Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
That is absurd for reasons I have already explained.

Brock admitted there were thousands of posts, certainly you can find one that was properly attributed.

Oh well, we know that there is no depth that Hillary and her Cabal won't sink to where they will not be cheered on by her supporters.
Click to expand...
No evidence yet for your claim that there are paid shills operating on this forum.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
I spend a lot of time over at Twitter, especially on the Bernie Sanders threads; which are the threads David Brock said he was spending over a million dollars to target.

So far, I have yet to see a single tweet that openly admits it came from David Brock's propaganda machine.

There are thousands of pro-Hillary tweets that sound just like they could have been written by David Brock, but none that give attribution.
Click to expand...
Anecdotal observations of an extreme partisan. How very convincing. :rolleyes:
 
Slings and Arrows said:
I spend a lot of time over at Twitter, especially on the Bernie Sanders threads; which are the threads David Brock said he was spending over a million dollars to target.
So far, I have yet to see a single tweet that openly admits it came from David Brock's propaganda machine.

There are thousands of pro-Hillary tweets that sound just like they could have been written by David Brock, but none that give attribution.
Click to expand...

Then it won't be hard to quote where he said that , and that list of threads, will it ?
 
varwoche said:
Anecdotal observations of an extreme partisan. How very convincing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


"Anecdotal?"

Not quite. I have been monitoring those threads for months. If thousands of tweets had attributions, I would have spotted them. So far, there hasn't been even one.

"Extreme partisan?"

Well, no more than anyone else around this neck of the woods.
 
Brock/Clinton PAC Ghost Write OpEd for Sanders foe

A few days before the Georgia primary, influential Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed published a column on CNN.com praising Hillary Clinton and ripping her opponent, Bernie Sanders. Reed attacked Sanders as being out of step with Democrats on gun policy, and accused him of elevating a “one-issue platform” that ignores the plight of the “single mother riding two buses to her second job.”

But emails released from Reed’s office indicate that the column, which pilloried Sanders as out of touch with the poor, was primarily written by a corporate lobbyist, and was edited by Correct the Record, one of several pro-Clinton Super PACs.
Anne Torres, the mayor’s director of communications, told The Intercept this week that the column was not written by the mayor, but by Tharon Johnson, a former Reed adviser who now works as a lobbyist for UnitedHealth, Honda, and MGM Resorts, among other clients. The column’s revisions by staffers from Correct the Record are documented in the emails.
Click to expand...

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/06/hillary-super-pac-draft-oped/

As of this morning, the article still does not reflect the PAC's involvement.

No attribution. How Orwellian can you get?
 
Last edited:
In other news, Clinton is so done that she only needs 155-160 (depending on your source) of the 1,083 remaining delegates.

Add this to the failure of the FBI investigation to turn up anything yet, and Clinton is about to "done" herself into becoming the next POTUS.
 
Mader Levap said:
Except it is not. Something failed somewhere, long before Trump. He is result, not cause.
Click to expand...

The major issue with the US system currently is that one party has decided that it is unwilling to take part in the consensus process, but rather is playing a game of "If you don't give me everything I want, then you aren't compromising at all."

Trump is a result of a lot of issues, but that fact that he was able to get to the nomination is a reflection of the removal of safeguards against such populists over the past few decades because of a push to make things more democratic.

In fact it's having the opposite effect. Now small, but vocal, populist movements are having a greater effect on the system than the quieter majorities.
 
Argumemnon said:
So basically she needs to net a third of California and nothing else and she still wins?
Click to expand...

She just needs slightly under 15% of the remaining delegates. If she can pull all of the remaining Supers, that drops to just under 6% of the pledged ones.
 
PhantomWolf said:
She just needs slightly under 15% of the remaining delegates. If she can pull all of the remaining Supers, that drops to just under 6% of the pledged ones.
Click to expand...

She's 155 short of 2383. There are 153 as of yet undeclared superdelegates (715-562). If they want to tell Sanders it's time to shift gears, they could give her the win tomorrow as she'll surely get more than 3 of W Virginia's 37 delegates.

I suspect out of concern over appearances and because it might offend Sanders' supporters they won't, but they could.
 
16.5 said:
Gee why am i surprised that Hillary's supporters have ignored this bombshell proof?

:thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Good find. It still doesn't say they are failing to attribute on forums, but I'm fine calling it a solid inference. Facts are our friends.
 
16.5 said:
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/06/hillary-super-pac-draft-oped/

As of this morning, the article still does not reflect the PAC's involvement.

No attribution. How Orwellian can you get?
Click to expand...


Excerpt from the article:

"Correct the Record is the Super PAC founded by David Brock, a Republican-turned-Democratic strategist who controls a number of pro-Clinton campaign entities and websites.

