Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 25 of 46
Quote:Sanders polled better vs. Trump than Hillary. A large chunk of his supporters will refuse to vote for her. They see her as the enemy as much as Trump, and they're not entirely wrong.
Originally posted by second:Quote:The primary was not a two way race. Lawrence Lessig, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley AND Bernie Sanders could not even get enough votes to win with Democrats, so how could any of them win a national election? Even a majority of Democrats didn't like any of them enough to vote for them, so why would Independents want to vote for them in the national election?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Why not Sanders?
Isn't he the more probable path to success?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,
_2016#Candidates
The Russian lovers here want what Putin wants: Trump. Putin can easily make a fool of him, and he really hopes to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are many, many other instances where the Justice Department prosecuted people, and sent them to jail, for much less than what Hillary did. By focusing on Gen Petraeus, these people are burying the fact that others have been jailed for doing EXACTLY what Hillary did. What is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence"?
It doesn't surprise me that you are still prosecuting your case as to how and why Hillary Clinton broke the law. You cannot accept you are wrong. That and you constantly try and discredit American institutions. Now it is the FBI. Sorry, no KGB here.
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Why not Sanders?
Isn't he the more probable path to success?- SIGNY
The primary was not a two way race. Lawrence Lessig, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley AND Bernie Sanders could not even get enough votes to win with Democrats, so how could any of them win a national election? Even a majority of Democrats didn't like any of them enough to vote for them, so why would Independents want to vote for them in the national election?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,
_2016#Candidates- SECOND
Sanders polled better vs. Trump than Hillary. A large chunk of his supporters will refuse to vote for her. They see her as the enemy as much as Trump, and they're not entirely wrong. The Russian lovers here want what Putin wants: Trump. Putin can easily make a fool of him, and he really hopes to. - REAVERFAN
First of all, the DNC and some of its corporate friends did everything they could to sway the vote to Hillary. The Sanders campaign was definitely building up momentum - which got a slow start - and in head-to-head polls v Trump, Sanders is the clear winner.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-tru
mp-vs-sanders
In fact, the only thing propping up the Hillary candidacy is fear of Trump (and by extension, the specter of Putin which IMHO is a ridiculous fear). And likewise, the only thing keeping Trump's campaign alive is fear of Hillary - I can attest to that! It would be so easy for the DNC to spin that dynamic in their favor by nominating Sanders. Given the choice between Sanders and Trump, I'd certainly vote for Sanders. I think that Sanders would not only get the usual Democratic vote, he'd pull in a lot of previous non-voters and independents... which is a heckuvalot of votes, and a lot better than Hillary.
So why is the DNC insisting on jamming Hillary down everyone's throats?
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wait until Republicans call Sanders a Commie and then run a comparison poll with Trump. Commie or socialist, it all looks the same: Bernie will be Karl Marx to Independent voters polled.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
First of all, the DNC and some of its corporate friends did everything they could to sway the vote to Hillary. The Sanders campaign was definitely building up momentum - which got a slow start - and in head-to-head polls v Trump, Sanders is the clear winner.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-tru
mp-vs-sanders
In fact, the only thing propping up the Hillary candidacy is fear of Trump (and by extension, the specter of Putin which IMHO is a ridiculous fear). And likewise, the only thing keeping Trump's campaign alive is fear of Hillary - I can attest to that! It would be so easy for the DNC to spin that dynamic in their favor by nominating Sanders. Given the choice between Sanders and Trump, I'd certainly vote for Sanders. I think that Sanders would not only get the usual Democratic vote, he'd pull in a lot of previous non-voters and independents... which is a heckuvalot of votes, and a lot better than Hillary.
So why is the DNC insisting on jamming Hillary down everyone's throats?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This question is from Rep. John Micah of Florida, who spent most of his time laying out a full-blown conspiracy theory about collusion between the FBI, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Loretta Lynch about Hillary's email investigation. Then he claims there's something "fishy" about the whole thing:
"Tomorrow we'll go back to our districts and we have to explain to people, in a couple cafes where I see folks and have meetings. They're going to ask a lot of questions about what took place....One week ago, former president Clinton meets with the attorney general in Phoenix. The next Friday, last Friday, Mrs. Lynch, the AG, says she's going to defer to the FBI. On Saturday morning I saw the vans pull up....Then on Tuesday morning...you basically said you going to recommend not to prosecute. Correct? And then Tuesday we had President Obama and Secretary Clinton arrive in Charlotte at 2:00. Shortly thereafter we had the attorney general closing the case. This is rapid fire. I mean, my folks think there is something fishy about this. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there are questions on how this came down."
The answer from FBI Director James Comey:
"I hope what you'll tell the folks in the cafe is, look me in the eye and listen to what I'm about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination. There was an insinuation in what you were saying. I don't mean to get strong in responding, but I want to make sure I was definitive about that."
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/comey-hearing-bad-republicans
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Considering how this thread is about Hillary, I love how you Hillarities love to jam your heads as far up your asses as you possibly can, and pretend there's nothing wrong with her.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_elec
tion_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_elec
tion_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Now, how you get two different and supposedly scientific polls conducted with days of each other saying vastly different things about Donald and Hillary is beyond me.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ReaverFan
Go a little crazy. YOUR vote only counts for just enough to send YOUR message. What message do you want to send? That you approve of Hillary? That you can be ruled by fear-based politics?
Vote your conscience.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Vote your conscience? I say you can use any criteria you please: party affiliation, coin flip, self interest, what ever.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Go a little crazy. YOUR vote only counts for just enough to send YOUR message. What message do you want to send? That you approve of Hillary? That you can be ruled by fear-based politics?
Vote your conscience.
As for Hillary deserving to be indicted, Republicans say:
www.nationalreview.com/article/437592/hillary-clintons-e-mails-james-c
omey-avoided-involvement-election
Quote:I think I see why not. From the FBI on Bryan Nishimura:
Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought.
Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.
The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security.
So why not Hillary Clinton?
www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-s
entenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
Quote:Nishimura and Martha Steward learned to their sorry that stalling tactics which delay an official investigation will get you prosecuted.
Folsom Naval Reservist is Sentenced After Pleading Guilty to Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Materials
U.S. Attorney’s Office July 29, 2015
Eastern District of California (916) 554-2700
SACRAMENTO, CA—Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.
According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.
Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.
This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case.
This content has been reproduced from its original source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Ste
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You mean, Hillary wasn't stalling when she stood up and lied ... and lied... and lied ...under oath to Congress?
Nishimura and Martha Steward learned to their sorry that stalling tactics which delay an official investigation will get you prosecuted.
Yanno what, SECOND? You're just stuck on Hillary. You love that witch, no matter WHAT she does! There is literally nothing that she could do that would sway your vote: Hillary just HAS to win, IYHO.
The most concise explanation of Hillary's NEGATIVE effect on Dem party chances came from- of all places- that bastion of Dem worship: NPR. What they said was that with ALL of Tump's negatives .... and there are MANY ... Hillary should be doing much MUCH better than Trump, and much better than she is. And the reason why she isn't doing better is because she has a ton of negatives on her own side: according to the polls, people just don't trust her. (And IMHO they shouldn't)
Now, I'm going to go back to my original question, which I don't think was answered sufficiently: WHY does the Democratic Party feel compelled to jam Hillary down our throats? If they were just looking at the polls and desiring a Dem "win", why not nominate Sanders?
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME