometimes, Americans register to vote, then die, then remain on voter lists because the rolls aren’t updated as efficiently as they should be. The Pew Center didn’t point to any evidence of dead voters casting ballots, only dead people who haven’t been removed from the system.
It's funny watching rich white guys cry about anything being rigged against them in this country. Man oh man that's hilarious.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim of 'large scale voter fraud'
By Linda Qiu on Monday, October 17th, 2016 at 3:32 p.m.
Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim of 'large scale voter fraud' Fact Checking Donald Trump's immigration speech in Phoenix
Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim of 'large scale voter fraud'
"Of course, there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day." Pants on Fire!
Donald Trump tripled down on his baseless claim that the U.S. election system is rigged against him, capping a weekend of lashing out at the media for publishing "fabricated" allegations of sexual assault and at Alec Baldwin for impersonating Trump on Saturday Night Live.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans defended the Election Day process at an Oct. 15 rally, but Trump continued to blame the media for "pushing Crooked Hillary" and added that rigging is happening at "many polling places."
"Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!" Trump tweeted the morning of Oct. 17.
The Trump campaign reiterated Trump’s stance that the cards are stacked against Trump, pointing to a column from The Hill's media reporter Joe Concha on how the media could influence voter perceptions of Trump. To be clear, this is not the same thing as a voter committing fraud.
The Trump campaign also pointed us to a 2012 Pew Center study that estimated about 24 million, equal to one in every eight, voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are inaccurate. But as we have previously reported, no evidence of voter fraud was found — this is about record-keeping that is badly managed and in disarray.
The other piece of evidence offered by the Trump campaign is a 2014 study that says approximately 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent in 2010. That study has been criticized by election experts for using an unreliable database of Internet respondents.
And finally, the Trump campaign forwarded us reports of voting irregularities in swing states like Pennsylvania, Colorado and Virginia. But these reports were either of reported and prevented cases of fraud or isolated instances. They do not amount to rampant, widespread fraud or assert that the few cases affected the outcome of an election.
Voter fraud is rare. Trump talking about it is not.
Voter fraud isn’t a catch-all term for any election shenanigan. Voter fraud is rare and refers to illegal interference in voting, such as ballot stuffing, voter impersonation or vote buying.
Before his White House bid, Trump tweeted about dead voters delivering President Barack Obama’s victory in 2012, floated charges about multiple voting in the primaries, and suggested that undocumented immigrants "just walk in and vote" in some polling places.
These charges do not reflect reality.
News 21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found 150 alleged cases of double voting, 56 cases of noncitizens voting, and 10 cases of voter impersonation across all elections from 2000 to 2011. Many of these allegations never led to charges, while others were acquitted or dismissed.
Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and an expert on voter fraud, found an even smaller number: 31 credible incidents out of more than 1 billion votes cast from 2000 to 2014.
Put it in another way: More people are struck by lightning or attacked by sharks than are accused of voter fraud.
When voter fraud does occur, it’s not always intentional. Multiple studies have traced known cases not to willful deception but to clerical errors or confusion.
For example, one case of a dead person voting (Alan J. Mandell) happened because a poll worker accidentally marked his name instead of the man who actually cast the ballot, Alan J. Mandel. Similarly, in one of just five cases of a noncitizen voting between 2000 and 2004, a permanent resident was told he was eligible and given a voter registration form by a DMV clerk when renewing his license.
So, given the rarity of occurrence, the lack of intent, and a federal penalty of a $10,000 fine or up to five years in prison, experts say it would be extremely difficult to rig an election through the ways Trump has decried.
"I'd like to see him try to vote 10 times on Election Day. It would be virtually impossible and a knuckle-headed way to try to corrupt an election," Lorraine Minnite, a political science professor at Rutgers University who wrote The Myth of Voter Fraud, previously told PolitiFact.
For double or triple voting to sway an election, an army of voters would have to visit multiple polling locations each, know the names and addresses of the people they were impersonating and produce fake IDs (in many states) or forge their signatures — plus commit to committing perjury the entire time.
"Campaigns don’t pay people to pretend to be people they’re not. That’s too stupid," said Mary Frances Berry, former chairwoman of the U.S Commission on Civil Rights and author of Five Dollars and a Pork Chop Sandwich, a book about electoral fraud.
So there is no evidence of a massive attempt to rig the election on and before Election Day.
Collusion confusion
Trump elaborated on his voter fraud theory a few hours after his initial tweet.
"Voter fraud! Crooked Hillary Clinton even got the questions to a debate, and nobody says a word. Can you imagine if I got the questions?" he tweeted.
His follow-up is not evidence of large-scale voter fraud, though it does bring up a separate concern revealed by Wikileaks.
Trump is referring to an email obtained by Wikileaks from then-CNN contributor and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile with the subject line, "From time to time, I get the the questions in advance."
"Here’s one that worries me about HRC," Brazile wrote to Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri on March 12, 2016. "Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?"
Palmieri wrote back: "Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it."
The next day, CNN co-moderated a Democratic primary town hall, and one person asked Clinton about the death penalty.
But Brazile, who is now interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman, has denied that she notified the Clinton camp of the question and says she never had access to the questions in the first place. (The Clinton campaign has yet to confirm or deny the authenticity of the emails.)
A CNN spokesperson told Politico, "we have never, ever given a town hall question to anyone beforehand." CNN host Jake Tapper, one of the debate moderators, called the leak "very, very upsetting," and the network has blamed debate partner TV One as the source.
This is concerning, but none of it is evidence of voter fraud.
Our ruling
Trump said, "Of course, there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day."
Actual instances of voter fraud — such as voter impersonation, ballot stuffing and bought votes — are extremely rare, often unintentional and not on a scale large enough to affect a national election. Trump's alarming claim, once again, is without proof.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Thanks for posting that. Multiple people have posted on the voter fraud angle for a while now.
At this point, I wonder if anybody who's still pushing it signed up to be a booth watcher for Trump, since they're so concerned and all.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.
According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.
Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."
"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."
As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.
Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."
According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.
The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked.
Something funny is happening in the major national polling department of this presidential race, and no one’s talking about it.
First, somehow the narrative seems to be developing that the polls show Clinton with a near insurmountable lead.
Not so fast.
Not so fast at all.
There is a very large gap between Trump’s and Clinton’s current national standing, as revealed by Goebbels/Pravda (CBS, NBC, ABC/Washington Post), on the one hand, versus the picture painted by three respected polling organizations that are not part of the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, on the other:
Here are some of the numbers available Friday, October 21, 2016:
Goebbels/Pravda (with NBC and CBS as reported by RCP on the afternoon of Friday, October 21, 2016):
ABC/Washington Post: 47-43, Clinton
NBC: 51-43, Clinton
CBS: 51-40, Clinton
Non-Propaganda Machine-affiliated (as reported on the afternoon of Friday, October 21, 2016):
IBT/TIPP: 41-40, Trump
LA Times/USC Tracking: 44.5-43.8, Trump
Rasmussen: 43-41, Trump
To say there’s a huge difference in the current state of the race as depicted by Goebbels/Pravda versus that shown by major independent polling organizations would be risible understatement.
The propaganda arm of the Democratic Party is showing a runaway race, while the independents present an extremely tight one, with Trump frequently leading by a nose.
I have no idea who’s right, but I’m certain of this: both can’t be.
As our twenty-five-year-olds would ask: “Dude, what’s up with that?”
Why no discussion of this huge discrepancy?
Why the assumption by the media that it’s in the bag for what’s-her-name?
By the way, regarding an item of terminology:
I submit that “Goebbels/Pravda” is a moniker the gang of six has more than richly earned by its collective coverage of “The News” in this presidential election.
In the current election, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN have openly, obviously, crudely, and in unalloyed derogation of their obligations as news organizations in a free society, affiliated themselves with the Democratic Party. With unassailable historical veracity, they now can and should be grouped with their predecessor propagandists whose function was to parrot the line of the parties that controlled the Soviet Union, 1917-91, and Germany, 1933-45.
