Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[FilmTVGeek80]

4 hours ago, ArizonaGrown said:

she has not acted one bit sorry and she carries that attitude with her about everything like she is not to be held responsible for any wrong doing when the list and accusations are a mile long - dont tell  me none of it is correct. The worst thing that was found on Trump was his talking about grabbing some pussy - please this is not even in the range of bad that she is or the allegations against her are. I feel sorry for those who think it is and that think he is against women when he clearly is in awe of his daughter you will notice not one of his sons. How contradicting is that?

 

 

No offense, but you want to talk about contradicting - in one paragraph you talk about how horrific it is that Hillary doesn't act sorry about her wrongdoings or take responsibility for them? And what about Donald? Are you completely blind to his faults? This is a man who spent his entire campaign telling lie after lie and getting caught in scandal after scandal. The only time he even gave even a half-ass apology was after Grab Her By the Pussy. Where's his apology for going after a Gold Star family and attacking them? Where's his apology for talking calling a Latina woman of normal weight "miss piggy" and "miss housekeeping?" Where's him taking responsibility for misusing his "charity's" funds to bribe officials and by stupid self-portraits of himself? Where's his apology for trying to incite violence against the Central Park Five and refusing to admit they're innocent after it's been proven so?

Also, why would you feel sorry for people because they think Trump is worse than Clinton? That doesn't make a lot of sense. You may look at Donald's "adoration" of Ivanka as a good thing, but to me it's creepy. And I wouldn't exactly call telling Howard Stern that it's okay to call his daughter "a piece of ass" an example of the high esteem he holds his daughter or any woman for that matter.

As I've already listed, there are plenty of things that Donald did wrong and is still doing wrong, other than the grab her by the pussy comment - which is bad enough on his own. The man - wait sorry not man - the pig was bragging about being able to get away with sexual assault. And according to many, many, many women, that's exactly what he's done. To add to the list of things Donald has done that should have any sane person think twice about voting for him was incite violence at his rallies and against his opponents. He and his father back in the day refused to rent buildings in their apartments to Black people. Even when they settled a lawsuit and agreed to stop discriminating they still tried to weasel out of it and keep up their racist practices. He's stiffed many workers out of their rightful pay. I honestly could go on all day.

I also find it kind of funny that one of the things you're upset at Hillary for - deleting emails - is something Trump and his team have done and to a far grander scale than Hillary did. It's been proven that Trump, in just one of the many ways he tried to weasel out of lawsuits, would have his people delete emails, even after he was subpoenaed for them. I also wonder if you were also concerned by the millions of emails Bush's team deleted while he was in office?

Edited December 17, 2016 by FilmTVGeek80

[callmebetty]

4 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

No offense, but you want to talk about contradicting - in one paragraph you talk about how horrific it is that Hillary doesn't act sorry about her wrongdoings or take responsibility for them? And what about Donald? Are you completely blind to his faults? This is a man who spent his entire campaign telling lie after lie and getting caught in scandal after scandal. The only time he even gave even a half-ass apology was after Grab Her By the Pussy. Where's his apology for going after a Gold Star family and attacking them? Where's his apology for talking calling a Latina woman of normal weight "miss piggy" and "miss housekeeping?" Where's him taking responsibility for misusing his "charity's" funds to bribe officials and by stupid self-portraits of himself? Where's his apology for trying to incite violence against the Central Park Five and refusing to admit they're innocent after it's been proven so?

Also, why would you feel sorry for people because they think Trump is worse than Clinton? That doesn't make a lot of sense. You may look at Donald's "adoration" of Ivanka as a good thing, but to me it's creepy. And I wouldn't exactly call telling Howard Stern that it's okay to call his daughter "a piece of ass" an example of the high esteem he holds his daughter or any woman for that matter.

As I've already listed, there are plenty of things that Donald did wrong and is still doing wrong, other than the grab her by the pussy comment - which is bad enough on his own. The man - wait sorry not man - the pig was bragging about being able to get away with sexual assault. And according to many, many, many women, that's exactly what he's done. To add to the list of things Donald has done that should have any sane person think twice about voting for him was incite violence at his rallies and against his opponents. He and his father back in the day refused to rent buildings in their apartments to Black people. Even when they settled a lawsuit and agreed to stop discriminating they still tried to weasel out of it and keep up their racist practices. He's stiffed many workers out of their rightful pay. I honestly could go on all day.

You could go on but don't bother we've all been Rick Rolled and by that I mean T Rolled.

[backformore]

@slf- thank you for posting all that , and saving me the trouble.   very thorough, and brilliant.  The original post was filled with misinformation. you set the record straight, and I thank you.

[slf]

Something I find pretty telling is the narrative around the investigations. All of them. "Look, Hillary's been investigated so many times she must be guilty of something!" Not, "Hillary has been investigated more than half a dozen times and nothing has ever been found. She's being persecuted." Not, "The government, especially Republicans, have gone after Hillary Clinton more than half a dozen times. They've spent tens of millions of dollars and twenty years trying to find dirt on her and they've come up with absolutely nothing? How incompetent are these people?!" No, all of this, all the wasted money and time and investigations, reflects poorly on her. Not on Republicans.

I'm asking honestly: how much time do they need? (Obviously more than two decades.) How much taxpayer money will it take for them to actually produce evidence of wrongdoing? (Because, gosh, the tens of millions they've wasted just isn't enough!) (Okay, so I'm being a little sarcastic.)

[BookWoman56]

I'm also finding it a bit amusing that after all the frenzied rhetoric about HRC using a private email server, it seems as if hers was one of the few that didn't get hacked. This just goes back to my initial response to the idea of the private server: If a foreign power with bad intent wants to hack emails of a U.S. government official, which email server are they more likely to target, the official government server or some private server that maybe three people know about? I have never understood why the private server was such a big damn deal.

What I don't find amusing is the near certainty that after wasting tens of millions of dollars on witch hunts against HRC, Congress will probably spend a fraction of that amount on a pro forma investigation into the Russian hacking. And I'm cynical enough to believe that even if they find absolute proof that not only did the Russians hack the DNC and others, but were also behind the hacks into voter databases of several states and used that info to submit fraudulent absentee ballots or as Snowden suggested was possible, hack some voting machines, the attitude would be that since it resulted in a Republican becoming POTUS, no further action is needed. Yet if the results were reversed, I know damn well Congress would be voting to delay the inauguration until after an investigation, or if the inauguration had already taken place, insisting that the Democratic POTUS resign because of interference in the election.  I am just sick and tired of the litmus test on any activity by Congress being whether it benefits their political party instead of whether it benefits the country as a whole.

Edited December 17, 2016 by BookWoman56
Typo

[Pixel]

8 hours ago, slf said:

So I'm not familiar with some of this, such as the the cattle futures, but I wanted to address some of the other things that bother you about her (but not all of them right in one response because it's a lot lol).

May I ask what specifically about Benghazi you hold HRC accountable for? She's been investigated for this and cleared. The GOP has tried their damndest to find something she did wrong and came up empty-handed every time.

I've never understood the problem with her having a private server. It's not what some might prefer but it's actually commonly done; as in it's pretty well-known many politicians have a private server (and look at how many are prosecuted for it). And I just want to bring this up because this never fails to amuse me: she wasn't hacked. Literally almost everyone else was but not HRC and her private server. Back to the topic, even Comey said she did nothing wrong, did not lie, did nothing illegal, and no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. And I think we can all agree Comey is no friend of HRC.

Deleting emails are also common, sometimes for the very simple reason of: the Podesta emails. "They wanted pizza" became "PIZZA IS CODE FOR CHILD RAPE" became "let's get a gun and go to the secret pedophile palace masquerading as a pizza parlor and threaten people's lives over a Reddit conspiracy theory". Mike Pence is trying to bury his emails. He's embraced by the very Republicans that tried to roast HRC. I recall there was an issue with the Bush administration, private servers, and over 20 million 'lost' emails. Literally no one on the right cares.

The election was not rigged against Bernie Sanders, though. In fact quite the opposite: Sanders exploited the Democratic party and attempted to steal the party nomination. Why do you feel it was rigged?

Whitewater was another conspiracy; HRC was investigated for seven years and cleared. And it's not like the investigations were spearheaded by sympathizers. As with pretty much every investigation of HRC, it was done by Republicans who really, really did not like her. Most of them were given broad authority and used it and came up with nothing.

Vince Foster's suicide being linked to HRC is a conspiracy theory that didn't even gain traction inside the GOP which has never failed to chase even the tiniest breadcrumb they thought might finally bring HRC down. This article really explores Foster's time in the White House and his depression, with most information coming from Fiske's (a Republican) investigation.

HRC's friend and mentor, Robert Byrd, was a former KKK member who spent much of his political career trying to make amends for his terrible past and help those he once sought to oppress. He struggled with his own past - he wasn't perfect, he had a mentality he found difficult to examine and change - but had a better track record when it came to promoting equality than almost all of his colleagues that had never been associated with the KKK. The NAACP gave him a 100% rating. I've actually never understood people holding this against her. If someone realizes they've been hateful and bigoted, tries to change, spends much of their life doing what they can to help others...are we really supposed to shun them? HRC is a sneaky liar because she, a white woman, did not shun Byrd for his past when esteemed black organizations refused to do so? A lot of people say "oh if you say or do one thing wrong SJWs attack you, PC run amok!" But Byrd is proof that isn't true. Of course, Byrd was respected by organizations like the NAACP because his bar for 'not being racist' was not the super low standard of not having being a member of the KKK, it was devoting his life to the long hard work of dismantling systems of oppression. Byrd learned that in a racist society not being hateful and violent isn't enough; you actually have to help others, that it's the responsibility of white people to tear down the systems they benefit from and use to harm others.

The Clinton body count conspiracy theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked. (One of my favorite things about the ever-changing lists is that they sometimes include people who either aren't actually dead, lol, or people who never even existed.) The GOP hasn't launched over half a dozen federal investigations and come up empty despite HRC supposedly having people assassinated left right and center. I do enjoy how, meanwhile, Republican Joe Scarborough is as innocent as lamb. I mean, there was an actual deal body in his office. (To clarify, I've seen nothing to suggest that Scarborough killed her I just think the double standard is interesting. Imagine what the GOP would do if a dead body was found in HRC's office.)

The "HRC stole hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of furniture and artwork from the White House" conspiracy theory has also been thoroughly debunked. There are rules regarding what gifts you can and cannot keep, essentially what is actually given to you and what is given to the US.

And last, for now, is the really awful lie that HRC is a defender of rapists and a mocker of victims. HRC was a public defender, legally obligated to defend her client. What many critics don't bring up is that she requested to be taken off the case. HRC did not want to defend a man she knew to be a rapist. But sadly, that's a common tactic of men accused of rape: hire a female lawyer. "See, I'm not a misogynist, I'm putting my life in the hands of a woman!" That's exactly what HRC's client did: he specifically requested a female lawyer. Plenty of female public defenders have had to represent rapists or child molesters. As Politifact notes, she never laughed at the victim. That is a lie.

I do want to say that when it comes to Bill's victims...I'm not sure what the argument is. Because they made the accusation they should be believed or at least given the benefit of the doubt? I actually support that. But then, what about Trump's accusers? Especially given his own on-camera admissions that he has sexually assaulted women repeatedly over the course of decades, and his admission that he has previously exploited his status to gain access to the dressing area of a teen beauty pageant where the girls were undressed so he could ogle them. I mean, one of his accusers said he raped her when she was a child and that he did so at one of Jeffrey Epstein's parties. Epstein is a known pedophile. So...what do we say about Trump, then? This is one of the reasons I consider this a very difficult issue. 

THANK YOU! This is everything I don't type out any longer because it's like banging your head against a wall. People prefer to believe the lies. But this? This is beautiful. 

[backgroundnoise]

Yes, I'm very sore and angry that HRC lost.  But worse, as an American, I am ashamed of my country, that so many people consider DJT even remotely appropriate to represent us.  That truthfulness is held in so little regard.  His compulsive lying alone (Politifact put it at over 75%) should have been a deal-breaker.  How is that justified?

[PatsyandEddie]

Maybe I'm just being a silly Canuckian but shouldn't opinions on certain subjects be based on truth/facts? 

I appreciate your work, slf. I learned quite a bit of detail which only strengthened my opinion that HRC would have made a much better President and that she has been treated miserably. I'm not denying that she has flaws just that mountains were made without even the tiniest of molehills. 

aradia , I am familiar with the "darkness" as well but these forums can be a source of help. Take some comfort in knowing you are not alone. 

12 minutes ago, backgroundnoise said:

Yes, I'm very sore and angry that HRC lost.  But worse, as an American, I am ashamed of my country, that so many people consider DJT even remotely appropriate to represent us.  That truthfulness is held in so little regard.  His compulsive lying alone (Politifact put it at over 75%) should have been a deal-breaker.  How is that justified?

The blatant disregard he has for the truth is astounding. He looks like a fool out of his element and will drag the US down the rabbit hole. 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, backgroundnoise said:

Yes, I'm very sore and angry that HRC lost.  But worse, as an American, I am ashamed of my country, that so many people consider DJT even remotely appropriate to represent us.  That truthfulness is held in so little regard.  His compulsive lying alone (Politifact put it at over 75%) should have been a deal-breaker.  How is that justified?

Also just wanted to add, since he's got so many disqualifying things against him, we shouldn't forget Trump University, a scam set up to trick the very kinds of people he claims to speak for out of their money. This is yet another reason I'm still shocked when people will claim that Trump can't be corrupt or whatever because he "already has his money." Leaving aside that he's not as rich as he claims to be and is very sensitive about it, being rich has been proven over and over again to make people more greedy, not less. Trump University and his taking money from his own charitable foundation (to which he himself doesn't contribute) is a great example. As is his long record of stiffing people who work for him and trusting they won't have the money to fight it out in court.

There's just no way I can see that someone can be that sensitive to the many scandals HRC has been investigated and cleared for (not to mention even her private emails show her doing things like being concerned about genuine problems in the world) and missing that Trump is a predator--both sexual and financial. It's not like his working with Russia and anyone else willing to dismantle American institutions for his own profit is a change for him.

Even the Carrier deal, his big PR moment he had to do because somebody forced him to do what he promised, winds up being a gift to corporate bosses while workers continue to lose their jobs. You might as well vote for a Nigerian Prince who needs your help getting his hands on a fortune he's going to share with you.

[DollEyes]

On 12/17/2016 at 9:35 AM, backgroundnoise said:

Yes, I'm very sore and angry that HRC lost.  But worse, as an American, I am ashamed of my country, that so many people consider DJT even remotely appropriate to represent us.  That truthfulness is held in so little regard.  His compulsive lying alone (Politifact put it at over 75%) should have been a deal-breaker.  How is that justified?

Amen. When I voted for Presidential candidates who lost, I was disappointed, sad and mad at my country, but I've never been ashamed nor scared until now. Hillary's not "perfect" by any means, but I've never doubted for a moment that she has America's best interest at heart; Trump, otoh, if his Cabinet picks alone are any indication, not only doesn't seem to care about this country, he doesn't even seem to have a heart. 

Bravo, slf! I couldn't have said it better myself. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by DollEyes

[ruby24]

Great point. I know for a fact that I would not feel like this if it were any other Republican. This is different. This is madness.

[Broderbits]

14 hours ago, Menrva said:

14 hours ago, Broderbits said:

The worst thing that was found on Trump was his talking about grabbing some pussy

And that's pretty awful, IMO.

I just want to clarify that I was not the original poster of that trump quote! No way, no how, would I have said anything of the sort!

[Ohwell]

11 hours ago, slf said:

The election was not rigged against Bernie Sanders, though. In fact quite the opposite: Sanders exploited the Democratic party and attempted to steal the party nomination. Why do you feel it was rigged?

What?  Bernie Sanders did not attempt to "steal" the nomination.  He's an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats and ran as a Democrat for the nomination.  Was that illegal?  No.  Problem was, he gave HRC a run for the money in the primaries and a lot of Democrats didn't like the fact that she had to work harder than planned to get the nomination.  I voted for him in the primaries, voted for her in the general because I felt I had no choice, but she was never the best candidate IMO.

[Pixel]

11 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

What?  Bernie Sanders did not attempt to "steal" the nomination.  He's an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats and ran as a Democrat for the nomination.  Was that illegal?  No.  Problem was, he gave HRC a run for the money in the primaries and a lot of Democrats didn't like the fact that she had to work harder than planned to get the nomination.  I voted for him in the primaries, voted for her in the general because I felt I had no choice, but she was never the best candidate IMO.

