Seriously? The Washington Times and Michael Rivero? What's next? Alex Jones? Oh wait, Michael Rivero did more than a few guest bits on Alex Jones. Real credible stuff.
Seriously? The Washington Times and Michael Rivero? What's next? Alex Jones? Oh wait, Michael Rivero did more than a few guest bits on Alex Jones. Real credible stuff.
Seriously? The Washington Times and Michael Rivero? What's next? Alex Jones? Oh wait, Michael Rivero did more than a few guest bits on Alex Jones. Real credible stuff.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Honest question: if I show you how you've been misled on each of the claims in your first link and second one, will you ignore it and throw out more baseless claims or actually think about it? Because it's almost always the latter with you conspiracy guys
Honest question: if I show you how you've been misled on each of the claims in your first link and second one, will you ignore it and throw out more baseless claims or actually think about it? Because it's almost always the latter with you conspiracy guys
If you can throw out every claim in the first link I suggest you missed your calling, Hillary could have used you big time over the last year. After all even Bernie Sanders talked about a few of them, he just didn't go full on attack with them.
And sorry I didn't mention the second link was a joke to lighten up the crowd, I keep forgetting this board has a silly green text thing.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to figure out why Hillary lost the presidency to a narcissist asshat, she lost because she wasn't liked and couldn't be trusted professionally or personally.
If you can throw out every claim in the first link I suggest you missed your calling, Hillary could have used you big time over the last year. After all even Bernie Sanders talked about a few of them, he just didn't go full on attack with them.
And sorry I didn't mention the second link was a joke to lighten up the crowd, I keep forgetting this board has a silly green text thing.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to figure out why Hillary lost the presidency to a narcissist asshat, she lost because she wasn't liked and couldn't be trusted professionally or personally.
OK, I'll indulge you, but I'm certain you'll ignore it and find another line of attack. Hillary had trust issues, but most of those were manufactured from years of republican accusations
The top ten Clinton pay for play accusations:
1) Claim: Clinton Crony Terry McCauliffe donated half a million dollars to the campaign of the wife of the FBI Deputy director who was overseeing the email probe.
Firstly, the FBI prosecutor (was not Deputy Director at the time of the donation or scandal) was recused from any case involving DC/Virginia politics when his wife announced her candidacy, which means the money would've been poorly used. Secondly, the FBI Prosecutor was terrorism expert and would not have likely been involved anyways. Thirdly, the timeline of donation to when the FBI prosector was given the promotion to Deputy Director don't add up. There's no way to say that's pay for play
2)Claim: King of Morocco agreed to donate $12 million to Clinton Foundation and host a Clinton Global Initiative summit only if Mrs. Clinton attended a 2015 meeting
I'm not sure why it's a scandal for a private citizen (she had not been SoS for over 2 years by this point) was raising money for a charity. Seriously. I'm confused about why this is a scandal. Morocco has been a US ally for a while
3)Claim: Bill Clinton gets $1 million birthday present from Qatar for 5 minute meeting request
The "5 minute meeting' was actually a request for a cheque presentation photo op with Bill for a donation they had already commited to. Why is this a concern???
4)Claim: “Friends of Bill” (FOB) rewarded at State Department after 2010 Haiti earthquake - had to clarify. They're suggesting that Bill's Buddies got awarded contracts for work in Haiti after the earthquake because of donations
Not really. The wikileaks emails were used to corroborate this. In them, some of Bill's friends were highlighted as bidding on contracts there. The problem is, none of them were actually awarded the contracts.
5)Claim: Crown Prince of Bahrain (a “good friend” of the Clinton Foundation) sought special access to Secretary Clinton
Again, it's spin. In 2005 at a Clinton Foundation Event, the Crown Prince pledged to raise $32 Million for scholarships in Bahrain for Bahrainian students from Bahrainian businesses. They exceeded that Goal. Bahrain is also a major strategic non NATO ally and host the Fifth Fleet there which oversees the entire Navy operation in the ME. So the Director of the Foundation who regualrly interacts with the Bahrainians sent an email saying basically "Hey, the Crown Prince was hoping to see Hillary and has reached out to the state department", which Hillary's assistant replied "we'll have to see because she's not feeling great", followed a few days later by "yeah we fit him in, thanks" Where's the problem here?
I may finish the rest the rest later, but man that is weak stuff to support your assertion
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 05-15-2017 at 10:29 AM.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I may finish the rest the rest later, but man that is weak stuff to support your assertion
Is all this just a case of lots of smoke and no fire? Even if your other side of the truth is totally correct what does it matter? She still lost to a candidate that couldn't win a spelling bee against an 8 year old let alone a presidential election. Countless polls even during the democratic primary's showed up to 60% of Americans didn't trust her, Trump's team slammed her perceived lack of honestly and trustworthiness to death. Trump could get on stage and lie threw his teeth and still win the polls against her for this.
Since it's your belief Clinton was the next snow white how about explaining your reason how she could ever loose to that crazy idiot.
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a stern warning at a recent senior staff meeting: Quit trying to secretly slip stuff to President Trump.