"In April, Correct the Record caused a stir when it announced plans to spend $1 million to build a “digital task force” dedicated to “pushing out positive content to Hillary supporters online to counter negative attacks and false narratives.”

"Super PACs were intended to be independent entities, explicitly prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns. Correct the Record, however, has tested the limits of campaign finance law and openly coordinates with the Clinton campaign."

-----

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Hillary Rodham Nixon selects mudslinger-for-hire David Brock as her VP running mate -- sleazy and sleazier.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
Excerpt from the article:

"Correct the Record is the Super PAC founded by David Brock, a Republican-turned-Democratic strategist who controls a number of pro-Clinton campaign entities and websites.

"In April, Correct the Record caused a stir when it announced plans to spend $1 million to build a “digital task force” dedicated to “pushing out positive content to Hillary supporters online to counter negative attacks and false narratives.”

"Super PACs were intended to be independent entities, explicitly prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns. Correct the Record, however, has tested the limits of campaign finance law and openly coordinates with the Clinton campaign."

-----

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Hillary Rodham Nixon selects mudslinger-for-hire David Brock as her VP running mate -- sleazy and sleazier.
Click to expand...

Want a Sig.bet on that?
 
16.5 said:
Gee why am i surprised that Hillary's supporters have ignored this bombshell proof?

:thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
As this is not proof of your claim of Clinton/her campaign/PAC/or anyone else paying operatives to post on this forum, why should anyone care?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Good find. It still doesn't say they are failing to attribute on forums, but I'm fine calling it a solid inference. Facts are our friends.
Click to expand...

It's also from 2 months before they "announced plans to spend $1 million to build a “digital task force” dedicated to “pushing out positive content to Hillary supporters online to counter negative attacks and false narratives.”"
 
State Department Can’t Find Emails of Hillary Clinton Server Staffer

The State Department has been unable to locate critical email records of the State Department information technology staffer who set up former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s private email server, according to a court filing.

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau confirmed that the department has not located the digital backup file for emails sent to or from Bryan Pagliano during Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. Mr. Pagliano was the State Department staffer who helped set up the home server that Mrs. Clinton used to conduct government business.

Mr. Pagliano has emerged as a key figure in the controversy over Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email server, an issue that has roiled her campaign after it was brought to light last year. He has been granted immunity by the Department of Justice as part of the investigation but has refused to testify in front of Congress, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...ind-emails-of-hillary-clinton-server-staffer/
Click to expand...


Reminiscent of the 18.5 minute gap in the infamous Nixon White House tapes.

"It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble." -- Senator Howard Baker circa 1973

And another famous quote attributed to Senator Baker: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
 
Last edited:
Wealthy Cruz Donor Pours Millions Into Clinton Campaign

Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund founded by billionaire James Simons, donated over $13 million to Sen. Ted Cruz’s failed presidential campaign. For a guy who’s supposed to be pretty smart with his money, the ROI [return on investment] on that one has got to sting. Nevertheless, now that Mr. Cruz is out of the race, Mr. Simons has begun pouring millions of dollars into Hillary Clinton‘s campaign.

Mr. Simons isn’t the only wealthy donor making the move. A number of deep-pocketed elite have given up trying to buy off Republican politicians in order to support Ms. Clinton—the only establishment-friendly candidate of either party remaining in the race. In response, the Clinton campaign has assembled a group dubbed “Republicans for Hillary” to reach wealthy GOP donors. Ms Clinton not only shares over 60 of the same donors with the former Republican candidate Jeb Bush but is also making new efforts to court additional Bush family donors, according to a recent Politico report.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz and the majority of the Democratic Party have made it apparent that their support for Hillary Clinton and her vast array of corporate and wealthy donors takes precedence over the concerns of constituents and the thousands of disenfranchised voters Bernie Sanders has reincorporated into American democracy.

http://observer.com/2016/05/wealthy-cruz-donor-pours-millions-into-clinton-campaign/
Click to expand...


If I'm not mistaken, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton hold diametrically opposed ideologies. However, they do happen to share one common trait -- they both have greasy palms.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Ms. Clinton—the only establishment-friendly candidate of either party remaining in the race.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. All the candidates were 'establishment-friendly'. Not a single one ran as an independent. Sanders even became a democrat just so he could take advantage of their money and power. And Trump must be 'establishment-friendly' because he is part of 'the establishment'.

No matter which candidate become president, you can bet that they will be 'establishment-friendly', because only an anarchist or a fool would do otherwise.
 
Bob001 said:
A short guide to some of the women in Bill's life. I suspect we'll be hearing about them a lot during the campaign.
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/10/the...onald_trump_wont_stop_taunting_hillary_about/
Click to expand...


