EPTTrump is not prepare for the Notorious RBG. She will die in that office before she lets Trump replace her.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4255
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Trump is not prepare for the Notorious RBG. She will die in that office before she lets Trump replace her. | ||
KwarK
United States44283 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:23 zeo wrote: Nope. Here is a completely biased Democrat source: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12079366/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-plane-meeting Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html She explained her reasoning for accepting their recommendations after the meeting. She decided months before. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote: So you're suggesting that Bill Clinton somehow got to her and convinced her to accept the recommendations of the FBI if they found Hillary's actions illegal? Do you think he wants her in prison so he can move one of his mistresses in? Like what's the theory here? He goes to someone he has influence over and says "I need you not to intervene in my favour"? How would that help Hillary? I'm saying she had a 20 minute chat with Bill Clinton, then did something highly irregular that in the end helped Clinton's wife. Enough to call her in for a chat no? She decided months before. Sure she did mate... but it was a super top secret  | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:23 LegalLord wrote: This hearing is basically a mix of Lynch answering off-topic questions given by Dems and giving non-answers to anything asked by Republicans. Whether or not this is a Republican witch hunt... it certainly is being given credence by the dodger-in-chief here. I think this is a standard oversight hearing, not one called by the Republicans. I don't think there is a specific topic. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:26 zeo wrote: I'm saying she had a 20 minute chat with Bill Clinton, then did something highly irregular that in the end helped Clinton's wife. Enough to call her in for a chat no? One could choose to believe that. But if they wanted to do something underhanded, why not use a phone? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44283 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:26 zeo wrote: I'm saying she had a 20 minute chat with Bill Clinton, then did something highly irregular that in the end helped Clinton's wife. Enough to call her in for a chat no? How did publicly refusing to use her power to change the outcome and instead passing the matter to an impartial investigatory body help the Clintons? I'm just not getting it. She was in a position to influence the outcome and even if she didn't use her power people would question the outcome if it didn't go the way they wanted so to avoid even the appearance of impropriety she stated that she would accept the FBI's recommendation. Even if you think Bill was trying to get to her you surely must concede that it backfired completely and forced her into a position where she couldn't do anything to help him, even if she wanted to, or else risk undermining the process. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
Seriously, lol. How much can the Republican expect to milk every minor scandal they find? Anyway. Sanders supporters apparently intend at 85% to vote for Clinton so I believe the race is basically over. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:29 WhiteDog wrote: Give Hillary Clinton a 35 $ ticket and change the subject or what ? There is evidence of widespread corruption in every layer of Obama's administration. 35 years in prison more like when the shit really hits the fan with the Clinton Foundation. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:31 zeo wrote: There is evidence of widespread corruption in every layer of Obama's administration. 35 years in prison more like when the shit really hits the fan with the Clinton Foundation. You have some source on that ? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:29 WhiteDog wrote: Give Hillary Clinton a 35 $ ticket and change the subject or what ? This thing about the email has been discussed for over a year and I've read nothing to really makes me think it has any kind of relevance aside from the fact that Hillary does not handle her email with enough precaution. You and the general public. Something like 80% said it would not influence their vote. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:33 Plansix wrote: You and the general public. Something like 80% said it would not influence their vote. 58% A Washington Post/ABC News poll, released Monday, found that 56% of American adults disapprove of the FBI's decision, while 35% said they approved. But a majority -- 58% -- also said the issue would not affect their vote in the 2016 presidential election. (from the above source) | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
wrt to Clinton, Marc Rich | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:35 LegalLord wrote: If the Republican party were even somewhat functional as a national entity this would be more than enough to sink Hillary and steamroll to victory. Polls say a majority think she should be charged. But no. Instead they put forward a field in which Trump was the strongest candidate and they somehow thought Jeb Bush would be the winner. And they got hammered for it. 58% (from the above source) Yeah, I just looked it up and I was off. Sadly I am seeing few stats for independents. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote: Yeah, I just looked it up and I was off. Sadly I am seeing few stats for independents. From what I've seen, the independents are somewhat with the Republicans on this issue in a 60-40 split or so. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:35 LegalLord wrote: If the Republican party were even somewhat functional as a national entity this would be more than enough to sink Hillary and steamroll to victory. Polls say a majority think she should be charged. But no. Instead they put forward a field in which Trump was the strongest candidate and they somehow thought Jeb Bush would be the winner. And they got hammered for it. 58% (from the above source) Well, out of the 42%, you have probably an immense majority of Republican who will auto answer anything negative to Clinton if given the opportunity. If you think anyone who is not clearly partisan against Clinton will base their vote on an obscure email server mishandling, you are seriously, seriously, seriously delusional. At that point, no one remotely liberal gives a fuck about those emails, and everyone sees that this fake scandal is ridiculously and artificially inflated. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
This is just an example: Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff. The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later. abcnews.go.com Give money to Bill, get favors from Hill. For instance, Russia gained control of 25% of American uranium production thanks to Hillary Clinton getting paid $3 million by Rosatom http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html edit: Just google Clinton Foundation edit2: Actually the Russian government and other foreigners gave more than 145 million to the Clinton Foundation, my bad. And its 20% of uranium. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: Anyway. Sanders supporters apparently intend at 85% to vote for Clinton so I believe the race is basically over. Another poster offered betting me a 90-day ban over this a couple weeks ago so I assume this is allowed. I'm confident Trump is going to beat Hillary in November. If Trump loses to Hillary, then I will accept a 90-day ban. If Hillary loses to Trump, then you accept a 90-day ban. If either isn't one of the candidates in November for any reason (Trump gets assassinated, Hillary is indicted etc etc) the bet is null and void. Willing to bet on this? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44283 Posts
On July 13 2016 02:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Another poster offered betting me a 90-day ban over this a couple weeks ago so I assume this is allowed. I'm confident Trump is going to beat Hillary in November. If Trump loses to Hillary, then I will accept a 90-day ban. If Hillary loses to Trump, then you accept a 90-day ban. If either isn't one of the candidates in November for any reason (Trump gets assassinated, Hillary is indicted etc etc) the bet is null and void. Willing to bet on this? I will take this. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
LOL is that possible for a mod? great I accept the deal then with Kwark Bill if you're down too I'll still bet you So the only difference is if I lose it goes up to a 180 day ban for me. | ||
| ||
