- This topic has 128 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
njtosd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 4, 2016 at 5:28 PM #801817October 4, 2016 at 6:06 PM #801818
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV] . . . with the exception of a blow job.[/quote]Umm, make that hundreds (thousands?) of blow jobs over a period of at least 22 years. [/quote]
No, a single blow job. That’s it.[/quote]If you say so . . . :=][/quote]You’re aware of formal investigations that came up with blow jobs other than Monica Lewinsky? . . .[/quote]There were likely dozens of instances with Monica over several months in and out of the oval office and surrounds and their respective broom closets. Bill was caught lying about one instance . . . damn blue dress! There were many other “investigations” of Bill’s philandering but I wouldn’t call them “formal investigations.” However, the percipient witness’ findings, the evidence and the “testimony” of the other party themselves in at least a dozen of Bill’s affairs is enough for me. Bill was “philandering” and Hill’s MO was to try mightily to silence (in any way, shape or form she thought she could get away with) the women who bravely came forth, even decades later, and described (with both eyewitnesses and percipient witnesses) what Bill did to them. That’s good enough for me. Even Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes assumed the Clintons’ had come to an “understanding” and had an “arrangement” as early as 1992, which they tried to emphatically deny:
That is simply how the American electorate sees it. Don’t you love Hill’s “fake” Arkansas accent?
In all cases like this, the responsibility for the adulterous liaison falls upon the “married” party. About half the time, the unmarried party initially has no idea if the “married” party is actually even married! In Bill’s case, his affair partners (plural as in double digit) did know he was married but HE did all the heavy pursuing. He held the position of power and perhaps some of the women felt they would be able to climb the ladder faster at work and thus get a promotion if they succumbed to his wishes. None of his pursuits in the line of duty were “illegal” at that time.
October 4, 2016 at 8:56 PM #801819SK in CV
ParticipantHypocrite. You know what that means? You have a problem with it from Clinton, who isn’t running for any office. And you have no problem when it was Trump, who is running for office. Figures.
And you really have nothing but your incredibly weird imagination to inform you of how many there were.
October 5, 2016 at 10:49 AM #801840poorgradstudent
ParticipantGetting back to the yard sign metric I’ve noticed a serious lack of bumper stickers in general for this point in the election cycle.
1) I see the occasional trump sticker up on a sign at a stoplight, but can’t remember the last car I saw one on
2) I’ve seen a few cars lately still rocking Obama/Biden stickers but who haven’t added Hillary.
3) I vaguely remember seeing more Marco Rubio bumper stickers than Trump.
4) I probably still see as many Bernie stickers as I do Hillary.Overall there’s clearly an enthusiasm gap on both sides, at least here in San Diego. I’m sure if I went to Hillcrest I’d see more Hillary stickers and if I ventured to Santee I’d see more Trump stickers. But in 2008 Obama swag was EVERYWHERE.
October 6, 2016 at 11:45 PM #801865FlyerInHi
GuestPeople post on Facebook.
I have not been on Facebook since December. But my young cousin told me that he’s surprised at what people from his small hometown outside Boston post. He said facebook shows the true face of people.BTW, I know Santee. San Diego has pushed eartwards. Lots of new houses. I’m guessing the precints in Santee will go for Hillary.
Lakeside and Alpine are more Trump.
October 7, 2016 at 12:01 AM #801866Guesti’m late to the party, but thanks to youtube, I just watched Ana Navarro. Oh my, she’s really is pissed at Trump. “good luck going after fat people” she said of Trump.
how come all the women supporting Trump on TV are thin blondes? kellyann Conway looks like she got a bad facelift.
October 7, 2016 at 2:41 AM #801868njtosd
Participant[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]
Both the Washington Post and the NYT, usually very pro Dem
[/quote]
and
[quote=njtosd]
But I don’t trust them – there’s too much smoke for there to be no fire at all, [/quote]Wow. Here is the right-wing noise machine working its magic.
They tell you over and over again that the msm is “very pro dem.” So you believe it.
They have no fire to show you, so they use innuendo and half-truth to create the illusion of smoke, and you say there must be fire.
If you get trump, you deserve him.[/quote]
Have you read anything that I’ve written other than what you’ve quoted? I’m not a Trump supporter.
October 7, 2016 at 4:30 AM #801869Participant[quote=SK in CV]
NYT btw, is NOT pro-Clinton. As a whole, they’ve pretty much hated the Clinton’s since the mid 90’s.[/quote]
Really? The long line of endorsements of Democratic candidates is just a clever ruse, I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?_r=0
October 7, 2016 at 6:38 AM #801871Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV]
NYT btw, is NOT pro-Clinton. As a whole, they’ve pretty much hated the Clinton’s since the mid 90’s.[/quote]
Really? The long line of endorsements of Democratic candidates is just a clever ruse, I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?_r=0%5B/quote%5D
That would be the editorial board. I’m talking about their news department. Count the number of articles about Clinton’s email. Then count the number that mention that the director of the FBI said there were no properly marked classified emails sent or received by her. Zero. Count the number of articles about the Clinton foundation which include zero evidence of any corruption. Now count the number about the Trump foundation which has a dozen or so charges of corruption with evidence. Read Maureen Dowd’s column’s. She can’t type more than a few hundred words without criticizing Clinton.
