Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]
I said potential crime – sexting with a 15 year old and sending lewd images is a problem, which is the reason Weiner’s being investigated. Poor judgement – hmm. Let’s say this – I hope my daughters never even date people like Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner.[/quote]So you’re saying that Secretary Clinton is “potentially” guilty of something because of something that Weiner did? She is guilty of poor judgment because someone who is married to her employee did something despicable? Really? Am I guilty of bad judgement because one of my high school buddies, and groomsman at my wedding, was later convicted of a crime and did time in a federal prison? Is my wife, who I married more than 30 year later, also guilty of bad judgement?[/quote]
Go back and read what I wrote. I specifically said a potential crime by a close Clinton connection. Why do you (and BG for that matter) keep trying to change what people say? I guess because doing so strengthens the arguments that you want to make. I don’t know whether you or your wife exhibited bad judgment – that’s for the two of you to figure out.[/quote]
And you also said “And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment …”
I was responding to your including Secretary Clinton. I did not change anything you said. They’re your words.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]SK, you must know that the FBI would not have stated that they were “reopening” (I know you don’t like to call it that but it fits) HRC’s investigation into her e-mail server unless they found some damning evidence on Huma’s laptop or phone. Like it or not, HRC, Huma (and as byproducts) Anthony and Bill are all interconnected. Two of them have been very close for ~20 years and the 4 of them were like One Big Happy Family. Bill actually married Huma and Anthony in 2010.
When one routinely rolls in the mud with their friends and “partners,” they will eventually get someone else’s dirt all over themselves. That’s how it works.[/quote]
The FBI didn’t say they were “reopening”, so no, it doesn’t fit. The FBI doesn’t close cases. They also said they don’t know what is in the emails. So if they don’t know, you can’t possibly even guess that they’re damning. More likely, it’s not the specific content of the emails, in fact, the FBI has acknowledged that all the emails they’re currently referring to (which may be as few as 3) could be emails they’ve already examined.
Weiner is a loser. Bill Clinton is one of the best past presidents the country has ever had. There is no evidence that Huma is anything but an outstanding employee and person. Secretary Clinton’s accomplishments speak for themselves. The dozens of scandals she’s been accused of are nothing more than empty accusations. So, I have no idea what “mud” you’re referring to. Based on your history here, best guess is you’re just making more shit up, so as to not look foolish again. Doesn’t really work very well.[/quote]SK, I’m puzzled at why you are constantly compelled to defend HRC on THIS forum. The bulk of the readers of this forum (90%?) live (and are registered to vote) in CA. Unlike your (adopted) home state of AZ, CA is a “deep blue” state. If every single illegal alien who (accidentally on purpose) was successfully registered to vote at HRC’s 70-80 “tabling events” held throughout the Golden state during the primary season, if wouldn’t matter as to the outcome on November 9. If +/- 2M nonresidents (using their “fake” US addresses at the time of registering to vote) actually made it across the border on 11/8 in a timely manner to pick up their Voter Guides and vote for HRC at their “assigned” SD County polling places, it wouldn’t matter. There are so many of the “liberal elite” residing within the state of CA who would vote against Trump even if Bozo the Clown was running against him on the Democratic ticket. Yes, even if 2M nonresidents successfully crossed the border on 11/8 and were able to successfully vote at their assigned “home polling places” in San Diego County, IT WOULDN’T MATTER as to the outcome of the election! I personally witnessed one event held on a Saturday morning in May of this year by Bill Clinton right here in Chula Vista (their “tabling event” was held IN SPANISH at the student theatre, in the rear of the HS campus). I personally cruised the HUGE student parking lot (as well as the adjacent parking lot of SWC that the rallygoers were using when the rally was already in progress). The verdict was that ~70% of the license plates of vehicles carrying people attending such rally were from …. (drumroll) …. Baja CA Norte. Is anyone surprised??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/11/critics-predict-new-california-motor-voter-law-wil/
According to the (1/1/06) “CA Motor Voter Law,” illegal aliens can legally use a PO Box for an address on their new CA Driver Licenses (used to identify themselves as “CA residents for voter registration purposes) while US citizen residents must furnish a street address on their Driver License applications. The reasoning behind this decision is that is was “unfair” to require illegal aliens to furnish a bonafide street address to the DMV on their DL applications because many of them live on their employer’s land in employer-owned trailers (agricultural workers) and thus don’t have an actual street address of their own.
