Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[HumblePi]

14 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Regardless of what you think of Hillary's political views, one of the things that's been most infuriating to me about this election is how this idea helped perpetuated by Trump that she's a corrupt crook who belongs in jail has somehow resonated bigly ;) with the electorate.  I have never seen that kind of claim amplified on such a large scale against past candidates.  But it's meritless based on a fair understanding of the facts of her career as far as I can see!  Why do so many still believe it has merit to it?!  The perception of it is so damaging and unfair to Hillary.  I would like each and everyone of those who believe it to explain in detail to me what crimes she has actually committed.   Have they actually been to any countries with endemic corruption? 

I've read so much about Hillary Clinton as far a why she's perceived to be an 'evil, murdering, bitch-lock her up' candidate? "Really, she had 15 people murdered? She's to blame for Benghazi? Her email server was hacked?" Short answer is no.

I searched for a valid reason to despise her as so many seem to and I just can't because all that I've read has no real basis and a lot of what she's charged with is totally false. The conclusion that I've drawn from all of this goes back to the very basic fact that she is a woman. Once you strip away all the innuendo and accusations that are proven to be absolutely not true, there's one last thing left that at the core of why people 'just don't like her'.  She's a woman.  Period, end of story.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/field-guide-to-defending-hillary-clinton-against-fake-scandals/24710/

[Darian]

I saw a meme that said, basically, that misogyny is the male candidate having a fraud trial in November, a rape trial in December, many other lawsuits, and the news cycle focusing pretty much only on the emails the female candidate didn't send. 

[HumblePi]

1 hour ago, 33kaitykaity said:

Absolutely agree, it's a must-read.  I posted the text itself over in the Peanut Gallery thread as well.  

Dear Director Comey:

Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.

The double standard established by your actions is clear.

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

By contrast, as soon as you came into possession of the slightest innuendo related to Secretary Clinton, you rushed to publicize it in the most negative light possible.

Moreover, in tarring Secretary Clinton with thin innuendo, you overruled longstanding tradition and the explicit guidance of your own Department. You rushed to take this step eleven days before a presidential election, despite the fact that for all you know, the information you possess could be entirely duplicative of the information you already examined which exonerated Secretary Clinton.

As you know, a memo authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on March 10, 2016, makes clear that all Justice Department employees, including you, are subject to the Hatch Act. The memo defines the political activity prohibited under the Hatch Act as “activity directed towards the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”

The clear double-standard established by your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.

Please keep in mind that I have been a supporter of yours in the past. When Republicans filibustered your nomination and delayed your confirmation longer than any previous nominee to your position, I led the fight to get you confirmed because I believed you to be a principled public servant.

With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong.

Sincerely,

Senator Harry Reid

[atomationage]

The Comedians have become the newscasters this year, or have been in the case of Jon Stewart for many years, where the fake news show turned into the real news show, while the media pretends there is some equilvalence between:

Quote

  On 9/13/2016 at 8:11 PM, @BookThief said:

a tax-cheating, investor-swindling, worker-shafting, dictator-loving, pathologically-lying, attorneys general bribing, philandering, mobbed up, narcissistic serial con artist who hasn't got the attention span to read a fortune cookie much less a fucking intelligence briefing. But, on the other hand, Hillary Clinton used a private email server. See, perfectly even!" -Samantha Bee

I think it was Lewis Black who said that the reason that the Hillary hatred never subsided is simply because she never went away.   She went from The White House to The Senate to The Secretary of States' office to the campaign and now she's going back to The White House.   She wasn't a child who went away to her room when she was scolded by the drunken or doped up good ol' boys, and they just can't take it. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by atomationage
news is always plural

[starri]

Here's a piece by Nate Cohn that gives a more nuanced take in the volatility of the polls.  He posits that the changes have less to do with undecided voters switching between candidates, but are instead a measure of the enthusiasm the respective supporters have for their own candidate.

[molshoop]

8 hours ago, Captain Carrot said:

That being said, I don't think this will help Trump win, and I don't think it's intended to help him win. (They'll never admit it, but most Republicans probably want him to lose). I think this is intended to get enough Democrats to stay home that Republicans can retain control of the Senate.

I think you've nailed it.  This is what I've believed for months. 

[Pixel]

3 minutes ago, molshoop said:

I think you've nailed it.  This is what I've believed for months. 

Although this is probably true, it wouldn't have worked on me (had I not already early voted). All of this has just made me happier that I voted democrat all the way down the line. The only way we're going to get anything done moving forward is to get those backward-looking, science-denying fools out of control.

[HumblePi]

8 hours ago, 1kittykitty said:

Actually, there has been evidence of wrongdoing and probably more to come.

Huma had a Clinton server email address as well as a Yahoo email address to which she forwarded State Department emails.

Given her longtime connection to Bill and her recent timely covert meeting with him on the tarmac, I don't think Loretta Lynch is objective when it comes to Hillary.  Her gender and ethnicity have nothing to do with it. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I doubt Comey acted independently when he previously didn't recommend an indictment.

Factually, no. There has been absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing and FBI Director James Comey stated this in sworn testimony to Congress in September. James Comey cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in her mishandling of classified information. The FBI had already spent millions upon millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of hours on this investigation. This has been the costliest, longest and deepest investigation that the FBI has conducted since the 9/11 terrorist attack on NY.  That is an actual fact.

Here's the facts as of today. Law enforcement officials said 'we have a warrant'. But what is the warrant for? It's to given them access to look at the emails that were already found. They don't know what's in them but they have a warrant. They could all be duplicates of emails that have already been examined from Mrs. Clinton's server. The new search warrant was needed because the existing subpoena related only to the investigation of Weiner. They're playing 'hit and run' because right now Hillary Clinton has no way to know what the evidentiary basis is for their investigation, and it leaves Donald Trump an open door to inject suspicions, accusations and doubt and all his supporters love a good conspiracy theory, it gives them more reason to hate and they will never question it, they'll just accept it as fact. James Comey was concerned about criticism from Congress if at a later date it turned out that 3 months from now one of those emails might turn out to be relevant to his investigation and something he overlooked.  It's a real mess and it's a mess of his making. This is not a new development. "This might be something, we don't know"

Edited October 31, 2016 by HumblePi

[MulletorHater]

40 minutes ago, atomationage said:

The Comedians have become the newscasters this year, or have been in the case of Jon Stewart for many years, where the fake news show turned into the real news show, while the media pretends there is some equilvalence between:

I think it was Lewis Black who said that the reason that the Hillary hatred never subsided is simply because she never went away.   She went from The White House to The Senate to The Secretary of States' office to the campaign and now she's going back to The White House.   She wasn't a child who went away to her room when she was scolded by the drunken or doped up good ol' boys, and they just can't take it. 

Not only that, she managed to stand up to and embarrass the bloated orange carcass, where 15-16 other candidates (mostly men) from his own party couldn't get it done.  She refused to allow Drumpf and Bill's wimmen to shame and rattle her during the second debate.  Then to add insult to injury, she's not backing down from Comey and has basically said, "Bring it, bitch!"  In addition to taking on Drumpf and Comey's manipulations, she put so-called men like Lyin' Ryan, Mitch "Cecile the Turtle" McConnell and Rancid Preibus to shame because they are too chickenshit and opportunistic to call a spade a spade.  

[atomationage]

32 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

James Comey was concerned about criticism from Congress

It's becoming clearer to me that Comey Fitz-Ashcroft thinks that he is the Attorney General.

[KerleyQ]

9 hours ago, 1kittykitty said:

Huma has been careless with State Department emails (confidential, classified material) by forwarding them to the private server and her Yahoo email account. Besides her husband, there's a chance others have seen that information.  I wouldn't trust Huma at all.

We have absolutely no information to know whether the emails were confidential, classified material.  Not every email sent within the State Dept fits that description.  Since Comey admitted, via an internal FBI memo and via his letter to Chaffetz & Co., that he had no idea what those emails were or what they contained, then we have absolutely no way to know if they were confidential classified information or not.  

3 hours ago, 1kittykitty said:

Re: Bill's meeting with Loretta on tarmac--If there was nothing to hide, they wouldn't have told the press no "cameras, no cell phones."

It's not remotely unreasonable to think that two people who have known each other for years might not want to have cameras and cell phones recording a brief personal conversation catching up on each other's lives.  If they really wanted to have a secret meeting to plan something to subvert the law, they could absolutely find a better way to do that than by meeting on a tarmac in full view of the media and other onlookers, and demanding the media stay away.  And they certainly have the resources to do just that, so that meeting on a tarmac was not the only chance Bill was ever going to get to speak to Loretta.  

[Landsnark]

3 hours ago, 1kittykitty said:

There are laws related to mishandling classified documents and lying while under oath.  Also, add obstruction of justice and "pay to play" policies.

There are laws related to mishandling classified documents.  None apply here.  Huma Abedin emailing herself a meeting schedule to download into her phone app or laptop calendar isn't a violation of state secrets.  It's not a crime.  It's actually responsible office work.
If Huma Abedin emailed herself and Hillary Clinton wasn't aware, that actually, factually, doesn't make Hillary Clinton a liar.
Huma Abedin hasn't been subpoenad.  She'd not been required to give evidence or offer evidence.  That's not obstruction.
There is literally no evidence at all that the State Department granted... uh... "things" of some sort or whatever because donations were made to the Foundation.
It's this sort of willfully stupid horse shit innuendo that the deplorables play amongst that defines the split in our nation.  Willfully stupid who gossip and lie and divide the nation.

You all realize, don't you, that all of Hillary's subordinates emailed themselves from device to device, right?  All of them.  It's how work gets done.  It's not "the missing emails."  As this is "discovered," there will be a new "scandal" over and over and over and fucking over again. 
Emails were sent.  She's so corrupt.
 

[HumblePi]

William Weld, the VP candidate running as an Independent was interviewed earlier this morning. He scoffs at the intensity and severity this is being given and called it a "hit and run" on Hillary Clinton because she has no way to know what the evidentiary basis is for their investigation. She can't defend something that hasn't even been presented yet.

William Weld thinks it's disgraceful. He stated that Trump is not a man that can take criticism and has no self-control. "You see what happens when Trump doesn't get his way. He goes on the attack. he gets red in the face, he stomps his foot, he raises his hands and he has a fit until he gets back or gets his way."

[HumblePi]

28 minutes ago, 1kittykitty said:

New wikileak email shows Donna Brazille fed a question to Podesta in March 2016 prior to Town Hall debate.

There are examples out there showing Hillary mishandled classified information.

That's just another instance of people reinforcing the lies that's been put out by a criminal act with absolute criminal intent using the tools of subterfuge and sabotage. You and many others have put all your beliefs into emails that have been illegally obtained with the assistance of a foreign adversary, Russia. Essentially you will take the word of Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange over the United States.  You do this because you want to believe the worst, you want to mistrust Hillary Clinton, you want to hate her by demonizing her.  It's a choice. And yet, you can't see the obvious, you have to turn to stolen and illegal emails to make up your mind. It doesn't matter that Trump will destroy the country. It doesn't matter that he really doesn't want to actually do the work involved in being President. It doesn't matter that he won't do one positive thing for this country and will actually do irrevocable harm to it. It only matters that maybe, perhaps Donna Brazile received a debate question in advance or maybe perhaps there might be some secrets disclosed in one of Anthony Weiners 650,000 emails. 

Donna Brazile said she was choosing not to view any of the emails stolen by Wikileaks. "This is exactly what the Russians intended to do. And they're doing it," she said. Brazile emphasized that "I had no access to any questions" for any debate or town hall.

Donald Trump suggested we cancel the elections because the FBI and Director James Comey was "corrupt and the election is a totally rigged system, folks". He went on to say at his rally “I’m just thinking to myself right now:(does that sound like he's thinking to himself?) we should just cancel the election and just give it to Trump, right? What are we even having it for? Her policies are so bad!” Then Director James Comey cheered him right up, "It might not be as rigged as I thought, right? They are very brave individuals and director Comey has done an amazing job folks, just amazing".

If by some cruel act, he's elected, he’ll have reinforced and augmented the effusive praise and gratitude of his deranged supporters enough to have them follow him down the ultimate path: canceling all future Presidential elections. Hopefully, this will all remain speculative

Edited October 31, 2016 by HumblePi

[HumblePi]

Donald Trump ally Roger Stone admits ‘back-channel’ tie to WikiLeaks

Roger Stone, a self-described master of the political dark arts and the longtime ally of Donald Trump, admits he has had “back-channel communications” with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over the release of thousands of emails stolen from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Stone, however, said he was not provided the hacked material in advance nor was he involved in the timing of their release.

“I do have a back-channel communication with Assange, because we have a good mutual friend,” Stone told CBS4 News Wednesday evening. “That friend travels back and forth from the United States to London and we talk. I had dinner with him last Monday.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article107882287.html#storylink=cpy

[Darian]

6 minutes ago, 1kittykitty said:

 

Hillary's policies will also "destroy the country." The Obamacare increases and tax hikes alone will do serious damage.

Who are you quoting or are those scare quotes?