They should be collectively so referenced until they have shown for at least a generation that they can honestly select, investigate, and report the news, especially in national elections.
All writers have my permission to employ the term without attribution.
Indians in the world series. Cavs season about to start. Hitting the gym so early in the morning!! Trump about to get smacked in the election. And conservatives crying their eyes out on the board!!
So early (hey!) so early (hooah!!) so early in the morning!!
God is good, y'all!!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i made my wife and kids bacon, eggs, and french toast this morning! all the graciousness in the world!!
god is good!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Indians in the world series. Cavs season about to start. Hitting the gym so early in the morning!! Trump about to get smacked in the election. And conservatives crying their eyes out on the board!!
So early (hey!) so early (hooah!!) so early in the morning!!
‘Take the Money!!’ and other highlights from the Podesta email leak
Michael Isikoff Chief Investigative Correspondent October 21, 2016
Throughout the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign presented her as a crusading reformer who would take on powerful corporate interests and curb the role of big money in American politics.
But the recent WikiLeaks dump of campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails offers revealing snapshots that tell a somewhat different story. Top aides plot to “scare our people into giving bigger sums.” They debate whether to take cash from registered foreign agents: “Take the money!!” one senior campaign official advises. A top corporate lobbyist, pressed to “hit up” his clients for Clinton campaign coffers, asks for high-level help to advance one of those client’s interests. And there are new details about the overseas cash that rolled into the Clinton Foundation — including a $12 million commitment from the king of Morocco that Hillary Clinton personally helped facilitate.
The emails also disclose just how nervous top Clinton advisers were that Vice President Joe Biden might get into the race (Podesta himself was convinced he was getting in.) And they fretted about their own candidate’s limitations. “Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible,” wrote one longtime Clinton aide.
The Clinton campaign has refused to confirm the authenticity of the emails, which the U.S. intelligence community has said were leaked as the result of a Russian cyberattack.
Here are six revealing highlights from the Podesta emails that provide a window into how the Clinton campaign operated when it thought (wrongly, as it turned out) nobody was looking.
_____
1. “Use this to scare our people into giving bigger sums.”
On May 3, 2015, Hillary Clinton got alarmed. She had just read a New York Times story about how the Federal Election Commission was deadlocked cracking down on “election abuse.” Outside super-PACs were being bankrolled by “billionaire donors,” the Times reported. Prospective rivals, like Jeb Bush, were “skirting” finance laws by “raising millions.”
That morning, Clinton forwarded the story to Podesta. “In light of this predictable statement of the obvious, what do you suggest we do?” she wrote. His response: The Clinton campaign should get cracking and ramp up its own outside super-PAC operation. Among “the things we have to do,” he wrote, is “Get Priorities functional.” That’s a reference to Priorities USA Action, the pro-Clinton super-PAC that would soon start collecting seven-figure donations from Democratic-leaning billionaires. (Such super-PACs are supposed to be independent of official campaign committees; the Podesta email shows just how much those lines have blurred.)
And, Podesta recommended, the Clinton campaign should put the Times story to good use. “Use this to scare our people into giving bigger sums,” he writes. And, bring in some big guns. “We may need to get WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] into the mix sooner. We should also ask BHO [President Obama] to do more in light of this, although they are kind of prissy about how they approach this.”
2. “Take the money!!”
In April 2015, the Clinton campaign was debating a sensitive issue: Should it take cash from “bundlers” (high-dollar fundraisers) who were registered agents for foreign governments and corporations?
President Obama’s campaign had banned donations from all registered lobbyists. The Clinton campaign had lifted those restrictions but was unsure what to do about a particular subset: lobbyists for foreign interests. One campaign official, Karuna Seshasai, wanted a firm policy to reject such cash. But finance director Dennis Cheng noted that would cut off “people we are close with like Tony Podesta” [John Podesta’s brother, whose foreign clients included the governments of India, Cyprus, Albania, and Azerbaijan] and the law firm of DLA Piper [one of whose lobbyists, Clinton fundraiser John Merrigan, represented the United Arab Emirates, Dubai and Turkey.]