I voted for him in the primaries too. I don't know if he could have won, but I was horribly disappointed when the only choice I had left was Clinton.  Because I was left with Clinton, I spent some time researching much of the kerfuffle that surrounded her, because for a short time I felt like I'd have to abstain from voting at all this time.  As time went on, I went from grudgingly accepting her as the candidate to actually liking and respecting her.  Do I believe she's probably been involved in underhanded bullshit? Yes, but no more than any other politician.  I am not blind to her shortcomings. Unlike the average Trump supporter I see online, who just parrots all the fake news and allegations around her and claims the facts refuting those stories are fake, but blatantly ignores the truth that Trump is a pathological liar and con artist.  His many bad business dealings are well documented. I don't get it. I also don't get how trying to present facts and voicing our opinions against racism, misogyny and bigotry makes us tearful special snowflakes, but if wanting equal civil rights and decency for everyone makes me a special snowflake, I'll be proud to be one.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Pixel
Athough I lumped all my thoughts into one paragraph, only the part about Clinton was in response to the quoted text. I do not think the quoted poster was calling anyone special snowflakes.

[callmebetty]

It's like the Communist witch hunts, but now that being a Commie, "Better Red than Dead" is the cool thing all the politicians are dancing to, well now Liberalism and social equality makes you the new Traitor. Round me up.

Edited December 17, 2016 by callmebetty
Cause it's well not we will

[Duke Silver]

I'm not a liberal, but I'll join y'all.  #neverTrump #unpresident

[slf]

4 hours ago, Ohwell said:

What?  Bernie Sanders did not attempt to "steal" the nomination. 

Technically he did. HRC won the majority of pledged delegates; at that point the media called it in her favor because while, yes, the superdelegates can vote however they like: they don't. The superdelegates always back whichever candidate wins the most votes (and therefore wins the majority of pledged delegates). But Bernie came out, wait wait wait this isn't over I can still totally win the superdelegates. Had the superdelegates voted for him it would've been enough to give him the nomination in contradiction to how the majority of Dems voted. 

[Ohwell]

48 minutes ago, slf said:

Technically he did. HRC won the majority of pledged delegates; at that point the media called it in her favor because while, yes, the superdelegates can vote however they like: they don't. The superdelegates always back whichever candidate wins the most votes (and therefore wins the majority of pledged delegates). But Bernie came out, wait wait wait this isn't over I can still totally win the superdelegates. Had the superdelegates voted for him it would've been enough to give him the nomination in contradiction to how the majority of Dems voted. 

Trying to sway superdelegates is not "stealing" the nomination.  It's not uncommon.  Hell, back in 2008 many of the superdelegates made a jail break from Clinton to Obama.

[slf]

25 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Trying to sway superdelegates is not "stealing" the nomination.  It's not uncommon.  Hell, back in 2008 many of the superdelegates made a jail break from Clinton to Obama.

Candidates try to keep the superdelegates close because the fact that they're unpledged means they could flip. No one wants to be the candidate they flip on. But they have never voted against the winning candidate, ever. Never. The superdelegates back in '08 didn't make a jailbreak, they did what they always do: honor the popular vote. Obama was winning. They had wanted Clinton to win, absolutely and undeniably, but she wasn't so they went to Obama because he was. Sanders wanted an establishment overthrow. He wanted the superdelegates to do what they've never done and elect someone who lost the popular vote. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by slf

[Menrva]

Quote

   20 HOURS AGO,  MENRVA SAID: 

   20 HOURS AGO,  BRODERBITS SAID: 

The worst thing that was found on Trump was his talking about grabbing some pussy

And that's pretty awful, IMO.

I just want to clarify that I was not the original poster of that trump quote! No way, no how, would I have said anything of the sort!

I'm so sorry - I didn't realize that I mistakenly attributed that quote to you! I meant no offense, Broderbits.

[Ohwell]

So Sanders didn't get what he wanted.  And if by some chance he had gotten what he wanted, even if it had never been done before, it still wasn't "stealing" the nomination, which is my point.  The superdelegates were still free to go to whomever they wanted to.

The bottom line is, he didn't get the nomination; Hillary Clinton did, and no harm or nothing illegal was done to her in the process.  

Frankly, I'm tired of blame blame blame and whine whine whine because she didn't win.  I'm truly sorry she lost, but only because of what we're stuck with now.  It sucks and I'm scared about what the future holds after The Thing takes office (gag).  However, the buck stops with her and I would love for her and her people take responsibility for her loss instead of whining about Putin and Comey and Sanders and gawd knows who else.  

10 minutes ago, slf said:

Candidates try to keep the superdelegates close because the fact that they're unpledged means they could flip. No one wants to be the candidate they flip on. But they have never voted against the winning candidate, ever. Never. The superdelegates back on '08 didn't make a jailbreak, they did what they always do: honor the popular vote. Obama was winning. They had wanted Clinton to win, absolutely and undeniably, but she wasn't so they went to Obama because he was. Sanders wanted an establishment overthrow. He wanted the superdelegates to what they've never done and elect someone who lost the popular vote. 

[slf]

1 minute ago, Ohwell said:

So Sanders didn't get what he wanted.  And if by some chance he had gotten what he wanted, even if it had never been done before, it still wasn't "stealing" the nomination, which is my point.  The superdelegates were still free to go to whomever they wanted to.

I guess this is just a matter of perspective then. In my opinion, in a democracy, when you're in an election and the majority of voters don't vote for you- that's it. You've been rejected. And trying to work around that, get yourself elected with the minority of votes, is undemocratic as hell. Personally, I'm as against superdelegates as I am the electoral college.

[Padma]

17 hours ago, slf said:

(Snipped for space, but great post!)

...I do want to say that when it comes to Bill's victims...I'm not sure what the argument is. Because they made the accusation they should be believed or at least given the benefit of the doubt? I actually support that. But then, what about Trump's accusers? Especially given his own on-camera admissions that he has sexually assaulted women repeatedly over the course of decades, and his admission that he has previously exploited his status to gain access to the dressing area of a teen beauty pageant where the girls were undressed so he could ogle them. I mean, one of his accusers said he raped her when she was a child and that he did so at one of Jeffrey Epstein's parties. Epstein is a known pedophile. So...what do we say about Trump, then? This is one of the reasons I consider this a very difficult issue. 

.... Bill's alleged victims...

I don't think they should be believed or given the benefit of the doubt (and each of them had some odd connections or likelihood of political bias or other reason for it not being true).

However I -do- think they deserved the respect of having their allegations thoroughly investigated. And they were, including by special prosecutor Ken Starr (whose witch hunt of the Clintons for YEARS managed to finally turn up Monica and Clinton's supposed perjury over whether they had sex or not).  Starr investigated the allegations of Broaderick and Wiley and found nothing to them. Jones accepted a settlement with no admission of guilt.

I don't see why Hillary--who believed her husband and had no reason to believe these women (ever)--should have spoken sweetly about them in private. She didn't unleash the powers of the government on them, but her husband definitely DID have the right to defend himself from accusations.

It bugged me the way that Trump paraded them out for the "press conference" and tried to stage a public humiliation of Hillary over it, scolding her for not treating her husband's accusers with more respect!

And yet, when Trump's DOZEN accuser came forward with FAR more credible and less motivated stories (not paid as Jones was, by conservatives and given plastic surgery so the charge might seem more credible if she looked better), Trump did everything he could to attack and smear them.

That, however, was okay! Because it was Trump under attack, not Clinton.

Biggest liar and hypocrite I've ever seen in government, bar NONE.

[NewDigs]

59 minutes ago, slf said:

I guess this is just a matter of perspective then. In my opinion, in a democracy, when you're in an election and the majority of voters don't vote for you- that's it. You've been rejected. And trying to work around that, get yourself elected with the minority of votes, is undemocratic as hell. Personally, I'm as against superdelegates as I am the electoral college.

Unfortunately, this isn't a direct (pure) democracy but rather a representative democracy.  

 

edit to include slf quote.  missed page jump.

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

 However, the buck stops with her and I would love for her and her people take responsibility for her loss instead of whining about Putin and Comey and Sanders and gawd knows who else.

 

No offense, but saying the buck stops with her and calling people being upset "whining" is a ridiculous oversimplification and an insult. I'm not "whining" because I think a conscience free, racist, moronic pig has no business being president and I'm upset that he might ruin our country. Trying to dismiss all the horrible and unprecedented shit that happened in this election - like Putin, like Wikileaks, like Comey - and putting the blame simply on Clinton is ignoring troubling issues and basically letting hatred of Clinton cloud the issue.

[truthaboutluv]

17 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

No offense, but saying the buck stops with her and calling people being upset "whining" is a ridiculous oversimplification and an insult. I'm not "whining" because I think a conscience free, racist, moronic pig has no business being president and I'm upset that he might ruin our country. Trying to dismiss all the horrible and unprecedented shit that happened in this election - like Putin, like Wikileaks, like Comey - and putting the blame simply on Clinton is ignoring troubling issues and basically letting hatred of Clinton cloud the issue.

