|
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. |
On October 08 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing. How many documents have they released that were 100% accurate? How many that weren't?
Are they even releasing full documents anymore? They got all their credibility from a giant dump of government info, but lately it's been live stream conferences and tweets and interpretive articles.
Same thing as the Guccifer "leak". If the docs and info are that juicy, they'd probably be releasing them as is.
Trump's tax returns got dropped in package. This latest thing was full unedited audio. All the Hillary stuff lately is quote mining, breadcrumbs and cropped screenshots.
|
United States41989 Posts
On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that.
Bill isn't a candidate.
|
If Trump goes with the Bill said worse argument during the debate, it isn't going to play well. Just like his whole I wasn't the only one to be charged for racist Tennant practices defense failed.
|
Wait, so apparently the guy Trump was talking to on those tapes, Billy Bush, is the first cousin of the presidential Bushes (he's the son of H.W.'s brother). So apparently "low energy" is coming back to him after all these months.
|
On October 08 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing. How many documents have they released that were 100% accurate? How many that weren't? Are they even releasing full documents anymore? They got all their credibility from a giant dump of government info, but lately it's been live stream conferences and tweets and interpretive articles. Same thing as the Guccifer "leak". If the docs and info are that juicy, they'd probably be releasing them as is. Trump's tax returns got dropped in package. This latest thing was full unedited audio. All the Hillary stuff lately is quote mining, breadcrumbs and cropped screenshots.
The catch is Hillary is more careful with her words/actions (see the droning Assange "I don't recall"). So it takes a bit more than just leaked lewdness or speculating about a tax document.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
|
I wonder if Sanders will get a spot in Hillary's cabinet.
|
On October 08 2016 06:51 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:The U.S. on Friday blamed the Russian government for the hacking of political sites and accused Moscow of trying to interfere with the upcoming presidential election.
Pressure has been mounting on the Obama administration to call out Russia for the hacking of U.S. political sites and email accounts. Federal officials are investigating cyberattacks at the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Election data systems in at least two states also have been breached.
"We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a joint statement with the Department of Homeland Security.
The statement said recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails on websites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks, and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona, are consistent with the methods and motivations of efforts directed by Russia, which has denied involvement. Yahoonbd Obama blames Russia... so what else is new? Telling the public how Russians are hacking and then fabricating Hillary's emails so that her crimes be ignored. When democrats are just incompetent at keeping classified information hidden that exploits their crimes what do they do, they blame Russia. This would also come in handy because, Trump is a russian spy as he said that Putin is a strong leader... Clinton should just drone Assange already and save herself more embarrassment, thats what her solution was for the leaks anyway...
Sorry but you failed at justifying hacking to influence an election. And you're being dishonest if you don't admit that's what happened.
|
On October 08 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 08 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing. How many documents have they released that were 100% accurate? How many that weren't? Are they even releasing full documents anymore? They got all their credibility from a giant dump of government info, but lately it's been live stream conferences and tweets and interpretive articles. Same thing as the Guccifer "leak". If the docs and info are that juicy, they'd probably be releasing them as is. Trump's tax returns got dropped in package. This latest thing was full unedited audio. All the Hillary stuff lately is quote mining, breadcrumbs and cropped screenshots. The catch is Hillary is more careful with her words/actions (see the droning Assange "I don't recall"). So it takes a bit more than just leaked lewdness or speculating about a tax document. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
Isn't there a much simpler explanation for the only evidence being still-unrelated quote mining, bread crumbs, and cropped screenshots?
Namely, that they're not actually liars at all?
At this point I'm pretty sure someone could take my phone calls to my parents where I thought Bernie Sanders was going to lose, connect me by two or three degrees to the DNC, and then post it as evidence the election was rigged.
|
On October 08 2016 07:50 On_Slaught wrote:
If Trump goes with the Bill said worse argument during the debate, it isn't going to play well. Just like his whole I wasn't the only one to be charged for racist Tennant practices defense failed.
