Hillary and Trump

[joeblast]

PROVIDED PROOF FOR ELECTION FRAUD:

 

COMMENT ON THE PROVIDED PROOF FOR ELECTION FRAUD:

 

CONCLUSION:

Spoken like a true politician: Ignore the provided proof for the real scandal and try to deflect.

Disgusting.

How can someone allow oneself to become brainwashed and mentally enslaved in such magnitude by the established authorities who prey on him?

Sounds like advanced subliminal Stockholm syndrome!

cmon man, finish reading...he was talking about videotaping the whole place.  but then again, I didnt exactly get an agreement about filming one's own vote.

 

I double checked and this is something that varies by state

 

and I'm sure its just a coincidence that the states with soros voting boxes are ones where its illegal to record at all

[Wells]

.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Wells

[dust]

uh, yes, she lied about running guns from libya through turkey, to syria, right into the hands of ISIS

 

All I said is that 'perjury' is technically not applicable. I'm quite sure she's a liar, but perjury can only be committed under oath and as far as I'm aware she hasn't been in court regarding this?

 

I'm not defending her.

 

In my opinion it is impossible to know what the actions and intentions have been regarding the role of the USA (and its agents, such as Clinton) in Libya, Syria, et al, but I would agree with you at least in as much as: it's fucked up.

Edited October 27, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Brian]

All I said is that 'perjury' is technically not applicable. I'm quite sure she's a liar, but perjury can only be committed under oath and as far as I'm aware she hasn't been in court regarding this?

 

I'm not defending her.

 

In my opinion it is impossible to know what the actions and intentions have been regarding the role of the USA (and its agents, such as Clinton) in Libya, Syria, et al, but I would agree with you at least in as much as: it's fucked up.

She testified under oath before Congress.

[Kar3n]

was just reminded that Jim D started this thread, wonder what happened to him?

 

It appears that Dr. Jim has packed up his couch and moved on for the time being. He caught a lot of grief for psychoanalyzing folks publicly, based their posts in certain threads, and offering to help them with their "problems". 

[Aetherous]

Coincidence, yes, I wasn't suggesting that we've been disagreeing for any reason other than that we happen to disagree on certain things. And I'd guess that I've been the antagonist more than half of the time anyway....

I've been pretty laid back in terms of spouting off ideas regardless of whether people like them or not. 

[dust]

She testified under oath before Congress.

 

Are you talking about the email server thing or the Libyan gun thing?

[ralis]

So videotaping a crime happening

to be able to prove and to expose that it happens

is a crime in your eyes.

But you completely ignore that a much bigger crime happened to begin with!

And of course you completely ignore that (as I claimed) election fraud is happening right now in this election

and that this is proven through said videos without any doubt!

Hilarious!

...and very revealing.

 

As I said, no one can film me inside the voting booth when I am voting which is called voter intimidation in this country. You showed one video and extrapolated that into gigantic proportions.

[ralis]

uh, yes, she lied about running guns from libya through turkey, to syria, right into the hands of ISIS

 

wth do you think benghazi was really about????

 

the militants were pissed about yet another USA hit and run job, flood the weapons there to cause a fake green revolution, and once the banksters have their target out of the way (khaddafi) then on to the next bump in the geopolitical domination road, Syria, where the pipeline is needed in order to have another economic tool to wage against russia, since they're not on board with the central banking con job on humanity

 

they wanted to keep the toys that hillary brought over for them to play with, and hillary would have let the weapons go, but the problem was she was willing to let stevens go too, since he seemed to be hanging out too long and then the special forces guys having some sense of loyalty paid the price too.

 

stevens was a dirty bastid participating in running the guns, so dont think he's innocent in this whole matter, he just was a recipient of street justice.

 

 

The US military/Pentagon has been selling and giving away armament for decades which is the job of the military industrial complex. I was in the military during Vietnam and I know first hand how it all works. Nothing new at all.

[ralis]

PROVIDED PROOF FOR ELECTION FRAUD:

 

COMMENT ON THE PROVIDED PROOF FOR ELECTION FRAUD:

 

CONCLUSION:

Spoken like a true politician: Ignore the provided proof for the real scandal and try to deflect.

Disgusting.