“I do want to push back a bit (it’s my job!),” Cheng wrote in one email. “I feel like we are leaving a good amount of money on the table (both for primary and general, and then DNC and state parties)… and how do we explain to people we’ll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the [Clinton] Foundation takes $ from foreign govts but we now we won’t.”
Campaign lawyer Marc Elias weighed in: “I lean away from a bright line rule here,” he wrote, proposing that “just as we vet lobbyists case by case, I would do the same with FARA” [Foreign Agent Registration Act lobbyists]. He adds: “A total ban feels arbitrary and will engender the same eye-rolling and ill will that it did for Obama.”
The final word in this email thread came from Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri (a veteran of the Obama White House.) On April 17, 2015, under the subject “Re: Foreign registered agents,” she wrote campaign manager Robby Mook: “Take the money!!”
3. “They want me to hit up my clients”
Besides representing multiple foreign governments, Clinton fundraiser Tony Podesta, brother of her campaign manager, also lobbies for a bevy of major corporate interests, including big banks (Wells Fargo), defense contractors (Lockheed Martin), oil companies (BP) and pharmaceutical firms (Merck). On Nov. 13, 2015, John Podesta emailed Tony Podesta an invite for a “Hillary Victory Fund” dinner (with “ a memorable performance by Sting”). The cost: $33,400 per person, $66,800 per couple and $100,000 to be event chair.
“Have you been hit up for this yet?” John Podesta asked his lobbyist brother.
“No first I’ve heard,” Tony replied by email the next day. “They seem weird They want me to hit up by clients Cause I’m a lobbyist– not this.” He then adds “Did you see my email re Dennis and Puerto Rico?”
That was a reference to some help Tony wanted from John on behalf of one of his clients, the governor of Puerto Rico, then facing a financial crisis due to a $72 billion debt load. To fend off its hedge fund creditors, Puerto Rico was seeking bankruptcy protection from Congress and the Obama administration. When John asked him to resend the request, Tony obliged the next day. “Puerto Rico—-we need something in omnibus or we default,” he wrote. “Will u email/call Dennis asking him to see Gov and me.”
“Yes,” John replied the next day.
It’s unclear from the email who “Dennis” is — or whether the meeting Tony Podesta was seeking ever took place. (Juan Hernandez, executive director of the Washington office of Puerto Rico, said that commonwealth governor Alejandro Padilla did have meetings at the White House on the debt crisis, but said he did not know if that included Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough). Still, the email shows the mutually beneficial bond — familial and otherwise — between the Clinton campaign and one of Washington’s most influential lobbyists.
4. “‘Five minutes’ … to present a $1 million check.”
There have been few issues dicier for the Clinton campaign than the huge foreign donations that poured into the Clinton Foundation. In one April 16, 2012, email, a Clinton Foundation official circulates another email reporting that the ambassador of the Persian Gulf monarchy of Qatar “would like to see WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] ‘for five minutes’ in NYC to present a $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011.”
That hefty donation cast a new light on a previously reported Aug. 17, 2014, Hillary Clinton email to John Podesta laying out her strategy to combat the Islamic State terror group. In that missive, she noted that the same Qatari government (which two years earlier had given the big check to the family foundation) was covertly funding the terrorist group, which she refers to as ISIL (also known as ISIS). “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” she wrote.
5. “She created this mess and she knows it.“
As the Clinton campaign was about to get off the ground in 2015, it was facing an awkward scheduling problem: Hillary Clinton was slated to fly off to Marrakech, Morocco, for a gala meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. The optics would soon get even worse that spring, when Politico revealed that the meeting was being bankrolled with “at least $1 million” from OCP, a controversial Moroccan phosphate firm.
It turns out that Politico had only one piece of the story. As early as January, while the campaign was still in its “testing the waters” phase, aides were fretting about the Morocco trip, which was scheduled to take place after Clinton would officially declare her candidacy in April. It turns out the Clinton Global Initiative, an arm of her family Foundation, apparently didn’t even want to have a meeting in Morocco, but Hillary Clinton did — and there was a lot more than $1 million at stake. “This was HRC’s idea,” aide Huma Abedin wrote John Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mook on Jan. 18, 2015, adding that “our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting.”