"Now that the stories are resurfacing, they could hamper Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to connect with younger women, who are learning the details of the Clintons’ history for the first time. Several news organizations have published guides to the Clinton scandals to explain the allegations to a new generation of readers.

"The resurfacing of the scandals of the 1990s has brought about a rethinking among some feminists about how prominent women stood by Mr. Clinton and disparaged his accusers after the “bimbo eruptions,” as a close aide to the Clintons, Betsey Wright, famously called the claims of affairs and sexual assault against Mr. Clinton in his 1992 campaign."

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/u...illary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0

Today's young women are repulsed by Crooked Hillary and her sleazy husband, and are overwhelmingly supporting Bernie Sanders.
 
Last edited:
It's amusing that Hillary supporters like Skeptic Ginger point to Hillary's sordid past as some sort of strength. Like she's been battle-tested, and all of the skeletons in the closet have already been uncovered.

The problem with this reasoning is that most voters today don't really know or understand or remember the details about Hillary's past behavior. Some of the skeletons were uncovered, but they have since been buried under both the lies of her supporters and the passage of time.

Digging up those skeletons again will shock the consciences of many people who would otherwise be open to voting for her. And Trump not only has a team of people with shovels, he seems willing to drag those skeletons before the cameras and gnaw on their bones.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's amusing that Hillary supporters like Skeptic Ginger point to Hillary's sordid past as some sort of strength. Like she's been battle-tested, and all of the skeletons in the closet have already been uncovered.

The problem with this reasoning is that most voters today don't really know or understand or remember the details about Hillary's past behavior. Some of the skeletons were uncovered, but they have since been buried under both the lies of her supporters and the passage of time.

Digging up those skeletons again will shock the consciences of many people who would otherwise be open to voting for her. And Trump not only has a team of people with shovels, he seems willing to drag those skeletons before the cameras and gnaw on their bones.
Click to expand...


The vast right-wing conspiracy is busy... ;)

MSNBC said:
CANNES, France — A massive police force will be guarding the Cannes Film Festival this year. But the only scuffle on the horizon may come in response to the right-wing producers of a devastating new documentary about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s alleged influence peddling and favor-trading. That film, “Clinton Cash,” screens here May 16 and opens in the U.S. on July 24 — just before the Democratic National Convention. [...]
Click to expand...
 
jhunter1163 said:
"Clinton Cash"? Really? Haven't we been through that? Why, yes, we have:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04...ts-author-admits-evidence-clinton-crimes.html
Click to expand...

Oh, PoliticusUSA, nice!

By the way, didn't Stephanopoulos have to apologize for that nonsense interview? Oh yeah, he did, he did:

In 2012, 2013 and 2014, Stephanopoulos made $25,000 donations to the 501 nonprofit founded by former President Bill Clinton, the foundation's records show. Stephanopoulos never disclosed this information to viewers, even when interviewing author Peter Schweizer last month about his book "Clinton Cash," which alleges that donations to the foundation may have influenced some of Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state.
Click to expand...

LOLZ! Talk about getting hoisted by one's own petard. Typical Clinton Crony sleaziness.

GREAT LINK JHUNTER!!! :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
 
16.5 said:
Oh, PoliticusUSA, nice!

By the way, didn't Stephanopoulos have to apologize for that nonsense interview? Oh yeah, he did, he did:



LOLZ! Talk about getting hoisted by one's own petard. Typical Clinton Crony sleaziness.

GREAT LINK JHUNTER!!! :thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Your slip is showing again, Mr. neo-socialist. Don't us socialists avoid citing and supporting Breitbart-funded films? How many revisions has he done due to the poor reporting in the original?

Or is this just another in the many instances of "fling enough **** and some of it should stick".
 
Foolmewunz said:
Your slip is showing again, Mr. neo-socialist. Don't us socialists avoid citing and supporting Breitbart-funded films? How many revisions has he done due to the poor reporting in the original?

Or is this just another in the many instances of "fling enough **** and some of it should stick".
Click to expand...

Your post makes no sense. All I did was destroy jhunter's post reliance on a universally discredited interview conducted by Clinton stooge Stephanopolous. I claim no familiarity with the film.

By the way, badly written sarcasm, like yours, is worse than no response at all.
 
Well, there's this one, where the publisher had to correct seven or eight incorrect passages:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...er-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946

And this one, listing over 20 errors, fabrications and distortions:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

And this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/clinton-cash-bill-hillary-scandal-book

I could go on, there's plenty more, but Schweizer is clearly a partisan hack. Clearly, that is, to everyone except HDS sufferers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom