Which of these is most likely?
The FBI conducts a thorough review of Ms.Clinton's computer and thumb drive and clears her of destroying or hiding public documents.
The FBI finds evidence of destruction or hiding public documents
This is a sham investigation to allow the justice department to take the email question out of the campaign
Not privvy to the background - and don't really care - but I do not see anything on this thread (or most threads she participates on) that should garner some of the comment directed at her... other than the fact that the people directing them at her don't agree with her politically.
So terrorists don't let women go to school, don't let them vote, or go outside without their faces covered, or talk alone with a man, or drive. They believe in genital mutilation, stoning and killing family members who have "sinned". Which of these views is it that pro-lifers share?
But you can feel the way you feel. You rarely contribute here which is fine.
Quote:
It was a planned comment and pretty fair, IMO. She's not saying pro-lifers are terrorists. Just that the republican candidates for Pres share some the same views of women as religious whacko terrorists. It's an obvious exaggeration but rooted in truth.
So terrorists don't let women go to school, don't let them vote, or go outside without their faces covered, or talk alone with a man, or drive. They believe in genital mutilation, stoning and killing family members who have "sinned". Which of these views is it that pro-lifers share?
You forgot selling them as sex slaves.
Hey- Trump's already in the race and I believe Kim Kardashian will be old enough to run in 2016. Let's skip the preliminaries. 60% of the female electorate won't vote for Trump under any circumstances and Kardashian can get a majority of the male vote one voter at a time. Howard Beale would be pleased.
Quote:
47% of the people in the US are also like that? You may want to get out a bit more.
And I will remind you, I am pro-choice. But I don't worship at the cult of abortion. Like some do.
Who said 47% of Americans are like that?
Nobody here.
Also - there is no such thing as "pro-abortion".
You do realize you're simply flipping the exact complaint you're logging here.
Yes, what Hillary is doing is alluding to a straw man. Just like the pro-abortion strawman that has been paraded around by pro-lifers for decades.
What's good for the goose, I say.
See if you can follow the logic. Hillary says that candidates that are against abortion are like terrorists in their views on women. Well, 47% of people in the US, you know, the country that she is running to be President of, are against abortion. So she is also saying that they are like terrorists.
Of course, she ignores what the terrorists are really like, typical.
And of course there are people who are pro-abortion up to the last minute, including HRC and most of the DNC. I'd say that is an extreme view and not shared by the majority of Americans.
Quote:
It was a planned comment and pretty fair, IMO. She's not saying pro-lifers are terrorists. Just that the republican candidates for Pres share some the same views of women as religious whacko terrorists. It's an obvious exaggeration but rooted in truth.
So again, being against abortion is equal to being a terrorist?
What R candidate has advocated enslaving women?
Which R candidate has advocated women not drive or vote?
Which R candidate has said that women must be covered from head to toe?
Which R candidate has advocated punishing women who they perceive as an adulterer by beheading?
Those are terrorist positions on women. Not being pro-life.
And yes, but saying that anyone who is pro-life, candidate or not, is equal to a terrorist, she is calling all pro-lifers terrorists.
LOL. She didn't say that anyone that is pro life is equal to a terrorist. If you think she did then you suck at English.
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
Not privvy to the background - and don't really care - but I do not see anything on this thread (or most threads she participates on) that should garner some of the comment directed at her... other than the fact that the people directing them at her don't agree with her politically.
Because they are assholes who think it makes them bigger people if they say these stupid things. They can't discuss any issue without resorting to it. Little minds.
Quote:
In comment 12439722 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
It was a planned comment and pretty fair, IMO. She's not saying pro-lifers are terrorists. Just that the republican candidates for Pres share some the same views of women as religious whacko terrorists. It's an obvious exaggeration but rooted in truth.
So again, being against abortion is equal to being a terrorist?
What R candidate has advocated enslaving women?
Which R candidate has advocated women not drive or vote?
Which R candidate has said that women must be covered from head to toe?
Which R candidate has advocated punishing women who they perceive as an adulterer by beheading?
Those are terrorist positions on women. Not being pro-life.