October 7, 2016 at 7:38 AM #801872zk
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=zk][quote=njtosd]
Both the Washington Post and the NYT, usually very pro Dem
[/quote]
and
[quote=njtosd]
But I don’t trust them – there’s too much smoke for there to be no fire at all, [/quote]Wow. Here is the right-wing noise machine working its magic.
They tell you over and over again that the msm is “very pro dem.” So you believe it.
They have no fire to show you, so they use innuendo and half-truth to create the illusion of smoke, and you say there must be fire.
If you get trump, you deserve him.[/quote]
Have you read anything that I’ve written other than what you’ve quoted? I’m not a Trump supporter.[/quote]
I have read what you’ve written, and I didn’t say you were a Trump supporter. You don’t have to be a Trump supporter. You just have to fall for the right-wing noise machine BS and not vote for Clinton.
October 7, 2016 at 8:08 AM #801873Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV]
NYT btw, is NOT pro-Clinton. As a whole, they’ve pretty much hated the Clinton’s since the mid 90’s.[/quote]
Really? The long line of endorsements of Democratic candidates is just a clever ruse, I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?_r=0%5B/quote%5D
That would be the editorial board. I’m talking about their news department. Count the number of articles about Clinton’s email. Then count the number that mention that the director of the FBI said there were no properly marked classified emails sent or received by her. Zero. Count the number of articles about the Clinton foundation which include zero evidence of any corruption. Now count the number about the Trump foundation which has a dozen or so charges of corruption with evidence. Read Maureen Dowd’s column’s. She can’t type more than a few hundred words without criticizing Clinton.[/quote]
😉 Gotcha. Simply critiquing the Dems doesn’t mean it isn’t Dem leaning – and last I checked the editors were the people in charge.
October 7, 2016 at 8:13 AM #801874Participant[quote=zk]
If you get trump, you deserve him.[/quote]
Have you read anything that I’ve written other than what you’ve quoted? I’m not a Trump supporter.[/quote]
I have read what you’ve written, and I didn’t say you were a Trump supporter. You don’t have to be a Trump supporter. You just have to fall for the right-wing noise machine BS and not vote for Clinton.[/quote]
Why would I want to “get [him]” then? It seems like you are angry that anyone criticizes this woman – or you are 13 and have to believe that people are either GOOD or BAD. I’ll probably vote for her – but I’ll have to hold my nose.
October 7, 2016 at 8:32 AM #801875Participant[quote=njtosd]
Why would I want to “get [him]” then?
[/quote]I didn’t say you would want to get him. I said you would deserve him. There’s a difference.
[quote=njtosd]
It seems like you are angry that anyone criticizes this woman
[/quote]Jesus, are you serious? Read what I wrote again. I said, “They have no fire to show you, so they use innuendo and half-truth to create the illusion of smoke, and you say there must be fire.” And you take that to mean I’m angry that anyone criticizes her? Clearly, to anyone with any reading skills, I’m angry that people manipulate people like you into believing something about her that is not true.
[quote=njtosd]
– or you are 13 and have to believe that people are either GOOD or BAD.
[/quote]
That would make you feel better, wouldn’t it? Because that way it wouldn’t be you that doesn’t really understand what’s happening. And that’s probably why you misread what I write and come to such faulty conclusions.
[quote=njtosd]
I’ll probably vote for her – but I’ll have to hold my nose.[/quote]While she’s not perfect, most of what you smell is bullshit.
October 7, 2016 at 9:07 AM #801876
svelteParticipantBack on topic, I still have yet to see a Clinton or Trump bumper sticker or yard sign.
And we’re a month out now!
I think that speaks volumes.
October 7, 2016 at 9:17 AM #801879Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV]
NYT btw, is NOT pro-Clinton. As a whole, they’ve pretty much hated the Clinton’s since the mid 90’s.[/quote]
Really? The long line of endorsements of Democratic candidates is just a clever ruse, I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?_r=0%5B/quote%5D
That would be the editorial board. I’m talking about their news department. Count the number of articles about Clinton’s email. Then count the number that mention that the director of the FBI said there were no properly marked classified emails sent or received by her. Zero. Count the number of articles about the Clinton foundation which include zero evidence of any corruption. Now count the number about the Trump foundation which has a dozen or so charges of corruption with evidence. Read Maureen Dowd’s column’s. She can’t type more than a few hundred words without criticizing Clinton.[/quote]
😉 Gotcha. Simply critiquing the Dems doesn’t mean it isn’t Dem leaning – and last I checked the editors were the people in charge.[/quote]
Right, I didn’t say Dems. As far as political party, they reflect their city. It leans more Dem than Republican. But I said Clinton specifically. The political reporters do not like the Clintons, and haven’t since Bill was President. It shows in what they cover and how they cover it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.