And people wonder why the media is so half-assed in their coverage of the Russian hacking. Why wouldn't they be when even some who didn't vote for Trump can't give a rat's ass that according to the CIA (and as of yesterday, the FBI as well) Russia hacked a major political party in the country during an election year with the intent to sway and manipulate the election. It's like "eh, well she lost, so whatever..."

And now there is a moron currently about to be the leader of the free world who is not just a moron but a gigantic man-child with the temperament of a five year old And did I mention he's a moron? But hey, no biggie...

Edited December 18, 2016 by truthaboutluv

[Padma]

This is a small story, but there was something sweet to me about people in Chappaqua hoping to see the Clintons and treasuring those encounters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-chappaqua-woods-a-search-for-hillary-clinton/2016/12/17/60daea40-c3c0-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_chappaqua614pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.861764c2da14

[moonb]

On 12/16/2016 at 7:11 PM, ArizonaGrown said:

Now lets talk about Melania - I do not vote for the President because of his wife and what she will or will not bring to the Whitehouse. What exactly did Michelle bring to us all ? Tell me please of some thing she did other than look good and give some great speeches ? Did she do some miraculous work changing something that actually changed the lives of the average of below average person on a National level?

It's worth noting here that this is what first ladies have traditionally been expected to do. To look nice, give speeches, and be a devoted wife who doesn't overshadow the POTUS. Yes, first ladies do a lot of work to support all kinds of initatives and causes, but they're usually not terribly controversial. None of that is wrong, it's just to point out that any whiff of controversy grabs attention (I'm thinking of Nancy Reagan and her support for stem-cell research here, even though that was well after Reagan's presidency).

Our last 3 first ladies all know this, because when HRC *did* appear to overstep this boundary during Bill Clinton's first term, she got all kinds of attacks for it. Laura Bush carefully kept some opinions to herself until after GWB was out of office. The first lady is in an odd negative space where she's damned if she does "do something" (which perhaps isn't wifely) and damned if she doesn't. And all of that is only about Michelle Obama's role as wife, and doesn't even touch on race. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by moonb

[ArizonaGrown]

On 12/16/2016 at 10:57 PM, slf said:

So I'm not familiar with some of this, such as the the cattle futures, but I wanted to address some of the other things that bother you about her (but not all of them right in one response because it's a lot lol).

May I ask what specifically about Benghazi you hold HRC accountable for? She's been investigated for this and cleared. The GOP has tried their damndest to find something she did wrong and came up empty-handed every time.

I've never understood the problem with her having a private server. It's not what some might prefer but it's actually commonly done; as in it's pretty well-known many politicians have a private server (and look at how many are prosecuted for it). And I just want to bring this up because this never fails to amuse me: she wasn't hacked. Literally almost everyone else was but not HRC and her private server. Back to the topic, even Comey said she did nothing wrong, did not lie, did nothing illegal, and no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. And I think we can all agree Comey is no friend of HRC.

Deleting emails are also common, sometimes for the very simple reason of: the Podesta emails. "They wanted pizza" became "PIZZA IS CODE FOR CHILD RAPE" became "let's get a gun and go to the secret pedophile palace masquerading as a pizza parlor and threaten people's lives over a Reddit conspiracy theory". Mike Pence is trying to bury his emails. He's embraced by the very Republicans that tried to roast HRC. I recall there was an issue with the Bush administration, private servers, and over 20 million 'lost' emails. Literally no one on the right cares.

The election was not rigged against Bernie Sanders, though. In fact quite the opposite: Sanders exploited the Democratic party and attempted to steal the party nomination. Why do you feel it was rigged?

Whitewater was another conspiracy; HRC was investigated for seven years and cleared. And it's not like the investigations were spearheaded by sympathizers. As with pretty much every investigation of HRC, it was done by Republicans who really, really did not like her. Most of them were given broad authority and used it and came up with nothing.

Vince Foster's suicide being linked to HRC is a conspiracy theory that didn't even gain traction inside the GOP which has never failed to chase even the tiniest breadcrumb they thought might finally bring HRC down. This article really explores Foster's time in the White House and his depression, with most information coming from Fiske's (a Republican) investigation.

HRC's friend and mentor, Robert Byrd, was a former KKK member who spent much of his political career trying to make amends for his terrible past and help those he once sought to oppress. He struggled with his own past - he wasn't perfect, he had a mentality he found difficult to examine and change - but had a better track record when it came to promoting equality than almost all of his colleagues that had never been associated with the KKK. The NAACP gave him a 100% rating. I've actually never understood people holding this against her. If someone realizes they've been hateful and bigoted, tries to change, spends much of their life doing what they can to help others...are we really supposed to shun them? HRC is a sneaky liar because she, a white woman, did not shun Byrd for his past when esteemed black organizations refused to do so? A lot of people say "oh if you say or do one thing wrong SJWs attack you, PC run amok!" But Byrd is proof that isn't true. Of course, Byrd was respected by organizations like the NAACP because his bar for 'not being racist' was not the super low standard of not having being a member of the KKK, it was devoting his life to the long hard work of dismantling systems of oppression. Byrd learned that in a racist society not being hateful and violent isn't enough; you actually have to help others, that it's the responsibility of white people to tear down the systems they benefit from and use to harm others.

The Clinton body count conspiracy theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked. (One of my favorite things about the ever-changing lists is that they sometimes include people who either aren't actually dead, lol, or people who never even existed.) The GOP hasn't launched over half a dozen federal investigations and come up empty despite HRC supposedly having people assassinated left right and center. I do enjoy how, meanwhile, Republican Joe Scarborough is as innocent as lamb. I mean, there was an actual deal body in his office. (To clarify, I've seen nothing to suggest that Scarborough killed her I just think the double standard is interesting. Imagine what the GOP would do if a dead body was found in HRC's office.)

The "HRC stole hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of furniture and artwork from the White House" conspiracy theory has also been thoroughly debunked. There are rules regarding what gifts you can and cannot keep, essentially what is actually given to you and what is given to the US.

And last, for now, is the really awful lie that HRC is a defender of rapists and a mocker of victims. HRC was a public defender, legally obligated to defend her client. What many critics don't bring up is that she requested to be taken off the case. HRC did not want to defend a man she knew to be a rapist. But sadly, that's a common tactic of men accused of rape: hire a female lawyer. "See, I'm not a misogynist, I'm putting my life in the hands of a woman!" That's exactly what HRC's client did: he specifically requested a female lawyer. Plenty of female public defenders have had to represent rapists or child molesters. As Politifact notes, she never laughed at the victim. That is a lie.

I do want to say that when it comes to Bill's victims...I'm not sure what the argument is. Because they made the accusation they should be believed or at least given the benefit of the doubt? I actually support that. But then, what about Trump's accusers? Especially given his own on-camera admissions that he has sexually assaulted women repeatedly over the course of decades, and his admission that he has previously exploited his status to gain access to the dressing area of a teen beauty pageant where the girls were undressed so he could ogle them. I mean, one of his accusers said he raped her when she was a child and that he did so at one of Jeffrey Epstein's parties. Epstein is a known pedophile. So...what do we say about Trump, then? This is one of the reasons I consider this a very difficult issue. 

The cattle futures issue is when Hillary invested $1,000 in cattle futures (under the guidance of James Blair who was a attorney for Tyson Foods) and within 10 months that original investment was $100,000. She never traded before and or after that which it was also questioned why she was allowed to trade with only $1000 originally when most futures trading took an initial investment of at least $12,000. 

And no Hillary did take many things from the Whitehouse that had to be returned and it is funny that the rules were so obscured that NO other first lady had a problem with what is and is not allowed. 

Her and Bills treatment of the Haitian people and both being in charge of the help they would receive was and is beyond heartless and disgraceful. There was 13 Billion dollars taken in and for what ? For the Clintons to use it to give contracts to the Foundations many donors for millions to have the contractors build only structurally unsafe structures or none at all. Claiming to build schools when only thing they did even close to a school was to donate towards one school having an "earthday celebration" or " tree building action" but they took credit for building school itself. 1.5 million to close associate to locate rebuild sites only to have a few mountains sited. Many companies defaulting and not building and homes or structures at all. So where did all that money go? She will not even meet with the many Haitian people who would love to get some answers to why this was done when promised real help. 

Refusing to release transcripts of her speeches - to calling Trump supporters "deplorables" who happen to be the voters she also wanted to vote for her - or maybe she thought she was already fixed to be in the Whitehouse? Funny how before the election when Trump said he thought it was rigged all the Democrats had a fit with claiming total insult that he would even say that against the rock solid voting system we have. Then she has to go and claim it herself. Also the violence has only come from the side that lost and is losing not from Trump himself- did he pay for all the protesting outside the appearances he had? No he did not.  

Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch did nothing to make her look innocent and if she is why do you suppose he did that? 

Hillary lying to all of us about the attack on the Embassy in Benghazi - and telling the many who were on stand by to help to stand down - not to help. Or ignoring the hundreds of reports on the security there and safety of the ambassador for weeks in advance to the attack ? She did this - cant be denied.

Now I have only named a few of the things that she clearly did so you can not try to say they are not true as she clearly did the above - now for those who want to call Trump a racists and say he assaulted women I say where is your proof ? Only allegations no convictions ? Only investigated? hmmm sounds familiar to me. 

And yes at least he walks like a duck and acts like a duck this I can accept she never does. I said I liked Bill Clinton not that I like him now. Since the election and more information I have changed my opinion - like Bills affiliation with Jeff Epstein himself you really should not bring him up as Bill has many visits with him himself. 

Obviously Hillary taught Bill well or vice versa since both of their behavior when in the hotseat is much like his "No I did not have sexual relations with that women" which was proven a lie and to justify his deception he redefined "sexual relations" and intercourse for years to come. They have perfected this act better than anyone before them - I will give them that. 

The Clinton Body Count does have many many associates , friends , body guards and those with too much info that could be used against the machine that were real people and to say different is an insult to their families and your fellow American. But I have come to the conclusion that those who are in favor of her tend to not care or think about anyone but the delusion they feign over. Bottom line is she lost and so now he gets his chance so the other side should show some respect and quit with all the bull---- this is the President elect have some respect for the position - the kind of respect you all claim she deserves when the other side does not agree with you - quit harrasing the electors etc. You conceded - have some class. Wait for the doom and gloom that you predict - then you can all have your time for criticism and complaints. Just like those of us who did not vote for Obama had to do. If we were out there saying the things that are being said about Trump all hell would have broke loose and we would have been called racists. I wonder if that is what is going on with Trump? Maybe? Or I believe I saw it when Bush was leaving office and he was treated with such disrespect and boo-ed and I was still a Democrat then - no respect for the position and or our President if hes not the one you wanted-  a lot of bullying ,  jr high school behavior to me - not a good look. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by ArizonaGrown

[Padma]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:11 PM, ArizonaGrown said:

Okay so running the risk of majorly getting run over here I am going to explain some of the reasons why some people like me voted for Trump and not Hillary. Also I am a college graduate so I do not appreciate the comments about my intelligence level and or economic either as they are completely wrong. The emails had very little to do with my problem with Hillary to be honest. I was a registered Democrat since I started voting many many years ago and switched a year ago. Why ? Because I can not get behind a party that continues to fail in my opinion to support the beliefs I think are important to our Country and our Constitution. 

Hillary has a long list of major things that she was involved with that make her look like a sneaky liar and that I can not get over. I happened to love Bill Clinton and really had expected to do the same with her but no I did not as she failed to make me feel like he did- EVER. So here is my list of reasons why I think she is shown to be a liar beyond belief and should not be trusted - Benghazi, Clinton Foundation money laundering and pay-for-play, private server, deleting emails while under investigation, Vince Foster, rigging the election against Bernie Sanders, Whitewater, blaming Bill's rape victims, her friend and mentor was a KKK leader, clinton body count, cattle futures, landing under "sniper fire" lie, stealing from the white house, her cocaine abuse as stated by Paula Jones, laughing and defending a child rapist, Chinagate,Travelgate, IRS gastapo scandal, Norman HSU scandal, Jorge Cabrera scandal, Pardongate. Her cashing in on Iranian fundraising, ripping off Haiti during the earthquake, selling 20% of U.S. Uranium to Putin after Bill's $500k "speech" with Russian bankers. There is a point to be made about fake news but when someone is involved in this much crap I think they are not upstanding and interested in playing by any rules but their own. I can not and will not ever down play what happened to our ambassador and her role - ever.  She lied afterwards about it and when called to the carpet she suddenly fell ill if I remember correctly. I have grown up with the belief that our military will protect such when in other countries to represent us as will our government officials and she not only failed but she caused this man to be murdered - period. This could have been in error with one call but no it was several most on her head and she has not acted one bit sorry and she carries that attitude with her about everything like she is not to be held responsible for any wrong doing when the list and accusations are a mile long - dont tell  me none of it is correct. The worst thing that was found on Trump was his talking about grabbing some pussy - please this is not even in the range of bad that she is or the allegations against her are. I feel sorry for those who think it is and that think he is against women when he clearly is in awe of his daughter you will notice not one of his sons. How contradicting is that?

Next what exactly is the hacking that they are saying the Russians did to sway the election? Be specific if you can clearly clarify this. They did not go into the votes and change them which by the way she won the popular vote ONLY  because of California and New York. If you took those two states votes out of the equation then she lost every where else by a landslide. And that is why the system is set up the way it is - so two states do not control the election process.

Now lets talk about Melania - I do not vote for the President because of his wife and what she will or will not bring to the Whitehouse. What exactly did Michelle bring to us all ? Tell me please of some thing she did other than look good and give some great speeches ? Did she do some miraculous work changing something that actually changed the lives of the average of below average person on a National level? I know the work Hillary did when she came up with the village theory has created a generation of entitled violent young people that do not seem to have respect for anything other than the right to be allowed to behave that way. Absolutely no respect for the laws - and by this I want to highlight the immigration problem that we have. I live in Arizona and this is a huge problem here and I am a native but my rights are often reduced to less than when it comes to me or an illegal citizen. My father and his parents were not citizens but they did what was required to become citizens here and I think that is what the law states so all should do it not be given special treatment or excused.

Now about Hillary and her movement for women - she has made it even harder for women in my opinion because she is so corrupt. Why is it that other female politicians do not have the scandal and lies around them that she does such as Elizabeth Warren, Carly Fiorina, even Sarah Palin and or Geraldine Anne Ferraro. Hillary lost because she is not a trustworthy candidate and most are sick of the same old same - which is not fair for the majority. 

It’s good to see how other people think and I feel your post is sincere But, I’ll be honest. I don’t get it.

Your Hillary "bad list" has already been well addressed. Ken Starr and numerous Republicans in Congress have investigated and reinvestigated all of it and found nothing (other than Bill lying--depending on your point of view--about consensual sex with Monica. Ironically, of course, was that so many members of Congress were also having extramarital affairs at that time, including SoH Newt Gingrich, Clinton's main accuser.).  But let's not re-litigate the 1990s. They had nothing on HIllary then--or recently after 8 "Benghazi hearings/witch hunts".  Nor after a year of 100 FBI agents investigating her private email server.  

You say Hillary is "so corrupt". I don't see it.  And she "lost" in the electoral college, yes, but nearly 3 million more Americans voted for her than Trump.

Unlike Clinton, who has dedicated her life (imo) to public service, Trump's devoted himself to one thing—his own fame and fortune, with no record of helping anyone else. His corruption  is extensive and VERY well documented, including the recent fraud lawsuits. Just read the testimony from his own employees to see how he bilked people so freely.

His LYING has also been extensively documented. Look at Politifacts--independent fact checker.  I watched his Alabama rally today (well, actually I read the text which was mind-numbingly boring and incredibly shallow "me,me, me, let's tal about how I did in every state!" For an hour.  Anyway, even there he lied again--"we have the highest taxes in the world" LIE. That's been debunked so MANY times that it can't  just be a "mistake". It's intentional.

Likewise, his "I won an historic landslide" is a lie. No way is 306 votes out of 538--while losing the popular vote--a "landslide".  Out of 58 elections, Trump's electoral college vote ranks 46th.

There's so much about his character, his finances, his complete lack of transparency and the real likelihood of corruption as president and his pattern of LYING for so many decades.  Read "Trumped", the memoir of the president of Trump Plaza hotel/casino back in the late 1980's/early 1990s and see what he was really like.  Read the USA Today artivle about all the "little people" he's stiffed through the years--many went bankrupt from doing business with him.