I am pretty well versed on Hillary's platform and plans for this country and I can't think of one that would damage this country. I know Trump would, considering he's proposed several things that are actually unconstitutional. I am someone who wept in relief when ACA passed, and I had insurance. For the first time in my life (as a childhood cancer survivor) I didn't fears of fighting to get treatment because my many, serious health problems are all a result of treatment, or die in fear of hitting the lifetime cap, as my poor sister did. Hillary is going to improve ACA. Trump gives no specifics, just spews a word salad about taking away something that has helped millions of us. I'm with her because I did my research and always will. 

[Darian]

3 minutes ago, 1kittykitty said:

A single payer program is no improvement. Fact is people can't get same coverage they had, premiums are higher, deductibles are higher. My experiences with healthcare have been much worse and more expensive post ACA.

 

Part of the problem is that a lot of people had absolutely crap programs. ACA set standards that some policies didn't meet. That happened with my friend. She ranted about having to change policies until I showed her that what she had was garbage. A lot of people don't pay much attention to what their insurance covers, but having had cancer as a child, I sure do. She agreed with me that ACA was a good thing after she actually looked at her coverage before and after.  

Yeah, I'm not clicking on a Fox News opinion piece. I'll lower myself to read articles on Fox, but not an opinion piece. I am addressing points you have made. I didn't even ask who you're voting for. I like specifics and being as informed as I can. 

[roughing it]

I mentioned to three people this weekend about Trump's upcoming court cases on Trump University and the alleged rape of a 13 year old girl.  All three said no way, that is not true, where in the world did you hear such a thing.  Even this morning on the Stephanie Miller show, a caller didn't believe it and said he had never heard such a thing.

This information has GOT to get put forth to the public immediately!! Why is no one talking about this???

[madmaverick]

The fact that #HillaryforPrision (complete with misspelling) is trending with over 100k tweets is just sad on so many levels. 

[Darian]

I've brought up the rape and fraud trials a LOT. More than once, even when I got the person to believe they are real, they dismissed them immediately as frivolous. But the media...it does help to seek those few articles about both out and share them widely, and avoid clicking on Hillary email articles to try to even things us. but it's so one-sided I could scream. 

[abstractstuff]

The smugness. 

[HumblePi]

I'm going to do a reverse campaign smear, (yep going low). I don't know how Donald Trump would react to his own style of campaigning, but I have an idea that he just might not like it because he wouldn't be able to refute it.  If I publicly smeared him on Fox, MSNBC or CNN by making just a few jaw-dropping statements like.

"Information was just uncovered about Donald Trump and it proves without a doubt that he is a pedophile!" (gasp)

"New details today about Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and her cancelled paychecks signed by Vladimir Putin!!" (double-gasp)

"Breaking news, it was discovered that Donald Trump's spokesperson Katrina Pierson has a criminal record!!" (omg-gasp, but this is true)

"Bulletin: Donald and Melania Trump caught in North Korea with Kim Jong-Un giving him our military secrets!!!"  (we're dead)

"New information leads to the possibility of Donald Trump actually being Rudy Giuliani in drag!" (Lord save us)

Okay there's the dirt, the bombastic lies, now go ahead Trump supporters prove me wrong. We know it and they know it but WE choose to believe it because we know he's a mentally deranged demagogue.  But Donald Trump's camp would be forced to dispel the lies and innuendo, they have to run around to different news agencies defending and rebuking everything and waste their time defending themselves and dispelling the lies, anger and disgust. I just publicly destroyed his name and reputation without even leaving my living room. Easy peasey.

Basically this is precisely the campaign he has run. From the beginning he has used a very old psychological technique. He attached labels to his opponents by repeating a phrase enough times that it sinks into the brain of his supporters. Just look at the nicknames he gave each and every one of his Republican opponents, it only got more vicious and vitriol-filled once he was the candidate and had to take on Hillary.

 

p.s.

psst.... mod? Did I post this in the wrong category again? I don't want another warning point for doing it so let me know and I'll move it to Trumps home base if I have.

Edited October 31, 2016 by HumblePi

[Revlonred]

So, CNN is "completely uncomfortable" with Donna Brazile's "interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor" - but Corey Lewandowski is okey dokey.  Everybody got that?

[Grommet]

16 minutes ago, Revlonred said:

So, CNN is "completely uncomfortable" with Donna Brazile's "interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor" - but Corey Lewandowski is okey dokey.  Everybody got that?

Oh, for fuck's sake. If it weren't for Anderson Cooper, I would never even look at CNN. There's just no reason for that organization to suck so bad.

I have never before given money to political campaigns, but I have donated twice to HRC in the last week. Small amounts, mind you, but I need to feel like I'm doing something.

[Nidratime]

It's funny because on the morning show, Chris Cuomo keeps bringing up Lewandowski's ties to the Trump campaign anytime they get into a "debate" with each other in which Chris wants to "zing him" and yet CNN, itself, doesn't seem bothered by it. CNN claims they never gave Brazile access to any questions, but hey, if Brazile met one of the "undecided" audience members and learned a question, I don't blame her for sharing it. It's not like Brazile broke into CNN's or the audience member's email and stole it.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Nidratime

[atomationage]

38 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

It's not like Brazile broke into CNN's or the audience member's email and stole it.

The funny part about this was that when I first heard this story, Donna Brazile was Donn Brasil.

[backformore]

1 hour ago, madmaverick said:

The fact that #HillaryforPrision (complete with misspelling) is trending with over 100k tweets is just sad on so many levels. 

twitter bots.   I'm convinced of it.  

There's a guy who has some formula to predict who will win the election, and his prediction is based on online presence.   he looks at social media followers, and predicts Trump will win.  apparently he's been right several times in the past, so it's on my yahoo front page all the time.   the thing is -  A lot of Trump's followers are not real people.  I'm convinced of it.

[FilmTVGeek80]

3 hours ago, 1kittykitty said:

There is no proof Russia is behind the emails. Doesn't matter how they were obtained. Point is they're there and they demonstrate corruption. Donna Brazille is a joke, but she surely understands that her refusal to read them doesn't make them go away.

Search the web and you'll see others could be tied to hacking Hillary's server, including possibility of the hacks being part of the "pay to play" schemes. 

Hillary's policies will also "destroy the country." The Obamacare increases and tax hikes alone will do serious damage.

 

 

So, basically, you're just like Trump and only believe the info that you have that suits you? Trump (unfortunately) has access to Intelligence briefings that categorically state that Russia is behind the hacks and e-mails, but refuses to believe them because, clearly, he knows better with his years and years of government experience. I guess the US government isn't a good enough source to believe? 

It definitely does matter how they were obtained. They were obtained illegally and from a country that is not friendly with the US. I'll be damned if I'm going to believe unverified e-mails that could have easily been tampered with.

The Obamacare increases are not going to hurt this country, especially since the increases don't even affect the majority of the US.

Edited October 31, 2016 by FilmTVGeek80

[Silver Raven]

4 hours ago, 1kittykitty said:

New wikileak email shows Donna Brazille fed a question to Podesta in March 2016 prior to Town Hall debate.

There are examples out there showing Hillary mishandled classified information.

The not-then-acting Chair of the Democratic Party (she became the head afterwards) fed a question to the head of Hillary's campaign?  How is this a bad thing?

Quote

I don't think most of the male Bushes (POTUS 41 or Jeb), or even former FLOTUS Barbara Bush, have said who they're voting for

Jeb's son George P. has endorsed Trump, but then, he's an up-and-coming Republican politician in Texas who can't afford to go against the official party line.

[Padma]

Re: Lewandowski. I want someone to ask Zucker if Podesta or Mook could "quit" the HRC campaign (while maintaining daily contact with Hillary like Lewandowski does with Trump--for maximum spin benefit) and remain contracted--and be paid big bucks--by both Hillary and CNN and he would consider that good journalism?

I don't think so!

Edited October 31, 2016 by Padma

[MulletorHater]

3 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

The not-then-acting Chair of the Democratic Party (she became the head afterwards) fed a question to the head of Hillary's campaign?  How is this a bad thing?

Jeb's son George P. has endorsed Trump, but then, he's an up-and-coming Republican politician in Texas who can't afford to go against the official party line.

Unfortunately, it feeds into the perception (fueled and instigated by Drumpf) that the process, including the debates were somehow rigged against him.  You know...the microphone wasn't working properly; Hillary signaled Lester Holt who channeled the questions to her and didn't press her hard enough; Donna fed debate questions to Hillary's campaign and she lad a leg up; Chris Wallace was unfair; yada yada yada.  Never mind that the town hall devolved into something different because of the Orange One's stalking of his opponent and his setting up that stunt to humiliate and intimidate her.  You see, he didn't lose those debates according to him. And, if he did lose them, it wasn't because he was unprepared, could only hold it together for 10-15 minutes, couldn't stay on script, or didn't have an extended release formula of the Valium or whatever drug he needed to keep his ass calm and lucid.

According to CNN, Donna has to go, but they have a valid reason for continuing its relationship with Chris who, as an "analyst," gets to shill for Drumpf while still being on his payroll.

[scriggle]

Makes you think, doesn't it?

FBI's Comey opposed naming Russians, citing election timing: Source

Quote

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

Tell me again how he's an upstanding non-partisan guy.

[Padma]

2 hours ago, HumblePi said:

 

One really pernicious thing about the way Trump lies about Hillary and the debate question is how good he is at it.  That whole "Donna Brazile got a townhall question and passed it on" was supposedly* that she knew there would be "some kind of question about the death penalty" used in the townhall with HRC and Bernie.  [*since she and CNN  dispute it]

Trump has repeated that (probably fake) wikileak to make it sound like its about the CNN townhall debate with HRC and TRUMP! Then he takes that lie and says she"probably" gets all the questions ("and the answers"--ROFLMAO!) ahead of time.  He is such a slippery, sneaky and shameless liar--and the media Just. Won't. Fact. Check. Him. (enough)!

He's the biggest liar and the biggest crook to ever run for president. Yet Cruz is "Lyin' Ted." And Hillary is 'Crooked Hillary'."  And his low information/wrong information voters are the perfect dupes for every word!

[proserpina65]

What do you want to bet there's a whole lot of "penis enhancement" & "for a good time" spam in those emails the FBI found.

Edited October 31, 2016 by proserpina65

[Kromm]

9 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

It appears the NBC Nightly News Tweet(s) only include pics of parts of Senator Reid's letter to Comey. If you haven't yet read the entire original 2-page letter, & just saw the parts quoted in NBC's pics, you really need to read the entire original document. You can read the whole thing here--it was uploaded as a PDF file. Your phone (at least if it's an iPhone) should open it automatically, though I'm not sure if that includes Android phones. You might need PDF Reader software for it on Android phones, tablets/iPads, & you probably will need PDF Reader software for it on laptops/notebooks & desktops.

http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Letter-to-Director-Comey-10_30_2016.pdf

https://www.foxitsoftware.com/products/pdf-reader/ for PDF reader for Windows.

Avoid the native Adobe branded PDF software at all costs. It is intrusive, buggy, digs into your OS too deeply, etc.

I've also just seen (but only tried once) this site, which allows you to use a 100% online PDF reader and installs nothing on your local PC:  http://www.pdfescape.com/open/

Seems to work just fine. You just have to know how to copy the URL for an online PDF (by right clicking on a link and using whatever pop up option your particular web browser uses to copy URLs/Links to a clipboard) then go to the PDF Escape site and paste down/point it to that URL (with the "Load PDF from Internet" choice on that page).

Edited October 31, 2016 by Kromm

[Darian]

I read this while thread but somehow posted the same article on Comey. I can't believe this guy is getting the benefit of the doubt. Harry Reid nailed it. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Darian

[MulletorHater]

21 minutes ago, scriggle said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

FBI's Comey opposed naming Russians, citing election timing: Source

Tell me again how he's an upstanding non-partisan guy.

I know, right?  If I see one more person trying to bend over backwards to claim that he was "honorable," I'm going to pull my hair out.  He has been unmasked for the partisan hack that he is.  Let me see if I got this straight.  We have a candidate who is receiving intelligence briefings and who was told that there were strong indications (proof) that Russia was trying to influence our election.   Only to have said candidate minimize, pooh-pooh and outright deny this.  Yet, he wants to put it out there that based on the body language of these intelligence officers, they didn't approve of President Obama's foreign policy.  Makes you wonder who the real "Manchurian Candidate" is here.

I just have one question for J. Edgar Comey:  What do they have on you, bruh?  

[needschocolate]

The coverage of this Comey crap is so frustrating.  Turn on the news and everyone, except the pro-Trump group say that Comey was wrong to give the info.  Hillary and her surrogates are all saying Comey was wrong to make it public.  And I agree that his motives are suspicious and he should get in a lot of trouble for it, but everyone has read Comey's letter - it is out there and it can't be taken back.  This isn't a trial where the judge tells the jury to disregard something when making their decision.

In addition to what they have been saying (Comey was wrong and he should release the emails), I think Hillary and surrogates should be publicly telling Comey that since he has discussed the investigation that involves Hillary, he also needs to tell about any investigations involving Trump, such as his possible involvement in the hacking by the Russians. Do I think Comey would comply? - No, but at least it would get people thinking about whether the FBI was investigating Trump and whether he was involved.  

I am also frustrating by the media by showing Trump spouting off about Hillary being a criminal.  He talks like she has already been convicted of something and the news people know that it is not true.  There should be a law against broadcasting something other than the truth, without pointing out that it is incorrect.  I would be fine if they showed Trump speaking and commented (before or after) what the truth was - for example, Although Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of any crime, previous investigations turned up no criminal activity, and no one has actually reviewed the emails found recently, Donald Trump called her a criminal at a rally earlier today" then show the clip.  However, they just say "Donald Trump was speaking at a rally earlier" then show the clip.  It is misleading and adds an air of truth to a blatant lie.  Anyone reporting the news should have an obligation of being as accurate as possible.  

There needs to be something to prevent candidates, from any party, from just making stuff up and presenting it as fact.    

[atomationage]

18 minutes ago, needschocolate said:

There should be a law against broadcasting something other than the truth, without pointing out that it is incorrect.

complaints-about-broadcast-journalism

Quote

The FCC receives a wide variety of comments and complaints from consumers about whether networks, stations, news reporters or commentators give inaccurate or one-sided news presentations, fail to cover certain events or cover them adequately, overemphasize or dramatize certain aspects of news events. Other complaints are received regarding the conduct of journalists in the gathering and reporting of news.

The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope and the Commission is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.

What responsibilities do broadcasters have?

As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated publicly that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence, such as testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene.

Edited October 31, 2016 by atomationage
more

[Silver Raven]

And yet, Fox "News".

[backformore]

20 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

And yet, Fox "News".

Ok, this is a bit off-topic, but I'm taking this opportunity to brag on my son.   At the health club we both go to, there are large TV"s in the main areas.   They were ALWAYS tuned to Fox News, unless there was a local game going on.   we both hated this, and my son emailed the head of the fitness center and complained about it.  he got an email back saying he could always ask for the channel to be changed if there was something he wanted to watch.   He wrote back, and cited sources saying that Fox News was not a reliable, neutral news station.  AND he said that because the center was partly funded by tax money (it's a park district facility), they had an obligation to make sure they were not presenting a political point of view on the premises.  He said sure, club members could ask for the TV station to be changed,  but the default should not be FOX news. 

oh yeah, they changed.  Those TV's are now on local news stations, or CNN, or sports channels.  He got a very nice email back from the head of the park district thanking him for alerting him to the issue.

[needschocolate]

This morning, I saw a guy on CNN (I think), who said that people should not vote for Hillary because, if she wins, the republicans will spend the next four years going after her and nothing till get done.  I bet he never ate lunch as a kid because he always gave the bullies his lunch money.  

[Kromm]

53 minutes ago, auntl said:

I am one of the truly, evil, uncommitted voters.

I see Hillary as a person that has absolutely no morals. Her and Bill will do wharever it takes to line their pockets.

Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have any proof they've been doing that?

Undeniably they've collected big speaking fees. But is this any different from most other public figures, and does it mean they will do "whatever it takes"?

Undeniably the Clinton Foundation has taken donations earmarked for projects like a Clinton Presidential Library from places like Saudi Arabia. But can you prove that this money went into the Clinton's pockets rather than to this project?  And are you aware that George Bush received approximately the SAME amount of money from Saudis towards a Bush Presidential Library project? (and for those who don't know, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, I think maybe even Ford have all had similar Library projects--it's not just a fiction). 

This is even before we consider what Donald Trump has or hasn't done in the past to line HIS pockets. If it were just him having no class, we'd only risk getting into war over him offending people with nuclear bombs. But on a purely domestic level if we are considering what the Clintons have done or not done to line their pockets, we also have to consider at the same time what Donald Trump has done to the same end.

Petty example (there are much larger ones): "Trump Using Campaign Donations To Line His Pockets"

Edited October 31, 2016 by Kromm

[Padma]

So THIS is the big helpful question from Donna Brazile? Really?

DB., appears to have informed Hillary Clinton’s campaign about a question to expect at a primary debate that the network was hosting in Flint, Michigan, the following night. 

She said a woman at the network's townhall in Flint, Michigan “...will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the people of Flint."

You think?

I despair for the journalists and voters of this country if THAT is in anyway considered "help".

[magdalene]

2 hours ago, needschocolate said:

The coverage of this Comey crap is so frustrating.  Turn on the news and everyone, except the pro-Trump group say that Comey was wrong to give the info.  Hillary and her surrogates are all saying Comey was wrong to make it public.  And I agree that his motives are suspicious and he should get in a lot of trouble for it, but everyone has read Comey's letter - it is out there and it can't be taken back.  This isn't a trial where the judge tells the jury to disregard something when making their decision.

In addition to what they have been saying (Comey was wrong and he should release the emails), I think Hillary and surrogates should be publicly telling Comey that since he has discussed the investigation that involves Hillary, he also needs to tell about any investigations involving Trump, such as his possible involvement in the hacking by the Russians. Do I think Comey would comply? - No, but at least it would get people thinking about whether the FBI was investigating Trump and whether he was involved.  

I am also frustrating by the media by showing Trump spouting off about Hillary being a criminal.  He talks like she has already been convicted of something and the news people know that it is not true.  There should be a law against broadcasting something other than the truth, without pointing out that it is incorrect.  I would be fine if they showed Trump speaking and commented (before or after) what the truth was - for example, Although Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of any crime, previous investigations turned up no criminal activity, and no one has actually reviewed the emails found recently, Donald Trump called her a criminal at a rally earlier today" then show the clip.  However, they just say "Donald Trump was speaking at a rally earlier" then show the clip.  It is misleading and adds an air of truth to a blatant lie.  Anyone reporting the news should have an obligation of being as accurate as possible.  

There needs to be something to prevent candidates, from any party, from just making stuff up and presenting it as fact.    

Nods.  I am so disappointed in CNN.  I expect biased "news" from Fox, because they are Fox.  But CNN has really declined in standards and quality and their election coverage has been favoring Trump for months now.

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, needschocolate said:

This morning, I saw a guy on CNN (I think), who said that people should not vote for Hillary because, if she wins, the republicans will spend the next four years going after her and nothing till get done.  I bet he never ate lunch as a kid because he always gave the bullies his lunch money.  

Did he think there won't be investigations into Trump for the next umpty years?

[maraleia]

FYI Comey and his wife gave thousands of dollars in campaign donations to Romney in 2012 when he was under consideration to be FBI director by the Senate. Someone on twitter found the FEC pages for both of them. Tell me that isn't wrong or illegal.

[KerleyQ]

1 hour ago, needschocolate said:

This morning, I saw a guy on CNN (I think), who said that people should not vote for Hillary because, if she wins, the republicans will spend the next four years going after her and nothing till get done.  I bet he never ate lunch as a kid because he always gave the bullies his lunch money.  

That's exactly what this is, too - it's giving in to bullying.  The GOP is pissed off that we're not voting their way in the White House, so they sit back and refuse to do anything other than relentlessly attack and obstruct President Obama and, now, Hillary.  And I've heard more than one person express that same thought - "well, if Hillary wins, nothing is ever going to get done because they'll do the same thing to her they've done to President Obama."  OK, then here's the solution to that problem- vote out the assholes who refuse to do their job because they don't like who the American people have voted into the White House.  Replace them.  That's how you send the message that this shit is wrong, not by sitting back and saying "well, let's just give them their way so they'll do their jobs."  

[Kitty Redstone]

6 minutes ago, auntl said:

I envy people like you that can genuinely like and believe in who they are voting for. That's not happening for me in this election.

Sadly this is true for me in any election.  But then I'm way to the left of every single politician in this country and know there is no one (not even Bernie) who shares my views.  However, I am not dogmatic - compromise and tolerance for differing opinions is essential to democracy - and I try to be objective.  If I go by the standards of what has historically made a good president, I really do think HRC will make a good one.  Maybe even an excellent one.  It's a shame that her many accomplishments (including her great work for women and children) are being drowned out. 

[Kromm]

6 minutes ago, maraleia said:

FYI Comey and his wife gave thousands of dollars in campaign donations to Romney in 2012 when he was under consideration to be FBI director by the Senate. Someone on twitter found the FEC pages for both of them. Tell me that isn't wrong or illegal.

It's not.

Hatch Act do’s and don’ts for federal employees

Quote

May contribute money to political campaigns, political parties, or partisan political groups.

He's allowed to be a Republican. Publicly (he doesn't have to hide it in any way). He just can't make decisions related to his position of authority/sphere of influence which are clearly partisan in terms of how they affect an election.

Quote

May not use their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election.