Why does hillary clinton suck?

[BillM]

likely
4/8 years of 'that woman'
glaring out at us on them damn screens

say it now, and wont be her fault
not when she will be feeling obliged to authorize/carry out the will of her administration

and who knows or wants to geuss, how many persons WW will come to there death and Countries destoroyed, under her watch, as they say?

STUD, Great oldie and the dude in the white pants is showing a nice cock!!! Bill

 

[b.c.]

To bad your so blind. And for your info I didn't want Trump either.

I'd rather call her Convict.

That's "YOU'RE so blind," madam, not your.

And you're welcome to call Hillary whatever you like, though I have a sneaking suspicion that MOST women WON'T be voting for the candidate who thinks he can just "grab them by the pussy."

 

[JulieInNaplesFL]

<yawn>

 

[b.c.]

Today is Oct 13th. The election is on Nov 8th (though early voting starts sooner).

That's what I mean close, but not close enough. Election day is a month away. Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls, but she really just opened that lead in the last week.

If 1 week was enough to open a commanding lead, than another week is long enough to lose a commanding lead.

I want Clinton to win, but in no way is this game-over already.

No it is NOT. Overconfidence can be our undoing. Telling Trump supporters their guy is going to lose has the effect of energizing a rabid base of followers. Believing Hillary has it "in the bag" does the opposite for her supporters.

EVERY single eligible Clinton supporter/Democrat should walk, run, or CRAWL to vote this November... like our LIVES depend on it. Because in some ways they DO.

Send a MESSAGE - by voting not ONLY against Trump, but every conservative Trump wanna-be running for office who's airing nasty local ads echoing his litany of HATE.

 

[deleted15807]

Today is Oct 13th. The election is on Nov 8th (though early voting starts sooner).

That's what I mean close, but not close enough. Election day is a month away. Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls, but she really just opened that lead in the last week.

If 1 week was enough to open a commanding lead, than another week is long enough to lose a commanding lead.

I want Clinton to win, but in no way is this game-over already.

The difference is Hillary has had 20+ years of vetting and survived multiple investigations. Trump has never been investigated. Never had every aspect of his life pried apart for public approval. Outside of her being outed as a Russian agent I don't see what happened to Trump happening to Hillary. But anything is possible.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

No it is NOT. Overconfidence can be our undoing. Telling Trump supporters their guy is going to lose has the effect of energizing a rabid base of followers. Believing Hillary has it "in the bag" does the opposite for her supporters.

EVERY single eligible Clinton supporter/Democrat should walk, run, or CRAWL to vote this November... like our LIVES depend on it. Because in some ways they DO.

Send a MESSAGE - by voting not ONLY against Trump, but every conservative Trump wanna-be running for office who's airing nasty local ads echoing his litany of HATE.

I mostly agree with ya. I really do but the more someone tells a trump supporter their guy is going to lose and the more rabid his base of followers get the more things like repealthe19th come out. The more they individually go on the attack. The more outwardly crazy they get. And the more others see them for what they are. And in turn they get even more rabid and even more crazy. Making all sorts of mistakes left and right.

I mean, if at the very least it doesn't help to change other people's minds in this little bit of time it does though become throughly entertaining.

 

[tripod]

... what group and what money is behind the Freedom of Information Act which has been the vehicle they've used to continue to plant suspicions of wrongdoing...

Did you just come out against the Freedom of Information Act? That's clearly throwing the baby out with the bath water... the FOI has been incredibly useful to the citizens of this country... just because it's been used as a tool to harass your favorite politician doesn't mean that it is actually responsible for any of that harassment.

... and even if you fail miserably in proving any wrongdoing just keeping the investigations going is an amazing political weapon.

They aren't a "political weapon" of they don't make the media... if the average American doesn't hear about it in newspapers, the radio or on TV... HOW THE FUCK WOULD THEY EVER HEAR ABOUT IT?!?!? You are putting waaaay too much stock into Judicial Watch because it's had ZERO effect on this or any election.

Nice little racket they have. Judicial Watch with it's vast funding files lawsuits that create an aura of suspicion and misconduct and criminality then the "lamestream" media picks up the story in the middle and not tracking the fingerprints back to the 1% that hate taxes on rich people, Social Security and Medicare and want to drown the government in debt with the ultimate goal of killing those programs. Hey we're rich and we don't need them.