SK, you’re preaching to the choir here on Piggington whilst defending HRC at nearly every opportunity when you could be focused on your OWN RED STATE of AZ! Don’t you belong to any AZ blogs? You could be posting HRC’s “virtues” there instead of here and actually be “successful” in getting her more votes! This is sincerely coming from a former longtime DEM activist! I’ll readily admit that the electoral votes in CA will go to HRC and there is nothing ANYONE can do about that in this election cycle. The thousands of staunch “Dem activists” who reside in the nearly 10M-strong SF Bay area have seen to that. Oh, and you should know that they can (and will) travel! Hello, Nevada! There is no one on this board that knows this better than ME. I’m FROM the bay area, for G@d’s sake!
Sure, there are CA counties that have historically voted REP. Namely, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne and Yuba. HOWEVER, the VAST MAJORITY of the above counties DONT HAVE ENOUGH REGISTERED VOTERS IN THEM to even MATTER in the general election.
So there you have it. Let’s get down to brass tacks here. CA has been for many years and is now a DEEP BLUE STATE. The Trump campaign is NOT GOING TO SPEND A DIME in the Golden State, nor should they. So you don’t have to jump in here at every perceived opportunity and try to defend the undefensible. It is wholly unnecessary, especially at this late date … and the Piggs are smart enough to make up their own minds.
Like Michelle Obama stated on the campaign trail on behalf of her spouse, Barack, in 2007 (and in reference to HRC), “If you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House.”
So true.
Doesn’t the AZ Republic have a blog or comments section? If so, are you registered for it? If not, why not? You would do well do get on it TOMORROW MORNING and start posting if you want to make a DIFFERENCE in this election. You’re wasting your time here.[/quote]
BG, I’m not defending Clinton. I’m just pointing out the stupidity of your arguments. I just have one question for you. Why do you consistently make shit up? Wait, two questions. Why do you feel the need to make shit up? Sorry, three questions. Don’t you think you should get some therapy to deal with your constant need to make shit up?
Participant[quote=mixxalot]Hillary will steal the election and win even though Trump will win the popular vote. The global elites want their puppet to win.[/quote]
Good one.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
I said potential crime – sexting with a 15 year old and sending lewd images is a problem, which is the reason Weiner’s being investigated. Poor judgement – hmm. Let’s say this – I hope my daughters never even date people like Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner.[/quote]So you’re saying that Secretary Clinton is “potentially” guilty of something because of something that Weiner did? She is guilty of poor judgment because someone who is married to her employee did something despicable? Really? Am I guilty of bad judgement because one of my high school buddies, and groomsman at my wedding, was later convicted of a crime and did time in a federal prison? Is my wife, who I married more than 30 year later, also guilty of bad judgement?
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]SK, you must know that the FBI would not have stated that they were “reopening” (I know you don’t like to call it that but it fits) HRC’s investigation into her e-mail server unless they found some damning evidence on Huma’s laptop or phone. Like it or not, HRC, Huma (and as byproducts) Anthony and Bill are all interconnected. Two of them have been very close for ~20 years and the 4 of them were like One Big Happy Family. Bill actually married Huma and Anthony in 2010.
When one routinely rolls in the mud with their friends and “partners,” they will eventually get someone else’s dirt all over themselves. That’s how it works.[/quote]
The FBI didn’t say they were “reopening”, so no, it doesn’t fit. The FBI doesn’t close cases. They also said they don’t know what is in the emails. So if they don’t know, you can’t possibly even guess that they’re damning. More likely, it’s not the specific content of the emails, in fact, the FBI has acknowledged that all the emails they’re currently referring to (which may be as few as 3) could be emails they’ve already examined.
Weiner is a loser. Bill Clinton is one of the best past presidents the country has ever had. There is no evidence that Huma is anything but an outstanding employee and person. Secretary Clinton’s accomplishments speak for themselves. The dozens of scandals she’s been accused of are nothing more than empty accusations. So, I have no idea what “mud” you’re referring to. Based on your history here, best guess is you’re just making more shit up, so as to not look foolish again. Doesn’t really work very well.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd] . . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .[/quote]That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can’t for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ….
I note Huma isn’t traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a “come to Jes*s convo” with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt “trapped” into staying with “Mr. Danger” fully 5 years and 2 months past his “sell-by date” and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid “sexual phone forays.”
HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, “Mr. Danger” was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family’s computers and cell phones. Still …. she kept Huma on and didn’t bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her “right-hand woman’s” (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC’s e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America’s secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.[/quote]
Wow. Make shit up much out of nothing? The obvious hate of successful people aside, you have zero evidence of any of the allegations you’ve made here.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=harvey] Of course the Trump partisans will interpret that as a smoking gun. But it won’t affect the outcome on Nov 8.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Logically, you may be right. Comey’s caught between an AG who has had allegations of bias and future allegations of a cover up.
Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. None of these things are qualities of great leaders. Before anyone else says it – the very SAME THING can be said for Trump. He’s hideous – no doubt. This new stuff just brings her collective baggage closer to his.[/quote]
What exactly do you think is the crime that’s been committed? Or even the “poor judgement “?
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Can you imagine the shit storm if Comey didn’t CYA and then Congress or the Media learned there was Clinton emails on the Weiner computer?
If it’s just unclassified missives between Huda and Clinton, that’s nobody’s business. If a single one of them is Classified, that’s the whole point. Clinton’s handling of classified info was so lax that it ended up on a computer Anthony Weiner used for sexting with a minor.
Do I think that means we should elect Trump, no.
I’ll gladly take four more years of Elon Musk’s ilk bilking the system than subjecting ourselves to egocentric trepidation of the balding Oompa.
Sadly the 66% that like neither can’t seem to look for any less unlikable out of fear that the more unlikable one will win.[/quote]
FBI sources have already acknowledged that none of the emails in question were sent by Clinton. In which case, practically speaking, there can’t really be a finding that Clinton mishandled classified information. Nor could it possibly have anything to do with the investigation into the use of her private server.
This was a purely political move on Comey’s part to issue the statement, even if it wasn’t partisan. There is no possible non-political purpose in issuing the statement. None. (Trying to appear non-political IS a political move.)
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
An individual has much smaller resources than does a large well backed organization. The problem becomes one of trying to upset the one person one vote through mis-information.[/quote]You mean misinformation like covering Benghazi as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering the Clinton foundation as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like covering Clinton’s email server as if there really was a scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering the rape of a 13 year old girl by a presidential candidate as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like NOT covering bribes paid by the Trump foundation as if there was no scandal? You mean misinformation like covering this election as if it’s close? Yeah, the press has failed quite a bit this election cycle. The first amendment allows all that. In fact, guarantees the right to do all that. But despite all that rigging against her, Hillary Clinton is still going to be the next president. That’s how bad her opponent is.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=ltsdd]Folks, remember, no one thought chump would make it this far.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ai-system-finds-trump-win-104022784.html
[/quote]Um, ltsdd, the “chump” is actually HRC …. NOT Trump.
Yes, I think Trump will win … but I felt he would win even before the FBI decided to reopen the investigation on HRC’s e-mails. For a whole variety of reasons that a lot of people don’t understand …. but namely that he’s willing to fight the good fight. There are very few people out there who are willing to do this …. especially using their own money …. very, very few … to none. Trump is one in several million.
And this is coming from a former (very effective) Dem activist/operative, lol …..[/quote]
The FBI did not decide to reopen any investigation. And the statement by Comey today does not refer to any emails sent by or received by Secretary Clinton, and cannot implicate her in any wrong doing.