And I'm not impressed by a man who declared 6 (Six ! ) corporate bankruptcies and thinks that's "good business" and "smart"!! Hey, doofus! You saved yourself a lot of money, but you passed all the debts on to the rest of us.  I'm tired of scrimping and saving and then getting stuck bailing out billionaire bankers and real estate tycoons, and hedge fund managers.  Trump will mean seeing Bush's economic collapse and the bank bailouts ALL OVER AGAIN.  He's going to BE SURE they're "too big to fail"--and get rid of the Consumer Protection Agency, too.

As for your dismissive attitude about what HE described doing to women on the Access Hollywood video. Well, I don't want a president who brags about assaulting women (don't get me started on how he often indicates he either doesn't know or doesn't respect the law and, especially, the Constitution). 

I just was on a jury and what Trump described doing is a crime. That he brags about it is a disgrace.

His disrespect for people who disagree with him or criticize him, no matter how minor- -his stated desire to "crush them" and "hit them ten times harder than they hit me" - should disqualify him as president. As should his erratic responses. (Note re: drone. In less than 24 hours he (1) was angry about Obama's handling of it (2) took credit for its peaceful resolution then bizarrely (3) tweeted that we should just let them keep it anyway.  Bizarre.)

I can't see how anyone could vote for someone like this--a crook, a liar, unstable, a narcissist, and a petty man who can not resist using his power for revenge.  He's done it before, but now he will have much greater resources. I cannot see what his supporters obviously do and I admit being bitter at what will happen to us  because of him (you can already see the foreshadowing in his truly awful appointments).

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

Refusing to release transcripts of her speeches - to calling Trump supporters "deplorables" who happen to be the voters she also wanted to vote for her - or maybe she thought she was already fixed to be in the Whitehouse? Funny how before the election when Trump said he thought it was rigged all the Democrats had a fit with claiming total insult that he would even say that against the rock solid voting system we have. Then she has to go and claim it herself. Also the violence has only come from the side that lost and is losing not from Trump himself- did he pay for all the protesting outside the appearances he had? No he did not.  

I've tried not to respond to this conversation -- contenting myself to just laughing at these "arguments" -- but I have to interject here. First, Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts is one of her strikes against her? Have you forgotten about Trump's refusal to release his tax returns? Unlike the Clinton speeches, which is a largely incidental matter about a situation we already know about (the fact that she was indeed paid to give speeches to the big banks), Trump's tax returns are actually pertinent to his fitness and eligibility for the job. We have no idea, none whatsoever, what the true nature of his business entanglements is, exactly how many countries he has business ties to through his innumerable properties, exactly how many foreign debts he has. We have no idea just how deep his potential or actual conflicts of interest run, and that is a deep problem that presents a real and present danger. It is worth noting that, thus far, he has made absolutely no effort to alleviate concerns of that danger, in fact doing the exact opposite. With his questionable Cabinet appointments, the insanely inappropriate involvement of his children in both his business life and political life, and his blase refusal to divest from his businesses like every single modern president has, he shows no sign that he is at all concerned about the potential for corruption he is courting or that he has any intention of separating himself from his conflicts in any real way. He will never release his tax returns, he will never have that press conference that he was supposed to have and claims to have next month instead, he will never be transparent about who he is or what he does or what he's involved with. Funny how Clinton is criticized for a lack of transparency and gets painted with the "secretive" narrative, when it's Trump who has been dangerously secretive and shows a startling lack of transparency and an even more startling lack of concern over just how dangerous his lack of transparency even is.

Also, Trump whined prior to the election about the election being "rigged" in the sense of actual voter fraud, erroneously citing studies that merely pointed to issues in registration records while conveniently leaving out the fact that these same studies pointed out that, while there has been poor record keeping, there has been absolutely no evidence that any of it contributed to any widespread voter fraud or that there is any widespread voter fraud at all. Yet he kept peddling the same lie over and over and over, as is his modus operanti -- repeat the same lie, knowing it's a lie and knowing there is no proof and knowing that the lie has already been disproven, and repeat it often enough until the truly stupid absorb it as reality. And guess what? Polls showed that a large number of Trump supporters believed prior to the election that there was indeed widespread voter fraud in elections. Many more Republicans and Trump supporters specifically doubted that their vote would be counted accurately than Democrats and Clinton supporters did. There was little sign of this doubt in the integrity of our electoral system prior to Trump's gaslighting campaign. And surprise! The only actual isolated instances of attempted voter fraud this election -- because there are indeed isolated incidents of voter fraud, representing a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total vote and not "widespread" fraud like Trump kept lying -- were committed by people voting for Trump.

But back to the point, Trump kept whining about election fraud before Election Day and everyone, including Clinton, was outraged that he would try to deliberately undermine the system -- before it even took place, no less. Of the two of them, he was the only person undermining the trustworthiness of the actual vote -- and he continues to be the only one of the two of them doing so. Explain to me where Hillary Clinton has been doing the same thing now. Jill Stein has been the one, inexplicably, fighting for recounts in those three states, due to supposed reports of vote machine problems and such that were backed by scientists. Interestingly, at least one of those states found their own vote irregularities due to miscounting and machine error before the recount even started that had incorrectly awarded thousands more votes to Trump than there actually were. At any rate, it was a Jill Stein project, for whatever pointless motive she had in mind. Clinton's team signed on after the fact for the sake of making sure they were being fairly represented, because that is actually the proper legal recourse for when such a thing occurs. (Trump had the right to do the same.) However, the campaign stated specifically that they did not believe there was any voter fraud or any reason to suspect there was any. Stein was pursuing the recount, not them. I know there are some people who think it really was the Clinton team's idea and Jill Stein was acting on their behalf in some covert attempt to look like it wasn't their idea, but there is no evidence to support such a claim and no reason to think any such agreement would even ever take place. (Jill Stein hates her.) 

So at no point before or after the election did Clinton or the Clinton team cast doubt on the integrity of the election itself, as Trump had sought to sow the seeds of doubt in the vote itself before it even happened. What they are doing now, whatever you want to think of it, is focusing on the reasons (or excuses, if you will) for why the vote went the way it did -- the Comey letter, the Wikileaks, the Russians, etc. I will admittedly join the critics in saying that the Clinton team would do well to look more inward as to why they ultimately lost instead of throwing darts at everything else that interfered. Indeed, those things did interfere, every one of them, and perhaps if not for any one of them she might have eked it out, but none of them was singly responsible for her loss. It was a combination of all of the above -- but ... it must not be discounted that, had Clinton run a more positive offense campaign ("Vote for me because I'm X") rather than a negative defense campaign ("Don't vote for him because he's Y"), had Clinton done a better job courting certain groups and spent more time campaigning instead of fundraising, had Clinton not taken working-class voters for granted and actually listened to Bill, the ground team, and everyone else who warned HQ that they needed to do more in the Rust Belt states, then those interfering factors wouldn't have mattered. Donald Trump is and (hopefully) always be the absolute worst candidate for president ever, and there should not be any reality on any plane of existence where he would actually win. Hillary Clinton absolutely should have defeated him, and if not for literally any one of the things against her, including her own self-inflicted errors, she would have. The reality is we'll never know what would have happened if Comey hadn't made his ill-timed and insane decision, or if Russia hadn't spread its propaganda, or if Wikileaks hadn't released those ultimately pointless but nonetheless distracting emails. We will never know just how much any or all of that impacted people's votes. But for whatever reason they cast those votes, they still voted who they wanted to vote for, and at no point did Clinton or anyone else on her side claim the vote itself was or would be fraudulent. Trump did.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[sistermagpie]

10 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

When SNL is really mocking Hillary while still getting in digs at Trump:

Yeah, they've always mocked Hillary too. It's never been subtle.

[kokapetl]

On 17/12/2016 at 9:11 AM, ArizonaGrown said:

Okay so running the risk of majorly getting run over here I am going to explain some of the reasons why some people like me voted for Trump and not Hillary. Also I am a college graduate so I do not appreciate the comments about my intelligence level and or economic either as they are completely wrong. The emails had very little to do with my problem with Hillary to be honest. I was a registered Democrat since I started voting many many years ago and switched a year ago. Why ? Because I can not get behind a party that continues to fail in my opinion to support the beliefs I think are important to our Country and our Constitution. 

Hillary has a long list of major things that she was involved with that make her look like a sneaky liar and that I can not get over. I happened to love Bill Clinton and really had expected to do the same with her but no I did not as she failed to make me feel like he did- EVER. So here is my list of reasons why I think she is shown to be a liar beyond belief and should not be trusted - Benghazi, Clinton Foundation money laundering

Can you please elaborate?

[Menrva]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Yeah, they've always mocked Hillary too. It's never been subtle.

This still pisses me off. Heaven forbid they appear to favor one side over the other, yes, let's poke fun at both sides because that appears to be even-handed. Yes, let's keep mocking ambitious women and painting them as shrill, grasping harpies out of touch with "real" women who want to be pretty, avoid contention and don't challenge the status quo in any way. By all means, continue to shame Clinton for stepping outside the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable for ladies to do. Because "feelings" have more value than facts in this new nightmare. Fuck them.

[Duke Silver]

[EyewatchTV211]

2 hours ago, Menrva said:

This still pisses me off. Heaven forbid they appear to favor one side over the other, yes, let's poke fun at both sides because that appears to be even-handed. Yes, let's keep mocking ambitious women and painting them as shrill, grasping harpies out of touch with "real" women who want to be pretty, avoid contention and don't challenge the status quo in any way. By all means, continue to shame Clinton for stepping outside the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable for ladies to do. Because "feelings" have more value than facts in this new nightmare. Fuck them.

Yeah. I've rarely watched SNL in years and only tuned in recently for the debate coverage, mostly. But I've seen Joy Reid tweeting about how SNL frequently played the "equally bad" card, particularly during Weekend Update. 

[MulletorHater]

On December 17, 2016 at 0:50 PM, callmebetty said:

It's like the Communist witch hunts, but now that being a Commie, "Better Red than Dead" is the cool thing all the politicians are dancing to, well now Liberalism and social equality makes you the new Traitor. Round me up.

For real.  I'll gladly turn myself in before I jump on the "All I am saying is let's give Drumpf a chance" bandwagon.

You gotta love this topsy turvy world we live in where you're a traitor and part of a sea of sore losers because you don't believe a racist, bigoted, sexist, pathological liar and shameless fraud and conman should represent this country.  

#NeverTrump #NotFallingfortheOkeyDoke

[Padma]

Russia's not remotely like "communism" anymore, anyway, and hasn't been for a long time. It's bureaucratic capitalism and autocrats at the top of the "company", like Putin, can get very very rich. http://www.businessinsider.com/former-kremlin-banker-putin-is-the-richest-person-in-the-world-until-he-leaves-power-2015-7

In some ways, he and Trump seem cut from the same cloth--tough, ruthless, greedy and willing to abuse power to get whatever they want.  Not sure if that means they'll come to blows or peacefully figure out how to divide the world.

[theredhead77]

25 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

You gotta love this topsy turvy world we live in where you're a traitor and part of a sea of sore losers because you don't believe a racist, bigoted, sexist, pathological liar and shameless fraud and conman should represent this country.  

And you're a patriot when you are part of the group that road-blocked Obama and his incredibly!terrible!for!America! policies like the ACA, repealing DADT and supporting same-sex marriage.

[Duke Silver]

[Padma]

7 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

Those two facts are true (I guess, I am not sure of the time frame). I wonder if the Politifact meter would say True if Podesta had added some words: Access Hollywood tape comes out. One hour later the Trump campaign tells Wikileaks to drop the Podesta emails. Wikileaks asks You mean the ones the Russians gave us? Yes says Trump. 

Well they probably would say that is true. Politifact Poynter Soros It is a tangled web that is being spun with all this new fake news and fact checkers. 

I don't understand this kind of hypothetical example that isn't at all like what they were fact-checking?  Plus, Politifact is from the Tampa Bay Times. What does it have to do with Soros? (Who at least is a billionaire philanthropist funding good, humanitarian causes. Not like the Koch brothers trying to subvert democracy.  Or Trump, who doesn't give a damn about anyone.)

The conversation you invent above is fiction, and unprovable  as some kind of "he said/she said" scenario.  How could Politifact possibly fact-check it? They gave "true" to the timeline in the real story reported above, because it was an important fact for people to know--and it was verifiable.  "Adding words" to what Podesta said, took it from "verifiable" to "fiction".

It's certainly true that Podesta HAS cast shade at Trump over the Russian hacks and their efforts (one could say "successful efforts", given the outcome) to elect him.  He doesn't make up conversations to do it, though. He points to Manafort's connections with Putin and what a perfect intermediary he would make. Also--more directly incriminating--is Roger Stone's post gloating how Podesta's email would be hacked and released--months before it actually happened.  Coincidence? 

Unlikely.  #1 Roger Stone a known dirty-trickster and Trump buddy (He is quoted in the ridiculous Nat. Enquirer* article planted the week of the Indiana primaries to hurt Cruz by falsely indicating his father was involved in the Kennedy assassination--a smear that Trump himself kept going, even after the Convention.) 

#2 Stone is a long time friend of Paul Manafort.  Manafort--Stone--Putin--Trump and the hack of Podesta's emails involving all of them. It's really not hard to imagine at all.

*Nat Enquirer publisher is ALSO a long-time Trump buddy. Perfect to leak anti-Cruz story on week of most important primary! (which, after losing, Cruz conceded).

Edited December 19, 2016 by Padma

[slf]

I still want to sit down and address all the other things you've brought up in your post, @ArizonaGrown but I wanted to clarify this:

16 hours ago, ArizonaGrown said:

And no Hillary did take many things from the Whitehouse that had to be returned and it is funny that the rules were so obscured that NO other first lady had a problem with what is and is not allowed.

Did you read the page I linked to? Snopes lays out the situation nicely. Yes, things were removed from the White House. No, they did not steal hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of furniture. Ultimately it was about $50,000 worth of things they returned and/or paid for; I believe they also returned or paid for things they actually owned just to settle the issue. As for whether or not any other First Lady has ever had this problem that's a pretty big statement given all of my research has turned up admissions this wasn't a closely tracked issue prior to the Clintons. To clarify: prior to 2002, six Federal offices and agencies were responsible for tracking the gifts given to the First Family and to the White House. The laws governing what can and cannot be taken from the White House have has much to do with how much the gift cost (if over a certain amount the FF has to come up out of pocket) as anything else. Here is the Congressional House report and I want to quote this part here:

"In February 2002, the subcommittee released a 55-page document summarizing the subcommittee's findings. The subcommittee identified a host of problems with the Presidential gifts system, such as consistently undervalued gifts and questionable White House counsel rulings. Since the current system is subject to abuse and political interference, there is a need for centralized accountability in one agency staffed by career employees."

Problems that the investigation found: the National Park Service, which inventories all gifts given, maintains only one copy of the inventory and will not copy it (the report hilarious notes "NPS staff used white gloves to turn pages." Such shade.) The NPS established its own numbering system and its own electronic database, which was not linked to any other agency's database. When the subcommittee requested that the OGE provide a copy of each of the eight financial disclosure reports filed by President Clinton, the OGE was only able to provide seven due to it 6-year record retention requirement. There was not and had never been an official system for receiving or valuing gifts; gift valuing had always been determined by counsel, as had what constitutes a personal gift or what should be added to the archives. The counsel are not independent career employees and rarely have any background in valuation.

As in: no one's ever really kept up with who took things they owned or didn't prior to the Clintons leaving the WH. Since they left there have only been two First Families, both of which have abided by the rules that had to be put in place. There's actually no real way of knowing who took what they owned and who didn't prior to the Clintons. The Clintons were just the ones everyone went after and of course it turned out it was blown hugely out of proportion and the Clinton's settled all the debts.

Edited December 19, 2016 by slf

[NewDigs]

So?

How many rooms has Trump not booked in DC?

[NinjaPenguins]

I don't understand wishing ill fortune upon Hillary Clinton. Why isn't her loss satisfying enough? I mean, I cannot lie and pretend I don't fantasize about karma coming for the Orange and his assorted fruitcakes, but I try not to give in to those impulses. I'd be content to see them all fade into obscurity and never darken our federal government's doorstep again. Clinton has to live with knowing she lost to a malignant narcissist, pathological liar, and crass, sexist buffoon; that should be more than enough punishment for the "crimes" her detractors have invented. Unfortunately, the whole country is going to serve the sentence.

[FormerMod-a1]

Things are getting heated in here.  Keep it civil.  

Reread The Guidelines For This Forum for the numerous notices on being civil and the many ways of posting that are not civil.  I will even quote the last post from there in full, here.

On 11/25/2016 at 7:23 PM, saoirse said:

A reminder for everyone - this forum is not about everyone agreeing. If you disagree with someone, you can respond in a civil way, or choose to not respond, OR to put the poster on your ignore list. You can ignore someone by hovering over their name, and choosing the 'Ignore User' option, which will walk you through the steps.

Another reminder from that thread: We've been giving warnings/Non Warning Notices up until this point, but from here on out second chances will be harder to come by.

[FilmTVGeek80]

Quote

Refusing to release transcripts of her speeches - to calling Trump supporters "deplorables" who happen to be the voters she also wanted to vote for her - or maybe she thought she was already fixed to be in the Whitehouse? Funny how before the election when Trump said he thought it was rigged all the Democrats had a fit with claiming total insult that he would even say that against the rock solid voting system we have. Then she has to go and claim it herself. Also the violence has only come from the side that lost and is losing not from Trump himself- did he pay for all the protesting outside the appearances he had? No he did not.  

Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch did nothing to make her look innocent and if she is why do you suppose he did that? 

Hillary lying to all of us about the attack on the Embassy in Benghazi - and telling the many who were on stand by to help to stand down - not to help. Or ignoring the hundreds of reports on the security there and safety of the ambassador for weeks in advance to the attack ? She did this - cant be denied.

Now I have only named a few of the things that she clearly did so you can not try to say they are not true as she clearly did the above - now for those who want to call Trump a racists and say he assaulted women I say where is your proof ? Only allegations no convictions ? Only investigated? hmmm sounds familiar to me. 

And yes at least he walks like a duck and acts like a duck this I can accept she never does. I said I liked Bill Clinton not that I like him now. Since the election and more information I have changed my opinion - like Bills affiliation with Jeff Epstein himself you really should not bring him up as Bill has many visits with him himself. 

Obviously Hillary taught Bill well or vice versa since both of their behavior when in the hotseat is much like his "No I did not have sexual relations with that women" which was proven a lie and to justify his deception he redefined "sexual relations" and intercourse for years to come. They have perfected this act better than anyone before them - I will give them that. 

The Clinton Body Count does have many many associates , friends , body guards and those with too much info that could be used against the machine that were real people and to say different is an insult to their families and your fellow American. But I have come to the conclusion that those who are in favor of her tend to not care or think about anyone but the delusion they feign over. Bottom line is she lost and so now he gets his chance so the other side should show some respect and quit with all the bull---- this is the President elect have some respect for the position - the kind of respect you all claim she deserves when the other side does not agree with you - quit harrasing the electors etc. You conceded - have some class. Wait for the doom and gloom that you predict - then you can all have your time for criticism and complaints. Just like those of us who did not vote for Obama had to do. If we were out there saying the things that are being said about Trump all hell would have broke loose and we would have been called racists. I wonder if that is what is going on with Trump? Maybe? Or I believe I saw it when Bush was leaving office and he was treated with such disrespect and boo-ed and I was still a Democrat then - no respect for the position and or our President if hes not the one you wanted-  a lot of bullying ,  jr high school behavior to me - not a good look. 

22

I'd like to know why the Clinton's and their supposed lies are apparently so horrible all the while people turn a huge blind eye to the lists upon lists of lies it has been proven that Trump has told and continues to tell? 

As someone else pointed out, it's ridiculous to get up in arms about Clinton not releasing transcripts of speeches when Trump still hasn't released something far more important - his tax returns. As for the deplorables comment, it might not have been totally wise, but IMO it's 100% true. She wasn't calling all Trump supporters deplorable - just the huge segment of his base that are disgusting, DEPLORABLE racists, xenophobic pigs.

As has been stated repeatedly, Hillary has already been raked over the coals and investigated over Benghazi. If there was any true wrongdoing on her part, then it would have been found by the Republicans who were out for her blood.

Regarding any proof of Trump's racism - where do I begin? Him and his father refusing to rent out apartments to black people. They ended up settling the lawsuit, only to then still try and discriminate against those they would rent to. Call Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, while making the token gesture of saying "some" were possibly good people. Calling a Latina beauty contestant "Miss Housekeeping." Consorting repeatedly with Anti-Semites and Ku Klux Clan Members. Repeatedly saying during the election that all blacks are destitute and living in the inner city, etc. 

LOL "he walks like a duck and acts like a duck." Trump is the biggest phony ever! There is nothing real about him. He has no convictions whatsoever. This is a man who lies as easily as he breathes and flip flops on EVERYTHING. And the idiot somehow thinks he's the greatest man that ever lived. "I know more than the generals do." "I have the best words." "Everything I do is tremendous." He has no humility and no capacity to admit to having any faults at all.

The Clinton Body Count thing has never been proven! You haven't provided a shred of proof so I don't see any insult to these hypothetical families and insults to fellow Americans. Trump and this election is an insult to Americans.

"But I have come to the conclusion that those who are in favor of her tend to not care or think about anyone but the delusion they feign over."

I can pretty much say the same thing about most Trump supporters.

No one is saying that you have to respect Clinton. Just like no one on this Earth will make me have respect for that buffoon that shamefully got elected. Respect is earned. It doesn't come with any title, even that of the president. He has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to earn mine! I don't know who this "you" is you speak of because I conceded nothing. That idiot will never be my president. 

Interesting how your post seems to assume that there weren't a lot of people treating Obama with disrespect before he took office and after. There were plenty of people - including the man you're fervently sticking up for right now - who treated Obama horribly. I highly doubt the people talking about coming together or respecting the presidency were saying the same when people like Trump were demanding Obama show his birth certificate.

Edited December 19, 2016 by FilmTVGeek80

[slf]

I've been trying to get back into the holiday spirit and focus a bit more on the things I like and that give me joy, and I decided to inject some of that into this thread. So here's something that Hillary did that gives me immense joy:

Savage. There were one or two cracks aimed at herself that didn't land but everything else was great. That's what happens when you don't alienate every comedian in Hollywood.

I also wanted to highlight her efforts in trying to get taken seriously the health issues Gulf War veterans. I know there was a bit of division between her and Bill about this, and god knows there was a lot of other political nonsense that went into the denials of Gulf War syndrome, but she was a major supporter from the beginning. She met with veterans who were suffering from the unrecognized illness and really listened to what they had to say, believed them when they told her how they were suffering, helped research the illness, and fought to get it recognized. That means something to me because my oldest uncle served in the Gulf War. When he came home he was suffering but the family didn't really understand why. He turned to self-medication, as so many veterans did, then moved from Texas all the way to Alaska where he isolated himself from everyone and eventually committed suicide. The loss was devastating for the family, especially my grandmother who had to bury her firstborn, but understanding why he had suffered so much helped everyone grieve and heal. Gulf War Syndrome becoming recognized may not have saved my uncle's life but it saved the lives of other veterans, and it vindicated the vets and their families who were being called liars. That's no small thing. It tends to get overshadowed by other great things HRC has done, since she's done a lot over the years, but I think it's worth a special shout-out.

[shok]

2 hours ago, slf said:

That's no small thing. It tends to get overshadowed by other great things HRC has done, since she's done a lot over the years, but I think it's worth a special shout-out.

It definitely is. Thanks for posting the story. It just makes me nauseous that this woman, who has worked her butt off for almost 50 years on so many causes and who has made a difference in the lives of so many people, and is so smart and so capable, was run over by the brutal slanderous lie machine of the right wing and now there's a charlatan who has never done anything kind and charitable for anyone else in his life twittering away causing foreign affairs crises. I still can't grasp how it all happened, although I just posted a link in Barack Obama's thread to a wonderful interview with Cornell Belcher which explains a lot of it.

[fishcakes]

12 hours ago, NinjaPenguins said:

I don't understand wishing ill fortune upon Hillary Clinton. Why isn't her loss satisfying enough?

Hillary has been the victim of smear campaigns for more than 25 years, nothing has ever been substantiated, and the more that she gets investigated with no findings of wrongdoing, the more obvious it becomes that the accusations are nothing but lies and dirty politics. However, the existence of this long history of accusations did give people an excuse to vote against her, and had Hillary lost to an ordinary GOP candidate, I suspect her detractors would have put away their pitchforks just as they always do when she or Bill aren't running for something. Instead she lost to the most corrupt, least qualified person to ever run for President. Before he's even taken office, we have already seen that he's going to use the presidency to line his own pockets at the expense of the American economy, the working class, the middle class, the elderly, our national security -- basically everything the president is supposed to protect and defend. Trump supporters need to justify to themselves that making an incompetent, deviant, dangerous ignoramus the President was the right thing to do, which is why they need to continue to attack Hillary. They're desperate for her to be convicted of a crime or for her to be diagnosed with a neurological disorder or just have something, anything disqualifying come to light so that when Donald finishes flushing the United States down the toilet they can say, "but Hillary ..." It's not about facts, it's about their own culpability.

Edited December 19, 2016 by fishcakes

[Duke Silver]

^^ WOW...that was terrific, and on point.  Scapegoats are necessary, especially for people with guilty consciences.