This pay-to-play thing at the State Department under Hillary Clinton worries me. Do you realize that our best course of action, as a nation, may be to elect HRC, then impeach her, so we wind up with Tim Kaine as president?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/11 ... g-english/

Yea forcibly outing democratically elected leaders has a huge success rate

Soren wrote:Yea forcibly outing democratically elected leaders has a huge success rate

So vote Trump I guess?

This most recent discovery seems to me to be much more serious than anything that has come before, because the quid pro quo seems much more obvious.

Hillary could be neck-deep in this before October if I'm right.

Of course, I realize this isn't Watergate. I'm shocked - shocked! - to learn that money and position can lead to political influence.

But jeez, I don't like this. Although I would like to know how "JusticeWatch" had these emails and apparently no one else did.

These came out days ago and were in the new york times. It shows impropriety and is not a good look but there's nothing concrete and HRC wasn't directly involved. It'll take a little more than this, it seems.

mozartpc27 wrote:

Soren wrote:Yea forcibly outing democratically elected leaders has a huge success rate

So vote Trump I guess?

This most recent discovery seems to me to be much more serious than anything that has come before, because the quid pro quo seems much more obvious.

Hillary could be neck-deep in this before October if I'm right.

Of course, I realize this isn't Watergate. I'm shocked - shocked! - to learn that money and position can lead to political influence.

But jeez, I don't like this. Although I would like to know how "JusticeWatch" had these emails and apparently no one else did.

IIRC, they put in a FOIA request and got the emails. Also a lot of this seems more smoke than anything, at least what I've seen/heard. Perhaps there's more to this, but who knows... I'm sure there's more coming.

Those numbers are insane.

JUburton wrote:These came out days ago and were in the new york times. It shows impropriety and is not a good look but there's nothing concrete and HRC wasn't directly involved. It'll take a little more than this, it seems.

I mean, these are all conservative news outlets trying to make the case seem as bad as possible, but, for example, this does not seem like a totally unfair way of reading what went on:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/11/ema ... oundation/

It's hard to find anything subjective on this issue right now, but what makes Hillary Clinton worse than any other politician?

slugsrbad wrote:It's hard to find anything subjective on this issue right now, but what makes Hillary Clinton worse than any other politician?

She's getting caught.

It seems like a totally unfair way of reading the situation.

mozartpc27 wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:It's hard to find anything subjective on this issue right now, but what makes Hillary Clinton worse than any other politician?

She's getting caught.

Caught at what? Everything seems more smoke and conjecture - Benghazi, the emails, this Clinton Foundation noise - it's a lot of smoke, which might be enough for some people - but it just seems like politics as usual. Hillary Clinton has been a politician for my entire life and then some, it seems like par for the course.

I can sympathize with people who want to change Washington, and want to change the SOP, but outside of possibly Bernie Sanders every major party candidate this season has been a business as usual politician.

pacino wrote:It seems like a totally unfair way of reading the situation.

Not coincidentally, PBS re-ran the American Experience about Richard Nixon last night.

Now, I think what PBS had in mind was the Nixon strategy in 68, and the startling similarities it shares with a certain presidential campaign being run right now.

But the story of Watergate, and in particular the "smoking gun," where Nixon tells Haldeman that the FBI needs to be told to back off, that there's nothing to see here, sounds a little familiar in a moment where the DOJ declines to investigate, and tells the FBI not to investigate, the possibility of an inappropriate relationship between the State Department and a private foundation run by the husband of the head of the State Department, when there appears to be probable cause to ask such questions.

mozartpc27 wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/11/ema ... oundation/

man they really doctored that pic of HRC- if she was showing teeth they'd have blacked a couple out. Why didn't they add stitches on her neck while they were at it?

Oh and the Federalist's breathless assertion that the Foundation only distributed 10% of revenues to charities is just barely somewhat truthful. The Foundation is far too cushy with pay/benefits/rent etc, but so frankly are most "non-profits".

But the Federalist's hyperventilation diminishes its point by making them look all sweaty & desperate to stick it to Clintonco - which they are, of course.

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:It seems like a totally unfair way of reading the situation.

Not coincidentally, PBS re-ran the American Experience about Richard Nixon last night.

Now, I think what PBS had in mind was the Nixon strategy in 68, and the startling similarities it shares with a certain presidential campaign being run right now.

But the story of Watergate, and in particular the "smoking gun," where Nixon tells Haldeman that the FBI needs to be told to back off, that there's nothing to see here, sounds a little familiar in a moment where the DOJ declines to investigate, and tells the FBI not to investigate, the possibility of an inappropriate relationship between the State Department and a private foundation run by the husband of the head of the State Department, when there appears to be probable cause to ask such questions.

Stop it with these totally valid criticisms of Hillary. I kept hearing that if Trump gets elected I'm at fault for not voting for her. I hope all Clinton voters remember that the next 8 years as shit like this continues to happen. Then we'll just get the slugs defense, "ah well, they're all corrupt, what can you do?". Carlin said it best, we get the government we deserve.

slugsrbad wrote: Hillary Clinton has been a politician for my entire life and then some, it seems like par for the course.

You're 15?

swishnicholson wrote:

slugsrbad wrote: Hillary Clinton has been a politician for my entire life and then some, it seems like par for the course.

You're 15?

Hillary was an involved First Lady (in Arkansas and FLOTUS), so I've counted that too. One does not need to be elected to be a politician, though the actual definition says "professionally involved" so perhaps she doesn't meet the literal meaning. I apologize swichbuckolson.

Meanwhile, Trump says American "terrorists" don't deserve due process.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politic ... 44337.html

SK790 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:It seems like a totally unfair way of reading the situation.

Not coincidentally, PBS re-ran the American Experience about Richard Nixon last night.

Now, I think what PBS had in mind was the Nixon strategy in 68, and the startling similarities it shares with a certain presidential campaign being run right now.

But the story of Watergate, and in particular the "smoking gun," where Nixon tells Haldeman that the FBI needs to be told to back off, that there's nothing to see here, sounds a little familiar in a moment where the DOJ declines to investigate, and tells the FBI not to investigate, the possibility of an inappropriate relationship between the State Department and a private foundation run by the husband of the head of the State Department, when there appears to be probable cause to ask such questions.

Stop it with these totally valid criticisms of Hillary. I kept hearing that if Trump gets elected I'm at fault for not voting for her. I hope all Clinton voters remember that the next 8 years as shit like this continues to happen. Then we'll just get the slugs defense, "ah well, they're all corrupt, what can you do?". Carlin said it best, we get the government we deserve.

That wasn't my defense at all. I'm trying to figure out why the level of disfavor seems much higher for Hillary Clinton than other politicians (non-Trump category)? Most of her transgressions seem mundane, and not atypical of Washington. Is there disfavor because the nation is finally sick of this behavior (as it should be)? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's been in the national limelight for so long that it's accumulated?

Everyone states that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, but I don't remember that being an issue in 2008 or during her time in Senate.

republican nominee dropping your mom jokes.


https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/7 ... 1258950656