2016 US Presidential election thread

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

To be fair, it probably just showed a person too distraught/enraged to be able to do what's right. She owed them more than that.

To her credit, the next morning she expressed her willingness to help the Trump administration promote peace and reconciliation--something some crazies who claim to be on both sides haven't been willing to do.

Don't take the actions of idiots and attach them to either of the candidates.

Distraught/enraged shows what? Bad temperament? She absolutely owed everyone who busted the butts for her more than what she did which was nothing.

How gracious of Hillary to help Trump. Might be a good idea as Trump is going to have Hillary investigated. Hillary's story does not end here.

[Platapus]

To be honest, is there anything Hillary could have done that would not have garnered criticism from some group?

There are people who just simply don't like Hillary and nothing she could have done, or not done would have made her happy.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Distraught/enraged shows what? Bad temperament? She absolutely owed everyone who busted the butts for her more than what she did which was nothing.

How gracious of Hillary to help Trump. Might be a good idea as Trump is going to have Hillary investigated. Hillary's story does not end here.

You know, if I were Trump I'd have a meeting with her. I'd tell her she knows she should go to jail for what she did and produce a couple people who did lesser things and are cooling their heels in the slammer right now, that kid on a nuclear sub who took six photos with his cell phone (others on the sub did too but were not prosecuted) and is behind bars today, for instance.

Then I'd assign her to be in charge of writing regulations that would make it an explicit crime to do the stupid e-mail server tricks she did so that there would never again be such an instance that did not end in prison. If she does an excellent job, let her off the hook somewhat gracefully.

Lots of stuff never came out. As head of the State Department I'm sure she sent memos to all her employees outlining proper e-mail procedures, prohibiting private server use for government use and spelling out the consequences. Why did nobody dig up that memo and hang it around her neck? The news media simply wasn't interested in pursuing the story.

This wouldn't give her redemption. Her conduct the night she lost, plus her e-mail abuse clearly show that she didn't have the temperment to be President. When you're President you must do what is necessary no matter how you feel.

That's exemplified by her husband, whose mantra was "when we screw up, get the story out quickly and completely. By the time the opposition hits us with it it's old news.

[Mr Quatro]

Hillary and Obama and others have said that Trump was not fit to serve as POTUS ...
I think it is starting to come out that Hillary Clinton herself was not fit to be the POTUS.

I think we are very lucky in a way not to have her running the show:

CLINTON RAGE: Hillary Clinton Has Major Temper Tantrum On Election Night After Losing to Trump



or this one is better:

[Onkel Neal]

Does either of those two videos capture Clinton doing/saying the things the talking heads claim she did/said? If so, please tell me at what minute mark.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Does either of those two videos capture Clinton doing/saying the things the talking heads claim she did/said? If so, please tell me at what minute mark.

No, these video's do not show her angry moods ... but these some odd (20) video's don't either: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...bger&FORM=VDRE

No video footage of her anger doesn't mean it didn't happen. I believe the Secret Service agents report of her anger while in the white house and the reports of her anger at Donna Brazil and throwing a bottle of water at her and the report that she does not allow cell phones near her.

I guess we will have to wait for Huma Abedin book to come out, uh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_Abedin

[August]

I think this article makes some fair points about Jon Stewart.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/11...-donald-trump/

Crossfire was canceled soon thereafter. Most people credit Stewart for not just killing the show, but bringing forth a new age of hyper-political, hyper-liberal late-night comedy. The news scene hasn’t changed altogether much since Stewart’s temper tantrum — except for featuring far less argument-sharpening debate and civil discourse than we had under “Crossfire” when Stewart went on his tear. “Crossfire” used to be one of the few places guests and hosts at least confronted conflicting views, including questions about perspectives and assumptions. It engaged the viewers, rather than ambushed or mocked them. It was also one of the few places on TV outside of Fox News where conservative views were given an audience.The decline of civil discourse didn’t just happen on cable news shows, thanks to Stewart. He also helped kill it on late-night comedy shows as well.

[Rockin Robbins]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can neither do nor teach are leftist comedians.

Why should they be the goto source of wisdom in defending a position? That fact alone screams lack of validity for a hyperbolic position.

You have to redefine the meaning of the word to call Trump hypocritical. His weakness is that he is too honest, that he fails to filter out positions that might offend some, that he speaks his mind regardless of the consequences. Of course that got a lot of help when "some of the immigrants are criminals who must be expelled" became "all Mexican immigrants are criminals" in the press, shame on the "objective" (another word that has been redefined) press.

Hypocrisy is being head of the State department, sending memos to your people telling them now to handle e-mail in a secure manner and in a way that preserves historical records, but violating those guidelines for yourself, ensuring that the enemies of the US have access to the country's most sensitive top secret and above information. Hypocrisy is denying that you had more than one cell phone when you had at least 10 different ones, denying that any top secret e-mails went on your server when many did, denying that any wrongdoing was done and that at most an inconsequential mistake was made.

Hypocrisy is claiming to work for women's rights when the 1990's was spent destroying women who claimed sexual relations with her "husband" in direct opposition to her "women don't lie. They have the right to be believed" nonsense. Hypocrisy is paying your women 70% of what the men working in the campaign are paid and claiming to stand for equal pay for equal work. Hypocrisy is handing out crumbs to the residents of our inner cities for their votes while doing not one thing to bring them true opportunity and bring them out of their economic plight. Hypocrisy is blaming the deficit on the top 1% of taxpayers not paying their share when they already pay over half of federal revenues. Hypocrisy is a plan to increase corporate taxes on companies who are already paying the highest corporate taxes in the world, effectively paying them to leave our country and relocate to one with lower expenses.

Finally, hypocrisy is taking a tens of millions of dollars from the same countries that finance ISIS, the same countries where women can't vote, can't leave the house without escort, are not allowed to get an education, cannot drive a car and are strictly treated as property: toys to be taken out of the closet to play with and when you're done they go back in the closet. 90% of that 70 to 100 million dollars went to the Clintons. The other 10% went to the purposes of the Clinton Foundation.

That's the short list. You do not have to redefine the term to attach "hypocrisy" to its correct owner here.

Oh, hypocrisy is stiffing your supporters on the night of your predictable loss of the presidency, for selfish reasons not thanking them for their support, sending the message that this defeat is final, that an unspeakable wrong has been committed, that THIS defeat is final and that somehow her supporters, as evidenced by her absence, are to blame, in her mind. It was a horrible act of selfish hypocrisy. Being better than Hillary, they still came back and cheered her the next day. I'm not willing to sign on to the profanity laden hissy fit scenario. Whatever her reasons, she has a right to privacy and to be judged by her public actions, not her alleged private meltdown.

Hillary has had plenty of object lessons that the universe is not all about her, but has steadfastly rejected each opportunity to become a better person and take responsibility for her own shortcomings, which all, thankfully, cost her the Presidency.

I'm not saying Trump will fare any better or be a great President. He's a bit of a crapshoot. But if he fails, it will be because of his forthrightness, not because of his parsing and redefining of formerly well-understood and shared values and terms. He's not a professional politician. That is both his primary strength and his greatest weakness.

[Bilge_Rat]

well, not to state the obvious, but the election is over, Hillary Clinton's political career is over. As we all know, she will not be investigated, charged, tried or sent to jail. The last thing Trump needs now is to create a martyr, that always backfires:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/wo...in-prison.html

The last thing you want to do is to create the precedent that losing presidential candidate can be sent to jail, that would really confirm the ROW's impression that the USA is heading towards "Banana Republic" status.

[Rockin Robbins]

He needs to do what I suggested earlier and actually give her a chance to make up for the mess she made. It wouldn't be redemption but she could feel she partially made up for her error and the country could be left better because of her participation. She can't undo what she did but she might be able to make it not happen again.

Unlike Ford's pardon of Nixon, there would be a sense of justice to not presecuting her. Actually, there would be REAL justice then.

[August]

Oh no, I don't want Clinton to have any governmental authority at all, even if it were just to fix the mess she helped create. She can go community organize with BHO after he leaves office or go jump off a bridge for all I care but I don't want to see her with a .gov in her email ever again.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Does either of those two videos capture Clinton doing/saying the things the talking heads claim she did/said? If so, please tell me at what minute mark.

There is sources that state Hillary treated FBI agents like dogs and spoke at them, not with them. Although there is no tapes or video, I truly believed things she said did occur. I also believe she went on rant the night of the election.

We will go right to Snopes on Hillary's actions and reactions behind closed doors.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp

[aanker]

I don't trust Snopes and haven't for a couple years because I used them for a source and got my *ss reamed.. and rightfully so, I might add. Snopes lied about whatever issue it was, ...... I forget.

Now I consider them left leaning. I wish that they had remained objective. For years they were a good go to source for the truth.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by aanker

I don't trust Snopes and haven't for a couple years because I used them for a source and got my *ss reamed.. and rightfully so, I might add. Snopes lied about whatever issue it was, ...... I forget.

Now I consider them left leaning. I wish that they had remained objective. For years they were a good go to source for the truth.

Snopes is just one source for checking Hillary's treatment of people and situations. Many do trust Snopes as a good source.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Snopes is just one source for checking Hillary's treatment of people and situations. Many do trust Snopes as a good source.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/snopes/

As with many forwarded emails, the criticism did not include any example of what the writer of the email claimed was the difference between what Snopes.com reported and what Barack Obama had actually said.
Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.
We can give a unique perspective on this story because we do the same kind of work as Snopes.com and have sometimes been the target of similar criticism.
We’ve got a collection of emails that have come to TruthOrFiction.com accusing us of being “right wing whackos” as well as “liberals” and “communists.” We’ve been suspected of being owned and operated by both Republicans and Democrats. We’ve been called “Christian propagandists” as well as “atheists pretending to be neutral.” We occasionally receive emails that have elaborate theories about who “really” owns us and what our “real” motives are.
The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don’t like the truth you’ve reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did.
That, in our view, is what is happening with Snopes.
The 2008 presidential campaign has been one of the most intense and unique in our nation’s history and has prompted more political eRumors than any presidential campaign in our experience, especially about Barack Obama.
These anti-Snopes emails have probably been prompted by someone who does not like Barack Obama and does not like the fact that Snopes (or TruthOrFiction.com for that matter) has debunked some of the emails that are not true about him.
One of the versions of the eRumor mentions TruthOrFiction.com and recommends our site. We appreciate that, but we want to say for the record that we’ve had nothing to do with this eRumor about Snopes.com and we condemn it.