Jesus Christ. Scaife gave $7.74 million to Judicial Watch but their yearly budget is fucking $35 million... how is this VAST funding?!?!?

If Judicial Watch was such a one sided Hillary hating organization... why the fuck did they:

1). join the Sierra Club in suit against the George Bush administration
2). Sue Halliburton over Cheney's corruption
or 3). Sue the Secret Service to get Abramoff's visits to the White House (during GWB's term)?

A right-leaning conservative political watchdog group that operates WITHIN the law doesn't seem to be a problem in my book... frivolous lawsuits are easily thrown out and are usually done so... I just don't see any problem with a right leaning political watchdog group that operates within the law...

Are you saying that Judicial Watch operates outside of the law? I've seen no evidence of that... it seems that them operating OUTSIDE of the law should be your only problem or complaint... I've seen nothing but whining from the Clinton camp about Judicial Watch and they have placed forth ZERO proven accusations of them operating outside of the law using nefarious tactics to politically smear their opponents.

 

[622675]

I hope the “gay doormats’ that are ready to lie down for Hillary are reading the news from Wikileaks and other places.

Not only is she a criminal who will ruin the economy and increase national security risk but also Hillary is a political opportunist who really does not like anything gay.

Like she told the bankers, she has a public face and a private face. And you can bet that sooner or later she will disown anything gay if it does not fit her game plan. Until then she will keep them on the plantation to do her bidding.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cli...utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=clinton+against+gays&tbm=nws

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/10/clinton-campaign-leaks-show-her-stubborn

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/24/hillary-clintons-struggles-on-gay-issues

 

[kingjf64]

No one will notice that you're not watching CNN or that you're boycotting mainstream media outlets, so it's a feckless gesture on your part. Bottom line, there's nothing you can do to save your deplorable candidate, but I guess you and Donnie could share a bowl of Purina Loser Chow on November 9th...

Obvious this crowd is brainwashed, as the only ones that seriously want Crooked Hillary are either globalists, dead or illegally here. We may lose due to this election being rigged (and get nuked by Russia as well), then again Brexit was supposed to lose too.

 

[deleted15807]

The difference is Hillary has had 20+ years of vetting and survived multiple investigations. Trump has never been investigated. Never had every aspect of his life pried apart for public approval. Outside of her being outed as a Russian agent I don't see what happened to Trump happening to Hillary. But anything is possible.

Additionally people are already voting which could hand the election to Hillary before Nov 9. I'm sure Putin and WikiLeaks isn't happy about that as they want to drip drip drip drop all the emails up to Election Day in the hopes of defeating Hillary.

 

[b.c.]

Additionally people are already voting which could hand the election to Hillary before Nov 9. I'm sure Putin and WikiLeaks isn't happy about that as they want to drip drip drip drop all the emails up to Election Day in the hopes of defeating Hillary.

Regarding hackers in general and people who have no respect for anyone's privacy except their own, as I've said, I've ALWAYS had a pretty LOW opinion of them, placing them among paparazzi, those who earn a living gossiping about the lives of others, and similar parasites and bottom feeders.

Assange in particular (who, I understand is on the lam, rather than answer questions about his own "proclivities") comes off as a HYPOCRITE, imo, because if you're REALLY interested in "truth" and freedom of information, then your "information" wouldn't be concerning ONLY Hillary or the Democratic party.

And if it IS, then you're deliberately trying to DICTATE who should be the next American president... for whatever reason.

The same is true with hacks traced back to Russia. One HAS to wonder why our adversaries like Putin and Assange so badly WANT Trump to be president.

 

[deleted15807]

Did you just come out against the Freedom of Information Act? That's clearly throwing the baby out with the bath water... the FOI has been incredibly useful to the citizens of this country... just because it's been used as a tool to harass your favorite politician doesn't mean that it is actually responsible for any of that harassment.


They aren't a "political weapon" of they don't make the media... if the average American doesn't hear about it in newspapers, the radio or on TV... HOW THE FUCK WOULD THEY EVER HEAR ABOUT IT?!?!? You are putting waaaay too much stock into Judicial Watch because it's had ZERO effect on this or any election.


Jesus Christ. Scaife gave $7.74 million to Judicial Watch but their yearly budget is fucking $35 million... how is this VAST funding?!?!?