Abedin added: “It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it.”
In the end, Hillary Clinton did back out of the May trip to Morocco after officially declaring her candidacy on April 12. Bill Clinton went instead. But the Abedin emails shed new light on the role that Clinton herself played in arranging foreign funding for the Clinton Foundation.
6. “Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible.”
In the fall of 2015, as Clinton was taking fire over her private email server, her top aides were increasingly nervous. It looked to many as if Vice President Joe Biden was about to jump into the race. “Biden will get in,” John Podesta predicted to longtime Clinton adviser Neera Tanden. “We are still way more likely than not to win nomination. We’ve taken on a lot of water that won’t be easy to pump out of the boat. Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts. She’s nervous so prepping more and performing better. Got to do something to pump up excitement but not certain how to do that.”
Tanden wrote back, offering some reassurance. “You know I’m not a sycophant to you by any means. But the thing that makes me most confident she will prevail is that you are there. Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible. She does have to give time to allow new things to take hold.”
The difference between Jesus and religion Religion mocks you for having dirty feet Jesus gets down on his knees and washes them
Indians in the world series. Cavs season about to start. Hitting the gym so early in the morning!! Trump about to get smacked in the election. And conservatives crying their eyes out on the board!!
So early (hey!) so early (hooah!!) so early in the morning!!
God is good, y'all!!!
Not to be a downer, but the Browns are playing.
Vers, you gotta have faith bro!!! We can win today!! Besides we typically split games with the bengals. Cody is about to drop nukes like he's Russia today!!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Imma tell you like I've been telling everybody else for a while now.
We all have to look in the mirror. We the people made these two the nominees. No one else.
But then, these two was probably the best of the bunch, from a base perspective.
Us liberals think the conservatives should've picked Kasich. You conservatives thought we should've rolled with Sanders.
It's all perspective. Y'all have your reasons for Trump. We have our reasons with Hillary.
And the third party candidates were terrible. It's not that they were good. It's that we WANTED to believe they were good. Big difference.
Every election cycle, people say "these two candidates suck".
The same lines will be repeated in 2020. Just like they were in elections prior to this.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
1st - when you Y'all me, I am not a republican. I post more stuff about Hillary because Trump's is pretty self evident and the media is making sure it's in everyone's face every day.
I agree, we the people made these decisions. But what has lead us to believe that either was a good choice during the primaries?
Yes, every year we are disappointed with the candidates. But mostly in a way of indifference that gets expressed with hyperbole. Normally I can at least find something about the candidates to say, at least blah blah blah so they aren't all bad. This year, I cannot find one redeeming quality about either candidate.
The 3rd parties certainly missed their opportunity. Had one of them hadproduced a decent candidate then this year could have changed the entire landscape of American politics. No just for today but the foreseeable future.
The difference between Jesus and religion Religion mocks you for having dirty feet Jesus gets down on his knees and washes them
But the recent WikiLeaks dump of campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails offers revealing snapshots that tell a somewhat different story. Top aides plot to “scare our people into giving bigger sums.”
I'm going to make my point about these wiki leaks, again.
These are unclassified emails "stolen" from what is claimed to be John Podesta's computer. Someone is telling us, these are Podesta's emails, but who IS this unknown "someone"?
Voters have no idea who has had control of these emails or if the wording that appears in these emails is authentic.
If it was the Russians who hacked Depodesta's puter, would you trust them to act as a "neutral party" and simply hand over the "stolen emails" to wiki-leaks, without "editing" a few?
For me, putting my trust in the Russians, knowing they do have a vested interest in who is elected the next United States President..that is where I have a problem trusting what is claimed to be in these emails.
Anyone remember Edward Snowden?...he is "a traitor" to his country (USA), wanted on espionage charges for stealing classified information and willful communication of classified intelligence to unauthorized persons in May 2013. He first fled to China and then to Russia, where he was given "asylum by Russia" for one year and Russia later extended "Snowden's asylum" for 2 more years. The United States wants Snowden and Russia refuses to return him to the USA to face charges.
So, as you can see, Russia and their dictator, Putin, are not exactly "friends" of the United States and they do prefer to elect the GOP candidate.
...and Republicans want me to trust the Russians?
For me, trusting the Russians is a core issue when it comes to believing the stuff that some are quoting as being Podesta and Clinton's words..words from the stolen emails.
Honestly, these emails are worthless and if anything, they expose Russia as a willing partner of the Trump campaign, attempting to sway the Presidential Election in favor of their candidate, Trump.
Now I really have a problem with this...Russia being involved in the USA elections. Those in the Trump campaign as well as those within the GOP who may be involved, I consider as "un-American" and possible "traitors", and might be subject to serious charges.
I hope there is an investigation of all involved and let the facts dictate the direction of the investigation and whether some have violated USA laws.
These emails are nothing more than biased propaganda being used by Russia in an attempt to get THEIR CANDIDATE, elected.
Being an American who served in USAF during the cold war, I know that trusting Russia can dangerous to our country, the country I swore to protect.
...I take this stuff a little more seriously than some of you do. Let's see where the facts take us..this might be the next Watergate Investigation.
Us liberals think the conservatives should've picked Kasich. You conservatives thought we should've rolled with Sanders.
The problem is that those of us who aren't either too far right or too far left are stuck w/two candidates that are horrible.
that doesn't make sense, as Hillary is center-left. she isn't far left at all. Sanders is far left. Cruz is far-right.
Trump...i dunno what the hell he is. he was liberal than all of a sudden turned conservative.
Also, if you didn't want to be "stuck" with horrible candidates, maybe your peeps should've went out there and done something about it.
especially seeing as the majority of the country isn't far-anything. we're mostly moderates who lean a bit to either ways.
speaking for liberals, we picked a center-left candidate. i can't speak for conservatives because, well, i'm not conservative.
Last edited by Swish; 10/23/1609:46 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
1st - when you Y'all me, I am not a republican. I post more stuff about Hillary because Trump's is pretty self evident and the media is making sure it's in everyone's face every day.
I agree, we the people made these decisions. But what has lead us to believe that either was a good choice during the primaries?
Yes, every year we are disappointed with the candidates. But mostly in a way of indifference that gets expressed with hyperbole. Normally I can at least find something about the candidates to say, at least blah blah blah so they aren't all bad. This year, I cannot find one redeeming quality about either candidate.
The 3rd parties certainly missed their opportunity. Had one of them hadproduced a decent candidate then this year could have changed the entire landscape of American politics. No just for today but the foreseeable future.
i didn't call you a republican. there's a difference between conservative/liberal and republican/democrats.
those parties typically represent their respective bases.
anyway, what lead us to believe either was a good choice? our own beliefs. if i'm wrong, i apologize, but it seems like you're trying to imply that the media had something to do with this.
the media only serves to confirm what we already believed in the first place. sure, they drop bombshells here and there, but if you already traditionally voted republican or democrat, then there isn't a whole lot that was gonna sway your opinion in the first place.
it sucks you can't find a redeeming quality about either candidate, but as long as your only speaking for yourself, it's all good.
i can certainly find redeeming qualities in my candidate. whether people agree with what i think or not is....well it doesn't matter. it's a difference of opinion. people on this board find good qualities in Trump that i don't agree with at all, but it really doesn't matter if i agree or not. what matters is come election day, what the majority agrees on. and so far, looking like Hillary in a landslide.
3rd party candidates....honestly until we have political reform, they aren't gonna matter, as at the end of the day, they are glorified fence riders with no clear plan or agenda that the majority of americans can get behind.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I like Wikileaks, but I'm not a fan of what Assange is blatantly doing in trying to influence an election. He's also dicking people around who are waiting patiently for him to release everything. This election alone won't hurt his credibility, but in the future it's going to cause people to look at him differently.