How can someone allow oneself to become brainwashed and mentally enslaved in such magnitude by the established authorities who are only interested in exploiting and preying on him?

Sounds like advanced subliminal Stockholm syndrome!

 

 

Really? Just throw in a few ad hominems which proves?

 

Your narrative is based on one video and I am required to accept a vast criminal conspiracy orchestrated by thousands without further evidence while your posts towards my character are disparaging in the very least?

 

 

 

To repeat, in this country, voter intimidation is illegal at the polling places!

[Wells]

.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Wells

[redcairo]

The ref to the article about "listening to a Trump supporter" was really good, thanks for that. Sadly I forgot to click thanks and now it's pages back there somewhere. I couldn't read the whole thread. I'd leap from a ledge if I had to, on this topic.

 

I posted elsewhere my feelings (a rant about why I am NOT voting).

 

Anyway, a few thoughts.

 

1 - If we removed from history every leader who was a bonehead for sexual, racial, political, or other reasons (there are so many to choose from in life) we'd have probably like two people left. So you know, there is some degree of "comparative consideration" that ought to take place here. This is not some exceptional thing we should be shocked about -- it is the overwhelming NORM. Gary Hart anybody??

 

And nobody, even the people I like BEST, is free of character flaws and some of those flaws are deep (Schwarzenneger) and some of those flaws are horrible and criminal (Cosby) and damn it, those people are so good in so many OTHER ways that it has left me grieving and ambivalent. There is a saying, something like, when the divine light shines through a person, it magnifies ALL their patterns. Not just the good ones. That's what this makes me think of sometimes.

 

2 - It is a testament to social media, mostly, that anybody would actually choose "the leader of the most powerful country in the world" based on something like whether they might be a jerk to a given gender or race. Talk about a problem with priorities. I would expect that of teenagers! Or people who have never worked in the real world. Not of adults. That job is so vastly demanding on so many levels that frankly, putting those things first or primary just seems incomprehensibly ridiculous to me. Some of the most brilliant and competent people I ever met were total assholes and I mean of the first order -- but they were really good at jobs that required certain talents they DID have.

 

I think people really ought to consider the kind of skills that a president DOES need. Putin is a good example. The man is last in line for bleeding altruism about anything or anybody (and he's still the enemy) but damn it he is an excellent stateman. Every time I hear him talk I am impressed all over again at how intelligent, respectable, reasonable he seems. Which is marketing and statesmanship -- most of it's probably BS -- but he does it so well. He is a good example of what a statesman really ought to be on several levels. It has been a zillion years since our country had anybody like that in the big chair.

 

3 - Margaret Thatcher once said that she always cheered up when people attacked her in some personal, wounding way, since it proved that "they had not a single political argument left." When someone's enemies' worst insults about them have nothing to do with their qualifications to do the job they're campaigning for, I think it's a support for that person more than a detriment.

 

4 - This is likely to get a lot of people hatin' on me but it's got to be said: much like "consideration for the feelings of others" is turning into an anti-free-speech fascism, this issue of "that man did something sexually wrong with/to/near/around/about me and I didn't report it until now" is creating the most orwellian-state bullshit I have seen out of all the topics messing up our world today. EVERYONE and I mean every-freaking-one that someone doesn't like at a high level IMMEDIATELY becomes publicly crucified as a rapist with *no trial* and no evidence usually except "she said" and a LONG time later. For example, when WikiLeaks went under fire and our gov't wanted to kill the leader, he was "suddenly publicly accused of improper sexual behavior" and oh gosh now every country is supposed to arrest him for his 'assault' on that conveniently placed-time-person. When the Pirate Bay (warez downloads site) finally had the US gov't (after years of leaning on Sweden) convince their country to pursue them and their leader over our corporate profit losses, the leader was suddenly accused of improper sexual behavior oh gosh, now there's all this reason to arrest him, or extradite him anywhere he goes, and so on.

 

This country is supposed to be founded on "guilty until proven innocent." We allow people to mass murder their entire family and set the bloody dog on fire to be innocent until proven guilty and have their day (their often multiple trials) in court before we pass judgment on them but gee, all you have to do is get anybody to say "That man did ___ to me! Like, years ago! And, I'm just mentioning it now!" and suddenly that man is a vile criminal and is not supposed to be "allowed" to do or be anything else because hey, shouldn't criminals be punished? Well shouldn't we have to prove someone IS a criminal FIRST, please? And 'multiple people' are not a testimony necessarily when someone is high profile because there are plenty of people willing to say, believe, or even "honestly misremember based on their current emotional frustration" -- whatever.