And yes, but saying that anyone who is pro-life, candidate or not, is equal to a terrorist, she is calling all pro-lifers terrorists.
LOL. She didn't say that anyone that is pro life is equal to a terrorist. If you think she did then you suck at English.
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
So what in the R candidates views make them like terrorists? She's been harping on Rubio for his pro-life stance. Is there an R candidate advocating the things that I mentioned before that terrorists do?
It's a bullshit comment from a bullshit person.
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
The point of the comment is to distract the masses from her mishandling of classified information. She clearly meant to imply exactly what buford is saying and knew the media would run with it. (first smart thing she's done in months!)
And not all views against abortion are rooted in religion. I imagine many of those against late term abortions have their views rooted in science which has shown high survival rates for those born at that particular point in time.
It's anyone's guess as to why HRC would willingly step into it unless she is concerned over some part of the D base.
So what in the R candidates views make them like terrorists? She's been harping on Rubio for his pro-life stance. Is there an R candidate advocating the things that I mentioned before that terrorists do?
It's a bullshit comment from a bullshit person.
A few of these candidates support ALL Abortions being illegal, even in cases of incest or rape, right?
THAT is what Hillary is alluding to. Not genital mutilation.
You guys are just proving to me that this is going to be a cakewalk for Hillary. WAY to easy to make right-wingers overreact on it.
I'd say it's vague, but also weasely and inflammatory. After re-reading it several times, I'm not sure it logically equates to stating Republicans are equivalent to terrorists. But in another sense, if you are listening to it once, maybe on TV, I'm sure many viewers would come away think she had accused certain GPO candidates & terrorist to be equivalent.
I wish there were some political scientists on this board that could break this down.
Quote:
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
The point of the comment is to distract the masses from her mishandling of classified information. She clearly meant to imply exactly what buford is saying and knew the media would run with it. (first smart thing she's done in months!)
And not all views against abortion are rooted in religion. I imagine many of those against late term abortions have their views rooted in science which has shown high survival rates for those born at that particular point in time.
All the candidates' views on abortion are rooted in religion. Just ask 'em.
Quote:
In comment 12439883 BeerFridge said:
So what in the R candidates views make them like terrorists? She's been harping on Rubio for his pro-life stance. Is there an R candidate advocating the things that I mentioned before that terrorists do?
It's a bullshit comment from a bullshit person.
Oh, that's easy. Supporting an agenda that takes freedom from women being able to make their own decisions pertaining to what is their Constitutional right.
A few of these candidates support ALL Abortions being illegal, even in cases of incest or rape, right?
THAT is what Hillary is alluding to. Not genital mutilation.
You guys are just proving to me that this is going to be a cakewalk for Hillary. WAY to easy to make right-wingers overreact on it.
That is absurd. It's amazing how far some of you will go to defend her. Somehow, being against abortion is not something that terrorists go on about. Now your run of the mill Muslim, yes, would be against abortion. As would most practicing Catholics. So I guess they are terrorists too. And anyone who is pro-life.
I'd say it's vague, but also weasely and inflammatory. After re-reading it several times, I'm not sure it logically equates to stating Republicans are equivalent to terrorists. But in another sense, if you are listening to it once, maybe on TV, I'm sure many viewers would come away think she had accused certain GPO candidates & terrorist to be equivalent.
Sorry for that stream of consciousness post I am making
It follows her like stink on a skunk, but didn't stop her from becoming Senator, won't stop her from beating Bernie Sanders or Jeb. They're simply too weak. A good candidate could beat her.
Really, the best odds of her getting beat has nothing to do with her or her opponents. The best the right can hope for right now is for an economic slowdown. A tanking economy would change things dramatically.
e-mail scandal is already leveling off. She's still beating everyone head to head.
She's still money to make Bill Clinton the first male first-lady. Vegas loves her.
Head to Head - ( New Window )
Quote:
associate with Hillary is liar, so maybe she should worry about that.
Yes. Hillary Clinton is the first dishonest politician.
It follows her like stink on a skunk, but didn't stop her from becoming Senator, won't stop her from beating Bernie Sanders or Jeb. They're simply too weak. A good candidate could beat her.
