They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Monker]

Splitting hairs now. Favoritism means the DNC was not impartial. If they are not impartial, then it wasn't a fair contest.

"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.

Is that fair? Is that 'right'? Is that the way Democrats should handle independents entering their party to run in primaries? That is not up to me to decide because....I AM NOT A DEMORCRAT. I don't care.

But, what it is NOT is 'rigged'. If it were 'rigged', Bernie would not win caucuses - which are CONTROLED BY THE PARTY, primaries are not. Caucuses were Bernie's STRONGEST CONTESTS. In a rigged election, that would not be true. The debate schedule may be closer to what Clinton wanted than what Bernie wanted...but, they ADDED three extra debates, for a total of nine. I'm sure Clinton would have rather only had three or so. So, again, in a "rigged" election, Bernie would not be getting his way and things would be even more in favor of Clinton.

You keep referencing some "specific conversation", but you have defended Donna and the DNC countless times on here. So it's meaningless.

Quite lying. I have not defended Donna Brazille. The ONLY time I have brought her up was in context of an example of my opinion of Wikileaks, or to continously repeat it because you have a thick skull surrounding a bowling ball brain that doesn't read or take anything in context.

Zzzzzz. I don't need a personal manifesto to know you are a Hillary shill.

Then do not question my motives of saying I identify more with Libertarians than Democrats or Republicans and give examples of Libertarians who I may disagree with. If you don't want to know my philosophy, don't question it.

Oh sure. And maybe she emailed Jeb Bush and Trump. Y'know, CNN has Republican debates also.

Maybe she did. Maybe she Emailed ME. Maybe not. YOU DO NOT *KNOW* and are only guessing.

Laughable spin. Now you are claiming Donna can't legally release emails because debate questions are the property of Time Warner/CNN?

No, what I am saying is ANY Email she sent from CNN is the property of CNN. Check with the company YOU work for...any Email you send from your company account is THEIR property - not yours. And, you do not know what Emails she sent, from where, who owns them, and if she can legaly release them. NOBODY DOES but her.

You can make this claim about ANY leak to the press. You could argue that Ellsberg only released some of the Pentagon Papers to make Nixon looks evil. Let's focus on what we do know -Donna Brazile emailed debate questions in advance to Hillary. When exposed, she was condemned by CNN and fired.

Which does not equate to rigging an election.

You have now gone from denying the election was rigged to playing semantic games. Give me a break.

The election was NOT rigged.

YOU are changing your claims in the middle of a conversation. There is a big difference from saying Brazille "cheated" and saying she "rigged an election". It is not even "semantics"...it is a complete change in the conversation....and YOU are the one attempting to do it.

Sure it does. The idea that Donna cheated fairly (what an oxymoron!) with all the candidates has as much basis in reality as your "private server" lie.

I have no idea what you are even talking about here.

The "idea" that she "cheated fairly" was HERS, not mine. I used HER WORDS in an attempt to show your thick skulled, bowling ball brain, that I do not trust Wikileaks.

You may not like my reasons, but they are mine - not yours.

Nothing says "confidence" like limiting the debates, delaying them, and dumping them on lowly-watched Saturdays.

When was that note even written? Early in the campaign when she was ahead in the polls by 20pts or so?

Of course that is the schedule she wanted...to not give Bernie a chance to catch up. That is how ALL front runners act.

A dark horse candidate from Vermont with no name recognition is supposed to financially support the party? You're insane.

Then don't bitch about Bernie not having any power during the election...Clinton threw away tens of millions of dollars into the DNC and essentially financed it with her campaign during the election. You may not like her tactics but she ensured the DNC was in HER back pocket...and Bernie dropped the ball on it.

[Boomchild]

"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.

So are you saying that the voters shouldn't be the ones who choose who represents their party? That it is OK that it comes down to a handful or one person who is on the committee? If that's the case, then the party needs a name other then one with the word Democratic in it.

[Monker]

"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.

So are you saying that the voters shouldn't be the ones who choose who represents their party? That it is OK that it comes down to a handful or one person who is on the committee? If that's the case, then the party needs a name other then one with the word Democratic in it.