 

You know what, I am a woman, but women and men have to work together to make our cultures feasible, and the profoundly skewed injustice of this entire topic is literally going over the top into sheer insanity. It is so injust to men. And that hurts everybody.

 

The point here is that no matter how women feel about legitimately punishing rapists, it does nothing but support the worst, the absolute worst, of control-manipulation, whether it's from governments or from various political groups of any kind, for us to ALLOW this "instant criminalization of any man without any trial based on accusations from women." (I might add that some of the most famous cases have turned out to be so far beyond belief when it comes to completely wrong and injust, that really it does defy belief, and gets into "Big Lie" categories of marketing insanity repeated enough to make people just assume it has to be true.)

 

IMO, if women report something promptly, fine. Otherwise, STFU about it unless or until you are in a court of law. It is completely inappropriate, and violates not only the entire spirit of one of the most important elements of our nation, but violates all human decency frankly, to behave like children about this, not only in the after-the-fact element but in the believing, and perpetuating, and reacting to, that being used as emotional leverage. AND, I think it actually makes women report it a lot less, if they have the arbitrary ability -- supported by media and their fellow over-emotional reactionist citizens -- to simply ruin his reputation/life later at their whim, as if that is ok. Like anybody could even defend to 'prove a negative' years after the fact.

 

5 - It should be pointed out that Trump has provided a whole lot of opportunity to women in business. He may be an asshole but he seems to recognize competence and that is a lot more than I can say for a lot of men I've had to work with over the years.

 

6 - Of course, he's immature and possibly a borderline personality, or he would be better at not making himself into a totally asinine easy target during all this, which makes me completely doubt one of the most key elements of his qualification for the role of statesman. THAT is actually a legitimate and very serious complaint and is the reason I won't vote for him.

 

7 - People are distracted from the fact that the most fundamental problems in our country relate to our economy, and the jobs situation, and to the inability of anybody (besides Trump) to just openly say you know what, we should put ourselves first and quit dicking around to allow tons of stuff that hurts us but pads the pockets of corporations and other countries -- our own good should come first. It is so crisis-level necessary that someone DOES believe that, say that, and act that, that I think that element alone has won the guy tons of supporters who otherwise would never be into him. The fact that his other most-primary things include, for example, a real focus on veterans, is a huge thing too.

 

8 - It is also profoundly injust to take someone who says, "These stated goals about some of the most primary issues facing our country, well suit what I believe is super important, so I am going to vote for that person," and then say about that voter, "That person is a racist and a sexist and basically evil because the person who has those goals is a jerk" -- it's like we are living in this world where social media has somehow made the majority of the population into 13 year olds -- all emotion, no reason.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

Hillary Clinton will be president. Then we can watch as our collective handbasket continues its descent.

 

As I've said elsewhere, DT winning might be equally depressing but it would have been more interesting.

 

HC has been planned for the chair since the day BC first won his. And the last 30-odd years have had only 3 families running that house. It's a dynasty at this point. It's so powerful that trillions of dollars -- more, even -- here and around the world -- are at stake. You don't think the people with the most money on planet earth are just going to let that role fall to chance, do you.

 

RC

Edited October 28, 2016 by redcairo

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Karl]

The ref to the article about "listening to a Trump supporter" was really good, thanks for that. Sadly I forgot to click thanks and now it's pages back there somewhere. I couldn't read the whole thread. I'd leap from a ledge if I had to, on this topic.

 

I posted elsewhere my feelings (a rant about why I am NOT voting).

 

Anyway, a few thoughts.

 

1 - If we removed from history every leader who was a bonehead for sexual, racial, political, or other reasons (there are so many to choose from in life) we'd have probably like two people left. So you know, there is some degree of "comparative consideration" that ought to take place here. This is not some exceptional thing we should be shocked about -- it is the overwhelming NORM. Gary Hart anybody??