Really, the best odds of her getting beat has nothing to do with her or her opponents. The best the right can hope for right now is for an economic slowdown. A tanking economy would change things dramatically.
e-mail scandal is already leveling off. She's still beating everyone head to head.
She's still money to make Bill Clinton the first male first-lady. Vegas loves her.
Head to Head - ( QaNew Window )
Yes. Hillary Clinton is the first dishonest politician.
It follows her like stink on a skunk, but didn't stop her from becoming Senator, won't stop her from beating Bernie Sanders or Jeb.
That says less about her than it does about us
She can't do that without revealing herself as the demagogue that she is
It's was a strategic comment made by a candidate who is as calculating and as much a career politician as any.
I'm not emotionally tied to the comment or the issue.
The Republicans do the same thing with it.
They use abortion as a carrot on a stick. They will never overturn the Federal Legislation. That's already clear and historically proven.
It's a talking point. They talk to their demographic, Hillary talks to hers.
And Hillary's demographic is bigger. As I've pointed out on this thread, women delivered the White House in 08' and 12'.
If you think LESS women are going to vote for Hillary than Obama, I've got this bridge to sell ya'.
Quote:
stuff is ridiculous. Not sure I see anything she said here is out of line but you will get this reaction from some no matter what she says.
All politicians need to lie. However more and more people are beginning to recognize the difference between the lies of an average polician and the lies of a pathological liar like Hillary. Recent polls show that.
Different than most other politicians in the sense that we know that this absence of character exists *before* making our choice to vote. It's not a coming test of her character, but of ours.
Like I said, it's split about 47/48% so I doubt it makes that much difference. And I see that today, Hillary has moved on to the equal pay canard. Maybe if she paid the women on her staff the same as men she wouldn't look like that much of a hypocrite.
Quote:
xmeadowlander - you are embarrassing yourself on this topic with the lengths you are going to defend HRC's dumb comment - especially since you claim not to be a fan of hers. And if you choose to be intellectually honest, you'd be front and center on the other side of this argument if a Repub said anything like this.
I'm not defending it.
It's was a strategic comment made by a candidate who is as calculating and as much a career politician as any.
I'm not emotionally tied to the comment or the issue.
The Republicans do the same thing with it.
They use abortion as a carrot on a stick. They will never overturn the Federal Legislation. That's already clear and historically proven.
It's a talking point. They talk to their demographic, Hillary talks to hers.
And Hillary's demographic is bigger. As I've pointed out on this thread, women delivered the White House in 08' and 12'.
If you think LESS women are going to vote for Hillary than Obama, I've got this bridge to sell ya'.
That's the problem. She really doesn't give a shit about womens rights (remember her laughing about getting a rapist off in a trial?) The only thing she is emotionally tied to is money and power.
Less people are going to vote for Hillary than Obama. Certainly less men. And the article I posted yesterday, she is losing white women in droves.
It drove her nuts.
Quote:
I know the topic gets out the social conservatives, but it seems a liability for the Rs. I can't see how it helps with women voters.
Like I said, it's split about 47/48% so I doubt it makes that much difference. And I see that today, Hillary has moved on to the equal pay canard. Maybe if she paid the women on her staff the same as men she wouldn't look like that much of a hypocrite.
The demographics are bad though. If they're courting older men, then it would make sense.
Quote:
In comment 12440108 LG in NYC said:
Quote:
xmeadowlander - you are embarrassing yourself on this topic with the lengths you are going to defend HRC's dumb comment - especially since you claim not to be a fan of hers. And if you choose to be intellectually honest, you'd be front and center on the other side of this argument if a Repub said anything like this.
I'm not defending it.
It's was a strategic comment made by a candidate who is as calculating and as much a career politician as any.
I'm not emotionally tied to the comment or the issue.
The Republicans do the same thing with it.
They use abortion as a carrot on a stick. They will never overturn the Federal Legislation. That's already clear and historically proven.
It's a talking point. They talk to their demographic, Hillary talks to hers.
And Hillary's demographic is bigger. As I've pointed out on this thread, women delivered the White House in 08' and 12'.
If you think LESS women are going to vote for Hillary than Obama, I've got this bridge to sell ya'.
