The Hillary Thread II

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59296
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:21 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:One of the dirtiest tricks in American political history -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/lifting-th ... 1510274070
....and we now know that it was composed of unsubstantiated allegations...
Do we?
We do, because the allegations have not been substantiated. Or, if you have the substantiation available for citation, please link.
Well every allegation is unsubstantiated until they aren't. If that's what the author means, then duh.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:13 am

We must have retribution for what that nasty woman... so nasty... did to America - letting millions of Muslim terrorist into the country, trying to fix the election with 3 million dead voters, running child sex slaves from a pizza parlour, and we all remember the Bowling Green Massacre don't we, but that nasty woman acts like it never even happened.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59296
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:16 am

Brian Peacock wrote:running child sex slaves from a pizza parlour,
This is the most unconscionable thing. Polluting good pizza with negative associations. :nono:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
DRSB
Posts: 5591
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:07 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by DRSB » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:08 am

Not that smart as a lawyer:
"THE BIG FAILURE THAT HILLARY KEPT SECRET FOR 30 YEARS"
http://www.ozy.com/2016/the-big-failure ... pc&aud=npr

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6326
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:10 am

She still might be headed to jail.....
The FBI agent who was fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team for sending anti-Donald Trump text messages conducted the interviews with two Hillary Clinton aides accused of giving false statements about what they knew of the former secretary of state’s private email server.
It was also revealed on Monday that Strzok was the FBI agent responsible for softening language that Comey used in his July 5, 2016 statement closing the Clinton investigation. Strzok edited a rough draft of Comey’s speech, changing out the phrase “grossly negligent” — a term which has legal weight — with the softer phrase, “extremely careless.”
With friends........

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clint ... upervisor/
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59296
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:12 am

Keep dreaming. :roll:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:16 pm

The FBI is Trumpland.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump
Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.

Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.

“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.

This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.
Here is another example of why relying on anonymous sources too much turns news into propaganda. Here we have "current and former FBI officials" (some not willing to speak on the record, but no reason given as to why anonymity should be promised, and others were not "cleared" to speak on the record in which case they are breaking the law and/or FBI internal rules and regulations). One current agent, they say said "the FBI is Trumpland."

The atmosphere, they say, raises quesions about how FBI Director Comey and the bureau could possibly work for/with the next President, Hillary Clinton. There just was too much bias against her in the bureau.

Of course, such an allegation of bias within this apolitical bureau populated solely by persons uninterested in anything other than protecting our nation and doing the yeoman's work of good, honest and upright FBI. It would absurd to suggest that there could be any real bias inside the FBI. And, even if individual FBI agents express views which appear to be biased against a candidate, then that's just their own personal political views, and is nothing at all anyone has a right to be concerned about.
The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”
So, we have an anonymous "currently serving FBI agent" who said that Hillary Clinton is "the antichrist personified to a LARGE SWATH of FBI personnel." Oh, really? Who is the FBI agent who said this? What's a "large swath?" How does he know "the antichrist personified" is how they feel about her? Has he spoken to many other agents about it? How many? Wouldn't a reporter ask? What's a "swath" - 10 agents, 50, 100? What's a "large" swath?
The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.
That's pretty dramatic - enough colleagues are saying this kind of stuff that the entire FBI can be referred to as "Trumplandia?" That strongly implies that the predominant culture at the FBI is pro-Trump. If it's just a few persons in this group, they wouldn't turn the entire FBI into "Trumplandia" would they?

What's really going on with this article, published in the lead-up to the 2016 election....?
“There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt. What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician,” said a former FBI official.
Another agent says "lots of people [in the FBI]...believe Clinton is corrupt." Huh. Lots think Trump is not qualified. But lots think Clinton is "corrupt." Huh.

What are we to do with this information? Anonymous person whose motivations and allegiances are unknown are making very generalized allegations about "swaths" and "lots" of colleagues at the FBI, and describing undefined terms like "Trumplandia." What are we to believe here? What "news" is this article reporting? What is the "scoop" here?

The article goes on -
Justice department officials – another current target of FBI dissatisfaction – have said the bureau disregarded longstanding rules against perceived or actual electoral interference when Comey wrote to Congress to say it was reviewing newly discovered emails relating to Clinton’s personal server.
Justice department officials - again, anonymous. No description of what level these officials are at, or why anonymity is required - what's the danger? No description of any allegiances, potential biases, or ulterior motives. What's the allegation by these DOJ officials? That the FBI "violating longstanding rules against perceived electoral interference." Really? Rules? Rules are in writing. What rules? What are the policy numbers? Why did the reporter not ask or report specifics on what rule this is, and exactly what the parameters/language of the rule at issue is? How does Comey's report to Congress arguably constitute "electoral interference?" The author does not say. Did the author bother to ask the DOJ official? Why not? If he or she did ask, was the question answered? Why isn't it in the article?

