Clean
5,000+ Posts
And DNA evidence all over her navy dress.
General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
And DNA evidence all over her navy dress.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
HRC's latest response today was demanding Trump disclose all ties to the Kremlin. 
The desperation coming from the left now is truly sad and laughable. Can't conjure up a phony sexual assault accuser on short notice, so it's Trump plotting with Russia.
The desperation coming from the left now is truly sad and laughable. Can't conjure up a phony sexual assault accuser on short notice, so it's Trump plotting with Russia.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Trump speaking in Michigan just used Texas as an example of bogus polls. Said the media polls claim it's a tight race but he's getting info it's not even close.
Found it odd for him to single out Texas to a Michigan crowd. Then again Bobby Knight opened...an Indiana hero and Michigan rival.
Found it odd for him to single out Texas to a Michigan crowd. Then again Bobby Knight opened...an Indiana hero and Michigan rival.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
I've been saying for a while, even when Trump was diving and dealing with sexual assault gate...he'll win Texas by at least +8 which isn't close.
No way I'm believing past polls that it was ever around +3. Pure nonsense.
No way I'm believing past polls that it was ever around +3. Pure nonsense.
We have scoreboard on Michigan, so...oh, wait.
As expected. Is there any amount of corruption that would overcome Trump?
I polled 4 biz students who tailgate next to me in a state lot. For the ND game, it was 100% Hillary. I asked them again this weekend. Only 1 out of 4 said they were voting for Hillary, the rest was 3rd party.
Also makes the Lynch - Bill Clinton meeting that much worse.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
You know that 10/31 ABC/WaPo poll that has Libs freaking out? The one were Trump has higher favorables and 34% said they're less likely to vote for HRC after FBI news.
Well come to find out that poll was taken 10/26-28. In a poll that shrunk from +6 to +1 in 4 days, only one day included polling on the day the FBI news broke (10/28).
Pretty sure that (Lib leaning) poll would have Trump in lead if the other two days weren't before FBI reopened investigation.
Well come to find out that poll was taken 10/26-28. In a poll that shrunk from +6 to +1 in 4 days, only one day included polling on the day the FBI news broke (10/28).
Pretty sure that (Lib leaning) poll would have Trump in lead if the other two days weren't before FBI reopened investigation.
That's what turned what would have been a sleazy but quiet fling into a criminal matter. Clinton thought he had plausible deniability - meaning that he could lie under oath about screwing around with Monica and that no one could verify out one way or the other. So as is typical of the Clintons, he lied. Then we found out about the dress, and an "innocent" white lie (that was never really innocent) turned into a crime.
Couldn't he ask if any amount of nuttiness, ignorance, recklessness, and unpreparedness would overcome Clinton? Give him a hard time if you want, but he did the same thing you all are doing.
FWIW, his vote tells you that he thinks it's going to be close. Considering that he lives in one of the bluer states, that's pretty significant.
Another perspective would be that he has picked an authenticated crook/loser over a potential crook/loser (politically speaking). Even if Trump where to somehow match Hillary's proven failure, the decision should then be about which policies each candidate wants to employ.
That's the point. He has a different perspective. And my guess is that he likely prefers HRC's policy agenda to Trump's.
Right. So the relevant discussion should be about policy(s), of which there has been very little in this election, and the extent that it has existed has mostly been to the exclusion of empirical facts. In that sense, it has been just like every other election I can remember.
True, and I don't blame Hillary or Trump for this. Most voters don't give a crap about policy, and most of them don't know policy well enough to have much of an opinion on it. In light of that, why would either candidate make policy a major part of their campaigns?
This is just sad. I guess I should not be surprised, but when I was in the CBA in the 80s, it was staunchly conservative.
Sure he could and I would answer. It is a serious question. She got to the nomination through an unfair process over Bernie, she has committed perjury, she has been provided questions in advance of the debates and she is very likely about to be indicted. However, people are finding a way to vote for her. The question is, what would disqualify her from the POTUS for a liberal democrat?
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
On the contrary. While specifics of policy has been avoided, the broader differences couldn't be wider.
1. Open borders vs closed borders.
2. Corporate negotiated trade deals vs protectionism.
3. High business taxes vs large cuts in business taxes.
4. Status quo regulation vs relaxed regulation (EPA etc.)
5. Global military interventialism vs diplomacy and compromise.
6. Liberal vs Conservative Court appointments.
7. Obamacare vs repeal.
We can argue whether or not Trump has the will or the support to change anything, but in terms of policy differences, I can't think of any election where the two platforms were as different as now.
The specifics of the policies are the key, and that is what needs to be discussed. The differences you list are no different than listing social issues that appeal to the emotions of some; blacks vs cops; pacifists vs. second amendment; gays vs. cake bakers; transgendered vs. children's and women's bathroom privacy; etc.