Just days earlier, K.T. McFarland, the deputy national security adviser, had given Trump a printout of two Time magazine covers. One, supposedly from the 1970s, warned of a coming ice age; the other, from 2008, about surviving global warming, according to four White House officials familiar with the matter.
Trump quickly got lathered up about the media’s hypocrisy. But there was a problem. The 1970s cover was fake, part of an Internet hoax that’s circulated for years. Staff chased down the truth and intervened before Trump tweeted or talked publicly about it.
The episode illustrates the impossible mission of managing a White House led by an impetuous president who has resisted structure and strictures his entire adult life.
While the information stream to past commanders-in-chief has been tightly monitored, Trump prefers an open Oval Office with a free flow of ideas and inputs from both official and unofficial channels. And he often does not differentiate between the two. Aides sometimes slip him stories to press their advantage on policy; other times they do so to gain an edge in the seemingly endless Game of Thrones inside the West Wing.
The consequences can be tremendous, according to a half-dozen White House officials and others with direct interactions with the president. A news story tucked into Trump’s hands at the right moment can torpedo an appointment or redirect the president’s entire agenda. Current and former Trump officials say Trump can react volcanically to negative press clips, especially those with damaging leaks, becoming engrossed in finding out where they originated.
That is what happened in late February when someone mischievously gave the president a printed copy of an article from GotNews.com, the website of Internet provocateur Charles C. Johnson, which accused deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh of being “the source behind a bunch of leaks” in the White House.
No matter that Johnson had been permanently banned from Twitter for harassment or that he offered no concrete evidence or that he’s lobbed false accusations in the past and recanted them. Trump read the article and began asking staff about Walsh. Johnson told POLITICO that he tracks the IP addresses of visitors to his website and added: “I can tell you unequivocally that the story was shared all around the White House.”
Is all this just a case of lots of smoke and no fire? Even if your other side of the truth is totally correct what does it matter? She still lost to a candidate that couldn't win a spelling bee against an 8 year old let alone a presidential election. Countless polls even during the democratic primary's showed up to 60% of Americans didn't trust her, Trump's team slammed her perceived lack of honestly and trustworthiness to death. Trump could get on stage and lie threw his teeth and still win the polls against her for this.
Since it's your belief Clinton was the next snow white how about explaining your reason how she could ever loose to that crazy idiot.
It's fake news, and you and the other gullible voters fell for it, due to lack of critical thinking.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
Is all this just a case of lots of smoke and no fire? Even if your other side of the truth is totally correct what does it matter? She still lost to a candidate that couldn't win a spelling bee against an 8 year old let alone a presidential election. Countless polls even during the democratic primary's showed up to 60% of Americans didn't trust her, Trump's team slammed her perceived lack of honestly and trustworthiness to death. Trump could get on stage and lie threw his teeth and still win the polls against her for this.
Since it's your belief Clinton was the next snow white how about explaining your reason how she could ever loose to that crazy idiot.
The "other side of the truth"?
To answer your last irrelevant question about Clinton, she probably lost because a plague of dumb republican voters have no concept of "truth" or "facts." Two completely different versions of events aren't "two sides of the truth," one is the truth (what Street Pharm pointed out, unless you can provide evidence suggesting otherwise) and the other are lies on purpose or by omission.
Trump won because voters are stupid and believe stupid things like lies are just "alternative facts."
To answer your last irrelevant question about Clinton, she probably lost because a plague of dumb republican voters have no concept of "truth" or "facts." Two completely different versions of events aren't "two sides of the truth," one is the truth (what Street Pharm pointed out, unless you can provide evidence suggesting otherwise) and the other are lies on purpose or by omission.
Trump won because voters are stupid and believe stupid things like lies are just "alternative facts."
Hillary lost because she was a flawed candidate, which was apparent to Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. And perhaps too many in the Democratic establishment have elitist views similar to yours, that "voters are stupid".
Hillary lost because she was a flawed candidate, which was apparent to Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. And perhaps too many in the Democratic establishment have elitist views similar to yours, that "voters are stupid".
You are implying that Trump is not a flawed candidate.
Hillary lost because she was a flawed candidate, which was apparent to Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. And perhaps too many in the Democratic establishment have elitist views similar to yours, that "voters are stupid".
Unfortunately many voters being stupid is not really an elitist view. OR rather instead of saying stupid let's say ignorant of the facts on what they are voting on and/or vote by party allegiance no matter what. As I relayed not so long ago in this thread the day after Congress repealed the ACA I had two people at work (Trump voters) saying it was great that they repealed Obamacare so they could concentrate on the ACA which was a much better program than what Obama put in.
That is the level to which a large portion of the populace is informed to. And that isn't to say left wing voters don't have similar issues. In general, it is a woefully under educated populace when it comes to what policies are and how they may affect the big picture.
It's not elitist, it's reality. You can go back to polls about Obamacare. Put out the benefit without mentioning Obamacare or ACA, for those that knew what it was, and it had overwhelming support on nearly everything. Put Obamacare into the question and it was hated. An informed populace doesn't get caught in such traps.
Hillary lost because she was a flawed candidate, which was apparent to Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. And perhaps too many in the Democratic establishment have elitist views similar to yours, that "voters are stupid".