 

And nobody, even the people I like BEST, is free of character flaws and some of those flaws are deep (Schwarzenneger) and some of those flaws are horrible and criminal (Cosby) and damn it, those people are so good in so many OTHER ways that it has left me grieving and ambivalent. There is a saying, something like, when the divine light shines through a person, it magnifies ALL their patterns. Not just the good ones. That's what this makes me think of sometimes.

 

2 - It is a testament to social media, mostly, that anybody would actually choose "the leader of the most powerful country in the world" based on something like whether they might be a jerk to a given gender or race. Talk about a problem with priorities. I would expect that of teenagers! Or people who have never worked in the real world. Not of adults. That job is so vastly demanding on so many levels that frankly, putting those things first or primary just seems incomprehensibly ridiculous to me. Some of the most brilliant and competent people I ever met were total assholes and I mean of the first order -- but they were really good at jobs that required certain talents they DID have.

 

I think people really ought to consider the kind of skills that a president DOES need. Putin is a good example. The man is last in line for bleeding altruism about anything or anybody (and he's still the enemy) but damn it he is an excellent stateman. Every time I hear him talk I am impressed all over again at how intelligent, respectable, reasonable he seems. Which is marketing and statesmanship -- most of it's probably BS -- but he does it so well. He is a good example of what a statesman really ought to be on several levels. It has been a zillion years since our country had anybody like that in the big chair.

 

3 - Margaret Thatcher once said that she always cheered up when people attacked her in some personal, wounding way, since it proved that "they had not a single political argument left." When someone's enemies' worst insults about them have nothing to do with their qualifications to do the job they're campaigning for, I think it's a support for that person more than a detriment.

 

4 - This is likely to get a lot of people hatin' on me but it's got to be said: much like "consideration for the feelings of others" is turning into an anti-free-speech fascism, this issue of "that man did something sexually wrong with/to/near/around/about me and I didn't report it until now" is creating the most orwellian-state bullshit I have seen out of all the topics messing up our world today. EVERYONE and I mean every-freaking-one that someone doesn't like at a high level IMMEDIATELY becomes publicly crucified as a rapist with *no trial* and no evidence usually except "she said" and a LONG time later. For example, when WikiLeaks went under fire and our gov't wanted to kill the leader, he was "suddenly publicly accused of improper sexual behavior" and oh gosh now every country is supposed to arrest him for his 'assault' on that conveniently placed-time-person. When the Pirate Bay (warez downloads site) finally had the US gov't (after years of leaning on Sweden) convince their country to pursue them and their leader over our corporate profit losses, the leader was suddenly accused of improper sexual behavior oh gosh, now there's all this reason to arrest him, or extradite him anywhere he goes, and so on.

 

This country is supposed to be founded on "guilty until proven innocent." We allow people to mass murder their entire family and set the bloody dog on fire to be innocent until proven guilty and have their day (their often multiple trials) in court before we pass judgment on them but gee, all you have to do is get anybody to say "That man did ___ to me! Like, years ago! And, I'm just mentioning it now!" and suddenly that man is a vile criminal and is not supposed to be "allowed" to do or be anything else because hey, shouldn't criminals be punished? Well shouldn't we have to prove someone IS a criminal FIRST, please? And 'multiple people' are not a testimony necessarily when someone is high profile because there are plenty of people willing to say, believe, or even "honestly misremember based on their current emotional frustration" -- whatever.

 

You know what, I am a woman, but women and men have to work together to make our cultures feasible, and the profoundly skewed injustice of this entire topic is literally going over the top into sheer insanity. It is so injust to men. And that hurts everybody.

 

The point here is that no matter how women feel about legitimately punishing rapists, it does nothing but support the worst, the absolute worst, of control-manipulation, whether it's from governments or from various political groups of any kind, for us to ALLOW this "instant criminalization of any man without any trial based on accusations from women." (I might add that some of the most famous cases have turned out to be so far beyond belief when it comes to completely wrong and injust, that really it does defy belief, and gets into "Big Lie" categories of marketing insanity repeated enough to make people just assume it has to be true.)

 

IMO, if women report something promptly, fine. Otherwise, STFU about it unless or until you are in a court of law. It is completely inappropriate, and violates not only the entire spirit of one of the most important elements of our nation, but violates all human decency frankly, to behave like children about this, not only in the after-the-fact element but in the believing, and perpetuating, and reacting to, that being used as emotional leverage. AND, I think it actually makes women report it a lot less, if they have the arbitrary ability -- supported by media and their fellow over-emotional reactionist citizens -- to simply ruin his reputation/life later at their whim, as if that is ok. Like anybody could even defend to 'prove a negative' years after the fact.

 

5 - It should be pointed out that Trump has provided a whole lot of opportunity to women in business. He may be an asshole but he seems to recognize competence and that is a lot more than I can say for a lot of men I've had to work with over the years.

 

6 - Of course, he's immature and possibly a borderline personality, or he would be better at not making himself into a totally asinine easy target during all this, which makes me completely doubt one of the most key elements of his qualification for the role of statesman. THAT is actually a legitimate and very serious complaint and is the reason I won't vote for him.

 

7 - People are distracted from the fact that the most fundamental problems in our country relate to our economy, and the jobs situation, and to the inability of anybody (besides Trump) to just openly say you know what, we should put ourselves first and quit dicking around to allow tons of stuff that hurts us but pads the pockets of corporations and other countries -- our own good should come first. It is so crisis-level necessary that someone DOES believe that, say that, and act that, that I think that element alone has won the guy tons of supporters who otherwise would never be into him. The fact that his other most-primary things include, for example, a real focus on veterans, is a huge thing too.

 

8 - It is also profoundly injust to take someone who says, "These stated goals about some of the most primary issues facing our country, well suit what I believe is super important, so I am going to vote for that person," and then say about that voter, "That person is a racist and a sexist and basically evil because the person who has those goals is a jerk" -- it's like we are living in this world where social media has somehow made the majority of the population into 13 year olds -- all emotion, no reason.

 

It doesn't matter.

 

Hillary Clinton will be president. Then we can watch as our collective handbasket continues its descent.

 

As I've said elsewhere, DT winning might be equally depressing but it would have been more interesting.

 

HC has been planned for the chair since the day BC first won his. And the last 30-odd years have had only 3 families running that house. It's a dynasty at this point. It's so powerful that trillions of dollars -- more, even -- here and around the world -- are at stake. You don't think the people with the most money on planet earth are just going to let that role fall to chance, do you.

 

RC

...off topic, but isn't it also true that women have used their sexuality to get what they want from men for millennia ? Short skirts, low tops, padded bras and make up are not for the benefit of their girl friends.

 

This woman he apparently 'kissed' was actually a porn star, but, that not withstanding, the whole 'shall I shall I not kiss her' thing has been an ever present part of the mating ritual. I can't quite imagine how it would work if you had to ask permission to kiss a woman - maybe get a signed contract stating how long the kiss will last, what pressure will be applied, where the hands should be, if the tongue is to be used etc etc. Who the hell can live with that ?

 

It's this kind of thing that will result in men deciding that it's just too hazardous. Once that spontaneity is lost and there is a risk you will end up in court, well, frankly, why bother ?

 

I can't imagine a porn star actress is shy about promoting herself - especially with a well connected wealthy guy like Trump. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe I'm stereotyping ?

[redcairo]

You don't need to quote an entire post to respond. It interferes with the flow of a forum. Just a note.

 

Yeah I once had a guy ask me for permission for something, and it wasn't even a big thing. I was horrified. First because I was mortified-embarrassed ... I didn't want to have a conversation about it ("Yes, please touch my breast!" for godssakes) and second because just his asking totally put me off. Like if you can't tell from my responses... and if you're that insecure... and if you feel you need my permission in THAT overt a manner -- like I'm your mother... -- gah! Sneak one from the cookie jar dude, the cookie jar loves your enthusiasm, and it will scoot away or squeak if it doesn't. If you haven't the courage for even that, you are just not for me! The whole permission thing for me is likely to stop everything and utterly. (Unless it's just all out up front. "I like you. Can we have sex?" Never had a guy ask that -- and have had a very conservative life, so hardly any dating expert -- but I think if I liked him and he did, I might just say yes. Richard Feynman talked about an experience like that once -- having the courage to just up and ask a woman he met one evening and how astonished he was she said yes.)

 

Re: DT: first - yes, it's a total bias but as far as I am concerned, porn stars and prostitutes waive all rights to say much of anything about sex besides "I am taking him to small claims court because he didn't pay me for it." That is a legit complaint. The rest, the nature of their profession -- and specifically the personality that goes into the profession, and the personality that results as a professional deformation as a result of it, make it difficult to evaluate anything on the sex topic.

 

Back to the point I was originally making above though: The real issue is, why the hell would anybody even give air time, let alone legimate concern, to what "some porn star" said about a KISS in the PAST when the issue is the qualification of a person to be the CEO of the most powerful country on planet earth? Hello? We're worried because he kissed a porn star or in fact anybody -- who cares their profession? How insane is that?

 

And by the way much of the testimony that was read into the congressional record about H/B-C was actually about their extremely active -- separate -- sex lives. And the national guard guys assigned to guard them during those times. And how they turned up dead. You know, like accidentally pulling suddenly off the side of the road and shooting themselves in the back of the head. Or being assigned very suddenly to WACO and being in front and dying in the firefight. You know. Shit happens. Attacking Trump who runs a pageant and is a millionaire because he kissed a porn star goes so far beyond asinine especially comparatively I don't even have a scale for it. He's got plenty of flaws that are the reasons I won't vote for him but that particular thing is just stupid to even get a second of focus.

 

RC

[redcairo]

Look, there is something I think Buchanan is right about -- that's novel. :-)

 

I saw this TIME cover that suggested Putin was going to question the legitimacy of the election, and saying don't believe him --

 

and I thought to myself, how perfect. They know a lot of people including Trump are likely to question results when HC wins.

 

But they can't just question Trump directly at the point when they made that cover. But they can get their warning out, their argument for it out, AND as a special bonus get in a dig at Putin. Who keeps making all our politicians look bad in pretty much every single public appearances the man has.

 

I agree with PB that media bias and rigged elections are connected because, obviously, the same powers actually manage both of them.

 

Of course people question the legitimacy of elections. If the entire 'system' is overtly, not even secretly, hostile to a certain outcome, and the outcome is a result of something "invisibly" electronic -- let alone superdelegates and the electoral college -- nobody will ever trust that unless it has the result they want.

 

"The media today is whatever you want it to be." That interviewer thinks everyone is a moron -- even the libs admit that 90% of all media is owned by six megacorporations.

 

People like Trump because they hate the system. Trump is an offensive bozo -- nobody would like him if it weren't for him saying so many things that are ridiculously true.

 

The media bought Obama's election -- both of them. The media will ensure the 'appropriate' person (to the primary money in the world) is in that chair.

 

We should be glad. If DT won, someone (funded or arranged by the opposition) would probably shoot him, then someone would use it for more power to restrict firearms from law-abiding citizens.

 

RC

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein is with her.

 

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that aired Sunday, Blankfein said he is backing Hillary Clinton in her bid for the White House, despite not agreeing with all of her policies or everything she’s done in her political career.

 

“I certainly, yes, I do — yes, so flat out, yes, I do,” Blankfein said when asked whether he personally supports and admires Clinton

.

He continued:

 

“In terms of her intelligence — I think her positioning, not only in terms of her ideology, but what I regard as a pragmatism that I saw demonstrated when she was our senator and in earlier stages of her political career when she could cross the aisle and engage other people to get things done, I admire that. It stands out a little today — that kind of willingness to engage and compromise, but let’s just stop at engage — that willingness to engage is a scarcer commodity these days.”

 

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/goldman-sachs-lloyd-blankfein-supporting-hillary-clinton-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

Edited October 28, 2016 by Sionnach

[Karl]

When there are so many other problems in the world, the Clinton campaign focuses on a guy kissing a woman-that's what it amounts to. The sum total of everything they could find on Trump is that he made some lewd comments in private, but even then, note that he specifically said "they LET you do that when your a big star" and not that he actually did it.

 

I find Trump boorish, a bit 'up himself' but not a mysogenist in any sense, not narcissistic, not an abuser of women. He's just one of those Alpha males that makes baboon noises, beats his chest and likes females around him. Shock horror -Trump is a red blooded heterosexual male that knows what he wants. He kisses women, he doesn't eat babies, or rape women, he hasn't chained up his wife and family, he doesn't beat his wife, or prevent her having her own life and career. He doesn't appear to be into nepotism, he builds things, he makes his own money.