The polls show Trump losing. Badly. Fortunately, what you feel has no effect on the outcome of the election. How people vote does. And this moment, polling shows that sufficient numbers will be voting for Clinton to elect her by at least the margin that Obama won with 4 years ago.
Participant[quote=livinincali]
Here’s the electoral map of 2012. Which states do you see flipping to the democratic nominee.
I won’t make the bet though because I think Hillary probably will win and I’ll never give my money to that criminal enterprise.[/quote]
North Carolina almost for sure. Other possibilities, in order of likelihood: Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas. Clinton may not hold all Obama’s states. Ohio and Florida are toss ups. The winner, however, is not a toss-up.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=svelte][quote=Blogstar]
Bunch of holier than thou type liberals posting on Facebook and going off on Public Radio, but failing to understand or delve into the fact that women say stuff like “if it were me, I would have cut his dick off” and ” hang him by his balls” and “kick him in the balls” “shove a stick up his ……[/quote]Uh, my wife has never ever said anything even remotely like that. Ever.
Nor have I ever said anything like Trump said. Ever.
I can say that for sure.[/quote]
+1
I don’t personally know anybody over the age of 21 who talks like that either. And I am pretty sure that if somebody talked like that, most people I know will certainly not condone it.[/quote]
I suggest you tape and take a good long look at all three hours of “Today”.
Seriously, that last hour with Hoda and Kathy Lee, not as vulgar, but just as crass, IMO.
It’s like watching a couple 50 year old high school girls talking smack.[/quote]
No, morning tv is not just as crass. It’s not even close. That argument presumes that the problem is the word pussy. That word causes eye rolls not outrage. Pussy isn’t the problem. Grab is the outrageous word. Kathi lee and Hoda aren’t promoting or bragging about sexual assault. Whining about pussy is a distraction.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]Really? A single paragraph of a speech that you just read for the first time no more than a few days ago, for which you had zero context, is why you don’t trust her? Before that you did? Yeah, go with that. That’s believable. Can’t be that you really don’t have a good reason.[/quote]Believe what you will. I’m not trying to convince you. All you need to know is I think she’s a big fat LIAR. I’m also not alone. Majority of American think so too. Keep drinking your Kool-Aid. It’s good for you.[/quote]
Something like 20% of Trump supporters think that Lincoln was wrong about freeing the slaves. Can’t actually name a lie, but you know she’s a liar. Who’s drunk the Kool-Aid?
Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]Why don’t you trust her? You think there was something wrong with her foundation? There wasn’t. Not even any accusations that make sense. Nothing. You think there was something wrong with her email? The two prior SOS used aol and gmail for their government email and deleted every single one of them. Never turned a single one over, not even the top secret ones. And the head of the FBI acknowledged there was not a single email on her server that was correctly marked classified and that there was no evidence it was ever hacked. Got a problem with her with Benghazi? Eight different investigations by Republicans cleared her of any wrong doing. I’ll tell you why the majority of Americans don’t trust her. Because Republicans have been running a smear campaign, first against her husband and then against her for more than 30 years. Never convicted of a crime, but dozens of books about her, including lists of the people she “murdered”. Never even charged with a crime, but the Republican nominee is ready to “lock her up” the day he is inaugurated. That shit gets old. And eventually people are convinced where there is smoke, there must be fire. But there isn’t. If there was, something would have been found on her. It never has been. Never. Not a thing.
So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you trust her?[/quote]I can go point by point, but I’m sure you will ignore them all. I’ll just summarize by paraphrasing what she said in her speech. She has a public position and a private position. What she say to get elected and what she intended to do can be two very different thing. So, how can I trust her when I don’t know when she’s telling the truth?
Anyways, I’ll let you enjoy your Kool-Aid, I just don’t want any part of it. There’s really no point in debating further. Just enjoy the fact that she probably would win the presidency.[/quote]
Really? A single paragraph of a speech that you just read for the first time no more than a few days ago, for which you had zero context, is why you don’t trust her? Before that you did? Yeah, go with that. That’s believable. Can’t be that you really don’t have a good reason.
-
AuthorPosts