If Judicial Watch was such a one sided Hillary hating organization... why the fuck did they:

1). join the Sierra Club in suit against the George Bush administration
2). Sue Halliburton over Cheney's corruption
or 3). Sue the Secret Service to get Abramoff's visits to the White House (during GWB's term)?

A right-leaning conservative political watchdog group that operates WITHIN the law doesn't seem to be a problem in my book... frivolous lawsuits are easily thrown out and are usually done so... I just don't see any problem with a right leaning political watchdog group that operates within the law...

Are you saying that Judicial Watch operates outside of the law? I've seen no evidence of that... it seems that them operating OUTSIDE of the law should be your only problem or complaint... I've seen nothing but whining from the Clinton camp about Judicial Watch and they have placed forth ZERO proven accusations of them operating outside of the law using nefarious tactics to politically smear their opponents.

First I did not mean to suggest FOI was bad however it is being used as a tool to go after political rivals. And then the frivlous lawsuits that follow pick up the task the task from there and the press coverage.

Second obviously dude you didn't read the links. I decline to go over it (redundant). Suffice it to say Richard Mellon Scaife used his immense wealth to help fund Clinton watch opps I mean Judicial Watch. As far as them having ZERO effect well let's just say that's bullshit.

Hillary Clinton email lawsuits
Judicial Watch to State Department: ‘Stop Sitting on New Clinton Emails’
Meet the conservative group that’s driving Clinton’s email scandal
Nearly half of Americans ‘very concerned’ about Clinton emails: Reuters/Ipsos poll

 

[deleted15807]

The same is true with hacks traced back to Russia. One HAS to wonder why our adversaries like Putin and Assange so badly WANT Trump to be president.

That's the burning question. He is in full alignment with Putin's policy which is clearly to reassert Russia as a global force and to destabilize NATO and the West. So much in alignment he is out of alignment with his own VP.

Donald Trump, Putin’s puppet​

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/10...Board-Donald-Trump-is-Vladimir-Putin-s-Puppet
Once again, the GOP nominee played the part of Vladimir Putin’s lawyer. “She doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking,” he said of Ms. Clinton. “Maybe there is no hacking.” Mr. Trump is receiving classified intelligence briefings, so he is certainly aware of the evidence that hackers backed by Moscow have stolen email and other records from the DNC and tried to penetrate state electoral systems. So why does he deny it?


And this:

Here’s what we don’t know: Does Mr. Trump propose this collaboration with a regime obsessed with thwarting and weakening American power out of ignorance and naivete, or because of personal and business interests he has not disclosed? Mr. Putin surely knows the answer to that question — but U.S. voters do not.

 

[Klingsor]

Today is Oct 13th. The election is on Nov 8th (though early voting starts sooner).

That's what I mean close, but not close enough. Election day is a month away. Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls, but she really just opened that lead in the last week.

If 1 week was enough to open a commanding lead, than another week is long enough to lose a commanding lead.

I want Clinton to win, but in no way is this game-over already.

She's held the lead over Trump since their respective nominations. Right now her win probability is the most commanding its ever been. The opposing party is in a shambles, and Trump is making himself look worse to undecideds every day.

Yes, people need to get out and vote, and no one should kick back and relax just yet. But still, I think it's a lot closer to "game-over" than you do.

 

[TexanStar]

She's held the lead over Trump since their respective nominations. Right now her win probability is the most commanding its ever been. The opposing party is in a shambles, and Trump is making himself look worse to undecideds every day.

Yes, people need to get out and vote, and no one should kick back and relax just yet. But still, I think it's a lot closer to "game-over" than you do.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Filter the graph to 3 months. That's roughly the timeframe from the GOP/Democratic conventions till now.

You can see that coming out of the conventions, Clinton was in slow but steady decline, and trump was in slow but steady gain, up to the time the debates started. At the start of the debates, Clinton only had a 1.5 point lead which is nice, but fairly small.

Clinton took off again after the first debate. Trump held steady, but started to fall after the release of all these crude / sexist remarks. Now Clinton has a 7 point lead.

Things look good for Hillary right now, but there's still enough time for things to change drastically if some other bombshell hits the press between now and Nov 8.

 

[Klingsor]

Things look good for Hillary right now, but there's still enough time for things to change drastically if some other bombshell hits the press between now and Nov 8.

There's always a chance, but you still have to ask: Where and how does Trump make up ground? In what states, among what demographics? When you break it down, especially at this late date, the numbers just aren't there.

But let's not argue. We want the same outcome, and I'll be out there voting, and keeping my fingers crossed, just like you.

 

[TexanStar]

There's always a chance, but you still have to ask: Where and how does Trump make up ground? In what states, among what demographics? When you break it down, especially at this late date, the numbers just aren't there.

But let's not argue. We want the same outcome, and I'll be out there voting, and keeping my fingers crossed, just like you.

It's the great unknown.

I mean, Donald's numbers really tanked after the "Grab her by the pussy" video came out. More than any other thing out there, that seems to be what's doing him in lately. Who could have predicted that? It was such a surprise bombshell.

Maybe something like that will come out of this email hack stuff. Maybe the email hack stuff isn't even real and it's forged. At this point, who knows

This election has been anything but predictable though, so I won't really be comfortable until Nov 9th rolls around

 

[thirteenbyseven]

Jessica Leeds, the 74-year-old woman who looks like the late actress Ann Davis (Alice from the Brady Bunch) who professes that she valiantly fought off the relentless sexual advances of Donald Trump on a mysterious airline flight in the early 1980s, is no stranger to us in Southern California. She owns a modest 2,100 sq. ft. ranch home built in 1952 on the Palos Verdes peninsula and was embroiled in a legal fight with Trump. You see Leed's small property adjoins his golf course.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/68335-Trump-Accuser-Jessica-Leeds-Busted?p=1184809

Soon after her story was splashed all over the media, memories were jogged here in Southern California. People began asking what were the odds this very same somewhat homely woman would be on a transcontinental flight back in 1980 with Donald Trump? Jessica said she instantly recognized him by his blond hair; long ago prior to those hilarious blond dye jobs Trump's hair was a darker shade of brown. Leeds then launched into a suspiciously scripted diatribe about Donald Trump's sexual advances in first class in which he reached underneath her skirt toward her womanhood. Nary a "stewardess" (flight attendant) came to her rescue.

My question: When Ms. Jessica Leeds' story is exposed as false, will the media do a retraction with the same zeal they first reported of the supposed in-flight sexual advance/assault? I think not.

Watch for CNN/NBC/ABC to do a 5-second CYA retraction before launching into another hour-long tirade on Donald Trump.

 

[deleted15807]

Jessica Leeds, the 74-year-old woman who looks like the late actress Ann Davis (Alice from the Brady Bunch) who professes that she valiantly fought off the relentless sexual advances of Donald Trump on a mysterious airline flight in the early 1980s, is no stranger to us in Southern California. She owns a modest 2,100 sq. ft. ranch home built in 1952 on the Palos Verdes peninsula and was embroiled in a legal fight with Trump. You see Leed's small property adjoins his golf course.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/68335-Trump-Accuser-Jessica-Leeds-Busted?p=1184809

Soon after her story was splashed all over the media, memories were jogged here in Southern California. People began asking what were the odds this very same somewhat homely woman would be on a transcontinental flight back in 1980 with Donald Trump? Jessica said she instantly recognized him by his blond hair; long ago prior to those hilarious blond dye jobs Trump's hair was a darker shade of brown. Leeds then launched into a suspiciously scripted diatribe about Donald Trump's sexual advances in first class in which he reached underneath her skirt toward her womanhood. Nary a "stewardess" (flight attendant) came to her rescue.

My question: When Ms. Jessica Leeds' story is exposed as false, will the media do a retraction with the same zeal they first reported of the supposed in-flight sexual advance/assault? I think not.

Watch for CNN/NBC/ABC to do a 5-second CYA retraction before launching into another hour-long tirade on Donald Trump.

Let me understand. You point to another political forum that has what looks like a doctored photo as evidence? And now you expect the networks to issue a retraction? You do know there are many women coming forward? All false too? Exactly where do you get your news?

 

[thirteenbyseven]

Sargon20, Donald Trump is a loudmouthed uncouth pig, but Jessica Leeds' fight with Donald Trump and the ficus trees was all-over the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, KABC Channel 7, (etc.) years ago when he put-in that golf course in Palos Verdes. That is Donald Trump's same greatest and best in the world golf course where a green disappeared into the Pacific Ocean during a landslide.

Google some info on her and you'll see she has no credibility whatsoever. The other women's stories may have more validity and my sympathy is with them.