We are left, again, with knowing nothing. Someone whose knowlege and motives are completely unknown, said something about Comey having broken some rules, but we don't know what rules or how it was broken, or even if the allegation that rules were broken makes any sense. All we're left with is the implication that Comey broke FBI rules in an effort to hurt Hillary Clinton's election chances. Huh. Who would want us to have that impression, in November, 2016, and why?
Comey’s allies say he was placed in an impossible position after previously testifying to Congress it would take an extraordinary development for him to revisit the Clinton issue. Throughout the summer and fall, Trump has attacked the FBI as corrupt for not effectively ending Clinton’s political career.
More anonymous sources - "comey's allies." LOL. Like Hogan's Heroes. Who said this? Was it a pundit? Political spokesperson? Who are the allies this reporter is reporting on. If the reporter himself/herself is speculating that Comey was placed in an impossible position and that's a position an ally of comey would take, then that's one thing. Ascribing the assertion to anonymous people is another. And if the reporter knows of someone who said this, why not use the name? No reason for anonymity here.
A political firestorm erupted, with Comey and the bureau coming under withering criticism, including a rebuke on Wednesday from Barack Obama. Even some congressional Republicans, no friends to Clinton, have expressed discomfort with Comey’s last-minute insertion of the bureau into the election.
FBI under "withering criticism," and even a "rebuke" from Barack Obama and enemy Republicans too! Everyone is upset at Comey! Comey clearly fucked up here! This is dirty pool. November, 2016, article published attacking the FBI for being "Trumplandia" and majorly biased against Clinton, and led by an FBI director who broke the FBI's own "longstanding rules" against interfering with an election to the detriment of Hillary Clinton! Clearly, this is very unfair to Clinton, and very biased pro-Trump, who is unqualified for office.
Clinton surrogates contend that Comey has issued innuendo rather than evidence, preventing them from mounting a public defense.
So, anonymity continues and now we're dealing with "Clinton surrogates." A surrogate is a stand-in, or a deputy. Someone standing in the shoes of someone else, so to speak. Who are they? Don't know. Why do they need anonymity to say this? We don't know. However, they say Comey issued "innuendo" - the FBI Director acting on innuendo to interfere with a federal election in violation of the FBI's own longstanding rules, and on top of it all, Clinton has been prevented from mounting a public defense! So unfair. It's almost as if they're saying the FBI is politically biased against Hillary Clinton and in favor of Donald Trump because they (wrongly) want to that she's corrupt.
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, said: “The continued leadership failures at the FBI are another reminder we can’t let intelligence agencies say ‘trust us’ and then give them a blank check to probe into Americans’ lives.

“While I’ve argued for years that Congress must create ironclad protections for Americans’ security and privacy, we also need vigilant oversight of agencies that have the power to deprive citizens of their liberty or change the course of an election.”
Ron Wyden, a Democrat Congressman says, based on all this, that we can't just let the FBI and other intelligence agencies say "trust us." There must be vigilant oversight. They should not have the power to deprive citizens of liberty or "change the course of an election." The course change he's referring to, as described in the article, was interefering with the election to the detriment of Hillary Clinton.

So, was the FBI politically motivated in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, breaking its own rules, acting on innuendo, not giving Clinton a fair chance to defend herself, all because so much of the agency hated Hillary Clinton so much that it had become Trumplandia? Could it be that this article is a bit overdone, and parrots what certain "officials" and "surrogates" at the time wanted to spread in the news?

We can't really know, because, of course, everything is anonymous, very general, gossipy, and unsubstantiated, and lacking in all depth of detail from which it could possibly be gleaned whether the allegations are "true" or whether the reporter got the facts straight in the first place.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:49 pm

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:53 pm

Image
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:55 pm

Image
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:25 am

Forty Two wrote:Image
Fair enough. I posted an image in the Trump ridicule thread in which Richard Nixon is shown claiming that he's not a crook compared to Trump. We all know that never happened. So I can't really complain when you post a meme with an obviously bullshit claim about Clinton that was known to be false in 2016. I know you're not one of the delusional fruit-loops that still believe it and you clearly derive some pleasure from indulging your pointless fixation on Clinton, so carry on. :{D

'Jordan says hack led to posting of "false news" that Saudi funds Clinton'

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47197
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Tero » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:50 am

But Hillary is not president. Charging her or not charging her or jailing her has zero effect on the country. She is never going to be president.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:03 am

Tero wrote:But Hillary is not president. Charging her or not charging her or jailing her has zero effect on the country. She is never going to be president.
Certainly, and that's why I used the term 'pointless fixation.' Still, if Trump and his Republican bootlickers were to somehow manage to LOCK HER UP! it would bring some real joy to about 30% of the US, so I guess that's something.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Animavore » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:09 am

She wouldn't get locked up anyway. Well, maybe house arrest. Most likely she'd get a bit of community service.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Thread II

Post by Forty Two » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:09 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote: Fair enough. I posted an image in the Trump ridicule thread in which Richard Nixon is shown claiming that he's not a crook compared to Trump. We all know that never happened. So I can't really complain when you post a meme with an obviously bullshit claim about Clinton that was known to be false in 2016. I know you're not one of the delusional fruit-loops that still believe it and you clearly derive some pleasure from indulging your pointless fixation on Clinton, so carry on. :{D

'Jordan says hack led to posting of "false news" that Saudi funds Clinton'


I actually thought the meme was alluding to Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.

The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?
Because those countries support this:

Image

Oh, sure, she's got her paper trail buttoned up. She's not stupid. But, come on. 10s of millions of dollars donated by regimes that hardly let women drive, or go outside much on their own? Saudi Arabia and Qatar etc are concerned about ensuring women have "full participation" of women as farmers, entrepreneurs, taxicab drivers (lol), and otherwise in the social and economic life in their communities?

But, I know, I know - we ought not be joking about Hillary Clinton. She only just ran for President and is likely going to give it another go in 2020. She's off the radar. An irrelevancy. Do go on with your lecture.
Last edited by Brian Peacock on Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: added imgfit tag
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 25 guests