That's the problem. She really doesn't give a shit about womens rights (remember her laughing about getting a rapist off in a trial?) The only thing she is emotionally tied to is money and power.
Less people are going to vote for Hillary than Obama. Certainly less men. And the article I posted yesterday, she is losing white women in droves.
It's gonna hard to find a person disinterested in money and power that also is willing to run for president on either side of the aisle.
2) HRC is going to be the nominee.
3) Biden is just a media driven story. I love Joe, but he's like 30 points down in the polls. If he announces, those #s will go down.
4) The media is bored with HRC. They thrive on drama, thus the sudden appeal for a challenger to HRC.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
2) HRC is going to be the nominee.
3) Biden is just a media driven story. I love Joe, but he's like 30 points down in the polls. If he announces, those #s will go down.
4) The media is bored with HRC. They thrive on drama, thus the sudden appeal for a challenger to HRC.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
i dont sit here and defend people and bash others. And I didnt bash here, I stated what SHE said. I didnt make shit up. Or defend anyone of anything.
Your act is old and tiresome. Its people like you who ruin political threads and will soon be deleted. And I am not the only one who has said your act is tiresome.
Grow up already.
But i am sure how we will hear about Jeb's menu choice for today and why it sucks and how he hopes he is the GOP candidate.
Quote:
1) So rich that a certain poster that's handle begins with D & ends with P criticizes me for forever bashing the son of 41 and brother of 43, yet attacks HRC all the time. 'Everyone knows how you feel.' Pretty comical, though I'm sure he'll respond with some BS response.
2) HRC is going to be the nominee.
3) Biden is just a media driven story. I love Joe, but he's like 30 points down in the polls. If he announces, those #s will go down.
4) The media is bored with HRC. They thrive on drama, thus the sudden appeal for a challenger to HRC.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
i dont sit here and defend people and bash others. And I didnt bash here, I stated what SHE said. I didnt make shit up. Or defend anyone of anything.
Your act is old and tiresome. Its people like you who ruin political threads and will soon be deleted. And I am not the only one who has said your act is tiresome.
Grow up already.
Dude, he's not talking about you. Your handle doesn't end in a 'P'.
But i am sure how we will hear about Jeb's menu choice for today and why it sucks and how he hopes he is the GOP candidate.
LOL. Just comical. I detest Jeb, just like you detest HRC. But you have the gall to attack me when I call you out for your constant 'Hillary sucks' posts. Pot meet kettle.
Quote:
when someone says something bad about Hillary. Her white knight comes to her defense.
But i am sure how we will hear about Jeb's menu choice for today and why it sucks and how he hopes he is the GOP candidate.
LOL. Just comical. I detest Jeb, just like you detest HRC. But you have the gall to attack me when I call you out for your constant 'Hillary sucks' posts. Pot meet kettle.
I like to see you post all my hillary sucks posts that u have made. yes I don't like HRC, but I don't go around starting threads like yoh did with Jeb bush because everyone was picking on HRC.
for as someone who is smart, I don't understand why you aren't getting the point. you constantly berate and attack Jeb and say how awful he is. has a single poster ever defended Jeb here? I don't think anyone here likes him. so why continue to say the same thing over and over and over and over again.
this is a hillary thread, and you defend here til the cows come home and don't understand why people attack here.... well she's the only democratic candidate. people here attack trump, cruz, jeb, walker and every GOP candidate who makes the news. you complain that HRC gets more shit than any other candidate.... well shoukd the media and public just let her slide in her actions judt because she is a shoe in to win? there are not enough democrats to spread the attention too.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
Of course she is. The poll votes on the GOP side are being split between over a dozen people. Meanwhile, on her side it is really just her and Bernie (and how crazy uncle Joe). Amazing that you don't factor that.
I think a closer view (and more realistic) is to just look at total votes on the left vs on the right.
BTW, there is no way that Obama is going to allow Hillary to be the next POTUS. Before this is over, he is going to throw her under the bus. Then, you will see Elizabeth Warren step up.
What difference does it make how the Republican votes are split? The polls are one against one.
And I will give you 100 to 1 that Warren doesn't run.