Because it concedes the truth of the charge. Saying, "well the other guy is just as bad" admits that you are bad without proving the other guy is bad.
|
On October 08 2016 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 05:35 Wolfstan wrote:On October 08 2016 04:55 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 04:43 Yoav wrote:On October 07 2016 21:17 farvacola wrote:
Libertarians aren't really "liberal" relative to social issues in the first place; though "hands off" government lines up with some socially liberal policies, namely drug policy and church/state separation, it definitely doesn't line up with others, such as abortion access, welfare programs, and housing regulation/oversight. Kinda depends on the flavoring of libertarian, but ideological libertarianism is fine with abortion. Unlikely to government fund it (or much of anything else) though. Welfare and housing regulation are properly economic policies, not social. Libertarians and healthcare is a weird issue. Because they don’t want the government to provide or mandate healthcare, but won’t go full Charles Dickens and have people be kicked out of emergency rooms if they can’t pay. So it isn’t a free market in any way, but the government shouldn’t be involved(unless people can’t pay and will die, then its fine). I see government Healthcare as a transaction, money for services. Same thing as other government services/infrastructure too. Re intelligence success: about a month or 2 ago the FBI gave the Canadians intel on a suicide bomber that we got as he was leaving the house, no casualties except the bomber. I don't know the details of the case you're talking about, but often these "catches" are the agency finding someone on the internet who says obscene things, convincing them they could do more, then telling them they can help them get weapons, giving them the weapons, then arresting them when they try to use them. Has a disturbing sort of pre-cog policing feel to it. But I was generally thinking about slightly larger scale endeavors. Guess we'll have to go with total moron, instead of intentionally throwing the election.
www.cbc.ca\
There's the link of Intelligence being greater than force. He was known and observed, had few of his rights taken away(unable to use PC or cellphone) without being charged. Shot him only twice in confrontation. There was no entrapment and everything seemed to have been done by the book.
It's an unusual year where liberals are incredibly distrusting and conservative are showing remarkable faith in public institutions.
|
On October 08 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that. Bill isn't a candidate.
Neither was the Donald 10 years ago. Bill's gift to politics was lowering the bar, showing everyone that politicians are also people and we don't have to care about things that don't matter with respect to that.
|
On October 08 2016 08:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that. Bill isn't a candidate. Neither was the Donald 10 years ago. Bill's gift to politics was lowering the bar, showing everyone that politicians are also people and we don't have to care about things that don't matter with respect to that.
So you think sexual assault is ok and something a president think is acceptable?
|
On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... Show nested quote +The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source
There's still the issue of the number of agencies required to approve the Uranium One deal. Did Podesta/Fernandez/Clinton exercise influence over the other agencies?
|
On October 08 2016 08:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 08:07 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that. Bill isn't a candidate. Neither was the Donald 10 years ago. Bill's gift to politics was lowering the bar, showing everyone that politicians are also people and we don't have to care about things that don't matter with respect to that. So you think sexual assault is ok?
You may be the single worst poster in five thousand pages of this thread.
|
Also, when did this Wikileaks article get posted? Was it before or after the Trump audio leak?
If it was after they really need to do a better job covering up how deeply they want him to win.
|
On October 08 2016 08:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that. Bill isn't a candidate. Neither was the Donald 10 years ago. Bill's gift to politics was lowering the bar, showing everyone that politicians are also people and we don't have to care about things that don't matter with respect to that.
This is some of your worst false equivalence. Bill isn't a candidate now or in 2005. But Trump is the Republican nominee right now. What Trump said when he was 60 years old matters.
If you wanted to make some kind of useless deflection via equivalence here, you would need to go back to the late 80s and find Bill saying something bad that was ignored prior to his presidential run in 1992.
|
On October 08 2016 08:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that. Bill isn't a candidate. Neither was the Donald 10 years ago. Bill's gift to politics was lowering the bar, showing everyone that politicians are also people and we don't have to care about things that don't matter with respect to that.
Trump described nothing short of sexual assault. Getting a blow job is not sexual assault.
|
On October 08 2016 08:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 08:08 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 08:07 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that. Bill isn't a candidate. Neither was the Donald 10 years ago. Bill's gift to politics was lowering the bar, showing everyone that politicians are also people and we don't have to care about things that don't matter with respect to that. So you think sexual assault is ok? You may be the single worst poster in five thousand pages of this thread.
I enjoy your mental gymnastics defend Trump and the whataboutism.
|
On October 08 2016 08:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that. Bill isn't a candidate. Neither was the Donald 10 years ago. Bill's gift to politics was lowering the bar, showing everyone that politicians are also people and we don't have to care about things that don't matter with respect to that.
"grab her by the pussy"
|
To be fair, no one should doubt that Bill Clinton is a disgusting monster when it comes to women. It's appalling to have him in the white house again, but right now we're talking about Hillary vs Donald.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