The issues are complicated. How many people know that the income tax rate began in 1913 with a max tax rate of 6% on incomes over $1million per year? That rate was eventually applied to incomes of $2,000 per year. Who can explain the details (cost v benefit) of "corporate negotiated trade v protectionism"? I cannot without expending a great deal of time researching the issue. Even those that post on this board ignore the dubious reasons for the existence of BLM, but instead change the dialogue to "well, there are other good reasons that BLM exists" without discussing any details whatsoever. Some say that our society will collapse due to a difference in incomes between the citizens 'just like many other societies have collapsed' without providing any facts to back up the assertion, and without recognizing that income differences are not static stratifications among individuals.
The lack of knowledge, or better yet, the cost to acquire that knowledge and the postponed availability of knowledge, is exploited by most politicians often to the detriment of the very constituents voting for the politician (and that lack of knowledge usually extends to the politicians themselves). Such is the system we have.
The issues are complicated. How many people know that the income tax rate began in 1913 with a max tax rate of 6% on incomes over $1million per year? That rate was eventually applied to incomes of $2,000 per year. Who can explain the details (cost v benefit) of "corporate negotiated trade v protectionism"? I cannot without expending a great deal of time researching the issue. Even those that post on this board ignore the dubious reasons for the existence of BLM, but instead change the dialogue to "well, there are other good reasons that BLM exists" without discussing any details whatsoever. Some say that our society will collapse due to a difference in incomes between the citizens 'just like many other societies have collapsed' without providing any facts to back up the assertion, and without recognizing that income differences are not static stratifications among individuals.
The lack of knowledge, or better yet, the cost to acquire that knowledge and the postponed availability of knowledge, is exploited by most politicians often to the detriment of the very constituents voting for the politician (and that lack of knowledge usually extends to the politicians themselves). Such is the system we have.
Speaking of "rigged elections", check out the last sentence from this email released from WikiLeaks today:
From:[email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-01-02 21:57
Subject: Simas update
Madame Secretary, I will make sure all relevant information is in your briefing for the DWS meeting, but I wanted to provide an update in case it comes in handy earlier. --He asked what he should communicate to POTUS regarding the convention and I reiterated our point of view. I flagged that you will not state a preference if asked by DWS. --He said that DWS will probably bring up at your meeting that they're thinking of hiring a general election planner and he said it would be helpful for you to reinforce that this is very important. He recommended demurring to on who the person should be, so you don't get caught up in those politics. --I asked that he make sure she has meetings scheduled with other potential candidates, so they can credibly say they're meeting with everyone.
So the dude at the DOJ in charge of keeping Congress informed on the Weinergate emails is a crony of the Clintons"
from foxnews
"The Justice Department official in charge of informing Congress about the newly reactivated Hillary Clinton email probe is a political appointee and former private-practice lawyer who kept Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta “out of jail,” lobbied for a tax cheat later pardoned by President Bill Clinton and led the effort to confirm Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Peter Kadzik, who was confirmed as assistant attorney general for legislative affairs in June 2014, represented Podesta in 1998 when independent counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating Podesta for his possible role in helping ex-Bill Clinton intern and mistress Monica Lewinsky land a job at the United Nations.
“Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail,” Podesta wrote on Sept. 8, 2008 to Obama aide Cassandra Butts, according to emails hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account and posted by WikiLeaks.
CLINTON AIDE'S EMAIL TESTIMONY COULD HAUNT HER
Kadzik’s name has surfaced multiple times in regard to the FBI’s investigation of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for using a private, homebrewed server. After FBI Director James Comey informed Congress on Thursday the FBI was reviving its inquiry when new evidence linked to a separate investigation was discovered, congressional leaders wrote to the Department of Justice seeking more information. Kadzik replied.
“We assure you that the Department will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” Kadzik wrote on Oct. 31."
Riiiiight
from foxnews
"The Justice Department official in charge of informing Congress about the newly reactivated Hillary Clinton email probe is a political appointee and former private-practice lawyer who kept Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta “out of jail,” lobbied for a tax cheat later pardoned by President Bill Clinton and led the effort to confirm Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Peter Kadzik, who was confirmed as assistant attorney general for legislative affairs in June 2014, represented Podesta in 1998 when independent counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating Podesta for his possible role in helping ex-Bill Clinton intern and mistress Monica Lewinsky land a job at the United Nations.
“Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail,” Podesta wrote on Sept. 8, 2008 to Obama aide Cassandra Butts, according to emails hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account and posted by WikiLeaks.
CLINTON AIDE'S EMAIL TESTIMONY COULD HAUNT HER
Kadzik’s name has surfaced multiple times in regard to the FBI’s investigation of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for using a private, homebrewed server. After FBI Director James Comey informed Congress on Thursday the FBI was reviving its inquiry when new evidence linked to a separate investigation was discovered, congressional leaders wrote to the Department of Justice seeking more information. Kadzik replied.
“We assure you that the Department will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” Kadzik wrote on Oct. 31."
Riiiiight
And one other from Robby Mook to Podesta after Lanny Davis told Chris Wallace that an independent party could be allowed to review Clinton's hard drive from the private server:
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2015-03-08 15:49
Subject: Fwd: Lanny Davis
We gotta zap Lanny out of our universe. Can't believe he committed her to a private review of her hard drive on TV.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Lanny Davis
To: Robby Mook <[email protected]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]>, Kristina Schake <[email protected]>
Here’s the rough.
—>>i want to ask you about preserved. because when the government said preserved. do you think they had in mind someone who never turned over any records during the entire four years that she was secretary of state, never pushed over any records when she left as secretary of state, did not, in fact, turn over any records until almost two years after she left as secretary of state? do you think that's what the rules meant when president obama, when the federal records act, when the foreign manual all talked about preserving records?
>> the answer is yes, and you
-- >> two years after, that's what they meant?
>> and you, chris wallace, may have a suggested belief of what the word may. i'm talking about what is the case. those records are preserved. governor huckabee said well maybe they were deleted. last time i looked you cannot delete on a hard drive. there can be a neutral party to review all these records. nothing unlawful
-- >> you'd like to have a neutral party?
>> i said there can be
-- >> obviously there can be. i understand that. i'm asking do you think that's a reasonable idea?
>> i think it is a reasonable idea if anybody has any doubts that there's a delete on a hard drive —
>> to have an independent
-- >> go inspect her private e-mail?
>> i think there is a reasonable idea if the state department asks, she will say yes. if there's a s&p she must say yes. this is a bogus notion that what might be the case versus what is the case.
>> how about the obama white house in 2011 saying that all work should be conducted on government e-mails?
>> in fact, the obama white house has been unclear about what the policy is, because there are many
-- >> president was talking about with bill plante. he didn't say it was unclear.
>> you know, chris, what the president said was he didn't know even though the white house knew and the president then went on to support hillary clinton. so if you just let me finish, the fact is, nobody says it's illegal. she's turned over all of her e-mails, the first secretary of state to ever do that. and going forward
-- >> when did she turn them over?
>> she turned them over last -- well she said she
-- >> turned them over in december?
>> to turn everything to the public over. she turned them over last december, yes.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2015-03-08 15:49
Subject: Fwd: Lanny Davis
We gotta zap Lanny out of our universe. Can't believe he committed her to a private review of her hard drive on TV.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Lanny Davis
To: Robby Mook <[email protected]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]>, Kristina Schake <[email protected]>
Here’s the rough.
—>>i want to ask you about preserved. because when the government said preserved. do you think they had in mind someone who never turned over any records during the entire four years that she was secretary of state, never pushed over any records when she left as secretary of state, did not, in fact, turn over any records until almost two years after she left as secretary of state? do you think that's what the rules meant when president obama, when the federal records act, when the foreign manual all talked about preserving records?
>> the answer is yes, and you
-- >> two years after, that's what they meant?
>> and you, chris wallace, may have a suggested belief of what the word may. i'm talking about what is the case. those records are preserved. governor huckabee said well maybe they were deleted. last time i looked you cannot delete on a hard drive. there can be a neutral party to review all these records. nothing unlawful
-- >> you'd like to have a neutral party?
>> i said there can be
-- >> obviously there can be. i understand that. i'm asking do you think that's a reasonable idea?
>> i think it is a reasonable idea if anybody has any doubts that there's a delete on a hard drive —
>> to have an independent
-- >> go inspect her private e-mail?
>> i think there is a reasonable idea if the state department asks, she will say yes. if there's a s&p she must say yes. this is a bogus notion that what might be the case versus what is the case.
>> how about the obama white house in 2011 saying that all work should be conducted on government e-mails?
>> in fact, the obama white house has been unclear about what the policy is, because there are many
-- >> president was talking about with bill plante. he didn't say it was unclear.
>> you know, chris, what the president said was he didn't know even though the white house knew and the president then went on to support hillary clinton. so if you just let me finish, the fact is, nobody says it's illegal. she's turned over all of her e-mails, the first secretary of state to ever do that. and going forward
-- >> when did she turn them over?
>> she turned them over last -- well she said she
-- >> turned them over in december?
>> to turn everything to the public over. she turned them over last december, yes.
I asked during the ND pre-game why the popularity of Clinton, they said it was the cool vote plus it was the smart thing to do. With that in mind, I asked last week who was voting for a crook who "paid to play" $50 million in her and her husband's collective pocket. Different response. Besides young people are easily buffaloed by the "Trump is a fool" argument while overlookig the policy differences between the two candidates. Same for Obama.
The youngest of our society are the ones with the least knowledge, so they are the easiest to buffalo.
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 189
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