No, I am saying this is a PARTY ISSUE. I am not a member of the party. Therefore, I DO NOT CARE. If Democrats want to change how Democrats nominate a candidate for President for the Democratic party - then DEMOCRATS need to decide if the chair of the DNC can favor one candidate over another. When people who are NOT Democrats start telling the party how to act, it's irrelevent bullshit. They do not vote for the candidate. They have nothing at st to do with it.

And, BTW, it was NOT that long ago when the party DID nominate the candidates. Republicans did the same thing.

Also, voters DID choose Clinton. THAT IS MY POINT. It was NOT "rigged" to where votes did not matter.

[The_Noble_Cause]

"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.

WRONG (as usual) – “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”


The difference between “rigged” and “cheating” is not a debate I am interested in. Initially, you denied ANY unethical behavior on the part of the DNC. That spin has now been shot to shit so you are engaging in stupid word games. Nobody cares. Elizabeth Warren said it was rigged. Debbie Wasserman was forced out when her cheating was exposed. Hillary was controlling all aspects of the DNC before she even the nominee. Party rules were repeatedly broken. End of story.

But, what it is NOT is 'rigged'. If it were 'rigged', Bernie would not win caucuses - which are CONTROLED BY THE PARTY, primaries are not. Caucuses were Bernie's STRONGEST CONTESTS. In a rigged election, that would not be true. The debate schedule may be closer to what Clinton wanted than what Bernie wanted...but, they ADDED three extra debates, for a total of nine. I'm sure Clinton would have rather only had three or so. So, again, in a "rigged" election, Bernie would not be getting his way and things would be even more in favor of Clinton.

Blah blah blah. You went from having your head up your ass about this completely to now playing word games like a child. Here’s an idea… instead of rigged or cheating, maybe say there was “collusion” between the DNC and Hillary. That seems to be your favorite word these days anyhow.

Quite lying. I have not defended Donna Brazille. The ONLY time I have brought her up was in context of an example of my opinion of Wikileaks, or to continously repeat it because you have a thick skull surrounding a bowling ball brain that doesn't read or take anything in context.

CNN doesn’t say Donna emailed the other candidates. In fact, they fired her ass. O’Malley, Webb, and Sanders have not said that they received debate questions from Donna. The press doesn’t claim it either. Only two people have said this: Donna and YOU. And as I have said, Donna could very easily release those emails.

Then do not question my motives of saying I identify more with Libertarians than Democrats or Republicans and give examples of Libertarians who I may disagree with. If you don't want to know my philosophy, don't question it.

I’ve been involved with the Libertarian movement on many levels. I even produced a Libertarian radio show for several years and still have good friends involved in the party. None of them are ranting about Russia and defending Hillary. You are not a Libertarian. Just stop.

Maybe she did. Maybe she Emailed ME. Maybe not. YOU DO NOT *KNOW* and are only guessing.

What is KNOWN is that she emailed debate questions to Hillary and her campaign. She got fired for it. The idea that these Podesta emails were selectively released is nonsense. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS WERE RELEASED (many mundane and a few explosive).

No, what I am saying is ANY Email she sent from CNN is the property of CNN. Check with the company YOU work for...any Email you send from your company account is THEIR property - not yours. And, you do not know what Emails she sent, from where, who owns them, and if she can legaly release them. NOBODY DOES but her.

We already went over this. The email she used is donna@brazileassociates.com

Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
From:jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
To: donna@brazileassociates.com, balcantara@hillaryclinton.com
CC: john.podesta@gmail.com, Minyon.Moore@deweysquare.com
Date: 2016-03-12 19:41
Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

So now your imaginary theory requires us to believe that Donna not only released emails to ALL candidates (still cheating), but that she used multiple accounts depending on the candidate?

YOU are changing your claims in the middle of a conversation. There is a big difference from saying Brazille "cheated" and saying she "rigged an election". It is not even "semantics"...it is a complete change in the conversation....and YOU are the one attempting to do it.