 

I would have lunch with Trump but not Clinton. I think they would both be interesting and charming, but I would never be able to get the thought out of my head that one day she might just decide to have me liquidated.

[joeblast]

you dont have $50,000 to drop on a plate of food either, so of course you wouldnt be having lunch with clinton

 

 she'd have me poisoned by the time dessert came

[Brian]

Are you talking about the email server thing or the Libyan gun thing?

Both, if I recall correctly. She's also been ordered by a federal judge to submit a written testimony, under oath, to explain her motivation for setting up that server in the first place -- curiously, the deadline was mid-October but the judge made clear that she didn't need to respond until AFTER the election.

 

Just heard (although I haven't seen it yet) that the FBI announced today that the e-mail investigation is being reopened...

[dust]

Both, if I recall correctly. She's also been ordered by a federal judge to submit a written testimony, under oath, to explain her motivation for setting up that server in the first place -- curiously, the deadline was mid-October but the judge made clear that she didn't need to respond until AFTER the election.

 

Just heard (although I haven't seen it yet) that the FBI announced today that the e-mail investigation is being reopened...

 

This is the thing. You're not quite sure. I'm not quite sure. It's possible to find out, but not before getting misdirected and distracted by a hundred websites with such and such an opinion.

 

So, she's testified about the email thing, yes, and my point was that technically she did not perjure herself, or was found to have been telling the truth as she saw it. Do you think Trump doesn't do that every day? He literally lies, numerous times, in every interview or debate or other appearance I've watched him in. He pretends that he's going to get Mexico to pay for a big wall, like some Brexiteers pretended they'd give loads of money to the NHS. Lies. I've posted a bunch of his lies already. She is no worse a liar.

 

As far as the guns... as far as I can tell she has not testified before congress about this, as no charges of "You sold guns to Libya" or similar have formally been leveled at her...

Edited October 28, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Brian]

This is the thing. You're not quite sure. I'm not quite sure. It's possible to find out, but not before getting misdirected and distracted by a hundred websites with such and such an opinion.

 

So, she's testified about the email thing, yes, and my point was that technically she did not perjure herself, or was found to have been telling the truth as she saw it. Do you think Trump doesn't do that every day? He literally lies, numerous times, in every interview or debate or other appearance I've watched him in. He pretends that he's going to get Mexico to pay for a big wall, like some Brexiteers pretended they'd give loads of money to the NHS. Lies. I've posted a bunch of his lies already. She is no worse a liar.

 

As far as the guns... as far as I can tell she has not testified before congress about this, as no charges of "You sold guns to Libya" or similar have formally been leveled at her...

Only inserted that clause because I didn't bother to find documentation to point to for my post -- I am actually quite certain that I recall correctly. I suspect you could verify it yourself in thirty seconds or so if you really wanted to know.

 

EDIT: Just realized your question is really more along the lines of, can you prove that one of Hillary's specific documented perjuries to date has been a pointed denial of the gun-running aspect of the State Department mission in Benghazi.

 

I'll let you investigate and report back. Here's a starting point:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/%253F0p19G%253De&ved=0ahUKEwiynpLvh_7PAhVCbiYKHTcBAnAQFghFMAM&usg=AFQjCNEuDFPQAuDZA1V2qoqRlFEN1TvsIg

Edited October 28, 2016 by Brian

[wilfred]

Both, if I recall correctly. She's also been ordered by a federal judge to submit a written testimony, under oath, to explain her motivation for setting up that server in the first place -- curiously, the deadline was mid-October but the judge made clear that she didn't need to respond until AFTER the election.

 

Just heard (although I haven't seen it yet) that the FBI announced today that the e-mail investigation is being reopened...

 

lmao, i see libs aren't happy about this.

[Brian]

lmao, i see libs aren't happy about this.

Neither is Wall Street, it seems. Stock market started sliding.

[joeblast]

The US military/Pentagon has been selling and giving away armament for decades which is the job of the military industrial complex. I was in the military during Vietnam and I know first hand how it all works. Nothing new at all.

so....do you just dismiss the burned waco children too?  she can run guns to ISIS, get caught in racketeering, money laundering, committing electoral fraud, burn children alive, holy cripes, nothing's sticking to this bitch!