Nobody on here was ever debating the difference between “rigging” an election in Hillary’s favor and “cheating” to ensure her win. Not a dime’s worth of difference anyway. You are just attempting to semantically muddy the waters because the DNC corruption has been exposed and you look like a Pollyanna dumbass.

The "idea" that she "cheated fairly" was HERS, not mine. I used HER WORDS in an attempt to show your thick skulled, bowling ball brain, that I do not trust Wikileaks.

Donna is not here. You are the one posting repeatedly that Donna submitted debate questions to all candidates. This is YOUR viewpoint. And as mentioned already…

1) Leaking questions (to anyone) is still cheating
2) No candidates back this up
3) Donna could easily release those emails (or leak to the press)

When was that note even written? Early in the campaign when she was ahead in the polls by 20pts or so?

Do your own research asshole.

Then don't bitch about Bernie not having any power during the election...Clinton threw away tens of millions of dollars into the DNC and essentially financed it with her campaign during the election. You may not like her tactics but she ensured the DNC was in HER back pocket...and Bernie dropped the ball on it.

It’s about fairness, not power. Why aren’t you demanding that Obama financially support the DNC? Bernie was supported by small dollar donations. This is more sour grapes by you over the fact that Bernie stole Hillary’s liberal thunder. You were on here everyday saying Hillary would win and she lost. She’s a loser and so are you.

[The_Noble_Cause]

If Democrats want to change how Democrats nominate a candidate for President for the Democratic party - then DEMOCRATS need to decide if the chair of the DNC can favor one candidate over another.

DNC's own charter states that "the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

Drop the bullshit. This is just another issue where you are pretending to know what you are talking about.

[Monker]

If Democrats want to change how Democrats nominate a candidate for President for the Democratic party - then DEMOCRATS need to decide if the chair of the DNC can favor one candidate over another.

DNC's own charter states that "the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

Drop the bullshit. This is just another issue where you are pretending to know what you are talking about.

Dude, you're a nut. Do you not understand that I am not a Democrat? I do not care about their charter. I do not care if Brazille gets kicked out of the party. This is a DEMOCRATIC PARTY ISSUE...and I am not a member of the party. I do not give a damn.

[Monker]

"Not impartial" does not equate to rigged either. Donna Brazille herself freely admits that she favored Clinton. That as head of the DNC, it was her job to do what was best for the party and in her opinion, Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie.

WRONG (as usual) – “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

I said nothing wrong. "As usual" you are trying to turn this argument into something else. All I am doing is repeating what Donna Brazille said. If it disagress and violoates the charter - complain to the DNC about it - not me. I'm not even a Democrat. and can't help you with your issues with your party.

Initially, you denied ANY unethical behavior on the part of the DNC.

That is simply a lie. I had not even commented on the topic until I used Donna Brazille as an example of why I do not read Wikileaks....and you twisted that into defending her, which I was not doing and is a lie.

Elizabeth Warren said it was rigged.

So, she's wrong...and she is a politician who may run in 2020 and saying stuff like this energizes her base.

Debbie Wasserman was forced out when her cheating was exposed.

And, I have never commented on it...and I have no reason to because I am not a Democrat.

Hillary was controlling all aspects of the DNC before she even the nominee.

I already said that.

Party rules were repeatedly broken. End of story.

Correct. It does not end with a rigged election.

CNN doesn’t say Donna emailed the other candidates.

That doesn't mean she didn't...you don't KNOW if she did or not.

In fact, they fired her ass.

Yeah, which has nothing to do with you not knowing if she Emailed the other Candidates.

O’Malley, Webb, and Sanders have not said that they received debate questions from Donna.

Again, it doesn't mean they didn't. I would never expect them to admit it anyway. In fact, even if they said they didn't they could be lying so they don't look like "cheaters".

The press doesn’t claim it either.

Again, irrelevent.

[qute] Only two people have said this: Donna and YOU.[/quote]

Not true. Donna said it and said I she said it.

And as I have said, Donna could very easily release those emails.

But, she doesn't have to and you still don't know if she Emailed the other candidates.

The fact is you do not know. Period.

I’ve been involved with the Libertarian movement on many levels. I even produced a Libertarian radio show for several years and still have good friends involved in the party. None of them are ranting about Russia and defending Hillary. You are not a Libertarian. Just stop.

Wow. So, to be a member of a political party (which I'm not, just to make clear), a person MUST agree with every body YOU know who is a member of that party. Wow, you are one powerful dude. Glad I'm not a member of any party and simply say I relate best to Libertarians and if I had to chose a party that is they one I would choose. I am sorry I do not meet your LIberarian standards. Not.


[quote[

Maybe she did. Maybe she Emailed ME. Maybe not. YOU DO NOT *KNOW* and are only guessing.

What is KNOWN is that she emailed debate questions to Hillary and her campaign. She got fired for it. The idea that these Podesta emails were selectively released is nonsense. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS WERE RELEASED (many mundane and a few explosive).[/quote]

And, isn't it amazing that you still don't know if she Emailed the other candidates? You just do not know.

No, what I am saying is ANY Email she sent from CNN is the property of CNN. Check with the company YOU work for...any Email you send from your company account is THEIR property - not yours. And, you do not know what Emails she sent, from where, who owns them, and if she can legaly release them. NOBODY DOES but her.

We already went over this. The email she used is donna@brazileassociates.com

And, she could have used another to Email other people. And, who owns brazileassociates.com? You don't know. I tried to look it up and it seems to be private...oooooh, scary, maybe CNN owns it? Maybe FOX News owns it. Maybe *I* own it!

So now your imaginary theory requires us to believe that Donna not only released emails to ALL candidates (still cheating), but that she used multiple accounts depending on the candidate?

No, it simply requires you to understand that she probably has more than one Email account. I have three, right now.

The "idea" that she "cheated fairly" was HERS, not mine. I used HER WORDS in an attempt to show your thick skulled, bowling ball brain, that I do not trust Wikileaks.

Donna is not here. You are the one posting repeatedly that Donna submitted debate questions to all candidates.

Not true...I have repetedly said that SHE said and you do not know.

[/quote]It’s about fairness, not power.[/quote]

No, it's about power...the power Clinton had over the DNC. The power Brazille had as chair.

Why aren’t you demanding that Obama financially support the DNC?

Because I am not a Democrat and have no reason to care.

With Sanders, you are claiming the election was rigged - it wasn't If you are going to bitch and whine about Clinton having so much power then you have to admit that if it was that important to Sanders, he could have donated to the DNC in a significant way and entered into an agreement as well. It's politics...politics doesn't play fair.

[S2M]

FFS! I feel as though I've stepped back in time, and walked in on a taping of Romper Room. You fucking kids are pitiful.

But you know what? You're proving my point with every post you make. And this, children, is exactly what the two-party system was invented for...division. Us vs. Them.

Republicans couldn't give a shit about Hill...just the 'D' beside her name. And Democrats, the same no fucks to give about Clyde, just the 'R' next to his...

Neither party has a fucking clear, concise message/platform, other than the almighty dollar. People go into civics/public service/politics for NO other reason than to make money. And you folks are perpetuating the cycle.

All I hear about are Hill's emails...or the 17 whatever-the-fuck-they-are, that KFC, and Santa Claus keep talking about...WHO GIVES A FUCK?!

Me? Since no one's asking, I'll chime in....I don't care if someone has a 'D', an 'R', or any other letter next to their name - if someone is shady...I want him/her gone. D, R, I, or Green. GONE. I have no loyalty to any party, and/or affiliate. How can someone back anyone who is shady? Whitewater, Trump University...WHATEVER. Sooner or later ALL politicos will have something nefarious in their dossier.

But you know something...if this country was doing well - I wouldn't care what the fuck the president was doing. During Slick Willie's tenure this country was doing amazing. I couldn't care less if he was getting some strange on the side. I had ZERO fucks to give. Today? This country isn't doing nearly as well, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

But it's great theatre watching you folks battling it out like you are in a Senate Sub-Committee on Senility, and its causes.

[Boomchild]

But you know what? You're proving my point with every post you make. And this, children, is exactly what the two-party system was invented for...division. Us vs. Them.

Great. Except in reality the two party system you are referring to no longer exists. We now have a government that is in reality one party playing two card monte on the citizens. To put it another way, the Dems are one side of the coin and the Reps are the other side of the SAME coin. Perhaps we are witnessing is due to human nature, meaning self preservation. The fact that our society has become so self centric hasn't helped either.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Dude, you're a nut. Do you not understand that I am not a Democrat?

Based on what?

You repeating Donna Brazile's spin about her debate cheating?
You lying and saying Hillary had permission to use a private server?
You calling everyone you don't agree with Russian slurs?

You are a little Democratic bitch.


Here's an oldie but a goodie...

And, yet she will still be the Democrat nominee and will beat Trump in a landslide...the last Clinton vs. Trump poll I saw had Clinton beating him by over 10pts. He has about as much chance at winning the election as Bernie has right now of winning the nomination.

LOL. Spoken like a true Libertarian, right? GTFOH

[slucero]

lmao............. news media is turning on HRC...

NEW ALLEGATIONS OF A STATE DEPARTMENT COVER-UP
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52184794/t/ne ... -cover-up/

By Evan Puschak
The Last Word
updated 6/12/2013 5:16:40 PM ET

New allegations rocking the State Department involve alleged incidents during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.

NBC News has obtained documents tied to ongoing investigations at the State Department involving eight cases of alleged misconduct by state department workers, contractors, and a United States ambassador. The incidents reportedly occurred during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, according to the documents.

An internal Inspector General memo from last October reported the ambassador under investigation “routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children.” The report also states that a high-ranking official at the State Department directed investigators to “cease the investigation.”

The ambassador, whom NBC News has chosen not to identify, denied all allegations.

While refusing to comment on the specific investigations, a state department spokesperson said “the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct in a case, in any case, is preposterous.”

[Monker]

1. Roy Moore now has a defense. He was a Democrat when he did those things and that makes it perfectly acceptable.

2. I think the DOJ and Sessions have been caught in a lie defending Uranium One. John Soloman and Sara Carter are having none of it and will produce damning evidence next week hanging the Clintons and Russia. The informant is livid about his words being twisted, or out and out lied about, and has given Soloman and Carter what he had. He is also battleing Cancer. He even has video of the Russians calling Americans stupid while they open brief cases of money. Much of this went down when Hillary was a Senator. I think the lid is about one or two weeks from blowing off Boomchild.

3. Didn't take Dems very long to turn on Frankin did it? Rats deserting their ship. Glad to see he's done and by the same game liberals play.

I do not see anything that said Franklin is "done". The first words he said after being accused of this were "I'm sorry" and HIM asking for an ethics review. He did the right thing, or at least seems to be trying to.

On the other hand, Donald Jackoff Trump calls everybody a liar and denies it all and will not admit to doing ANYTHING wrong. Donald Jackoff Trump does not saying ANYTHING about Roy Moore but Tweets about Franklin hours after he is accused. He is a perverted hypocrite and has no moral ground to stand on. He is a man who routinely sexually assaults women and uses the sexual assault of women as a political tool.

Roy Moore also denies it all and has admitted nothing. It was only after a half dozen women came forward that Republicans started condemning him...IMO, only because it was politically required to do so....and as I said, Trump has yet to condemn him. McConnell knows that if he is going have a moral high ground against Democrats, he has to stand up against people like Moore.

IMO, the public attitude is different than it was a year ago and Trump weighing in AT ALL puts focus on the Access Hollywood tape and his own dozen or so accusers. If one instance is enough to force Franken out of off, or a half dozen or so enough to force Moore out of his election, than a dozen or more should be more than enough to force Trump out of office.

[Monker]

Moore is a scumbag, but it's also a hit job to ruin his election and it worked.After 40 years she waits until one month before the election then can't live with it?

There are six women who spoke about Moore's sexual advances towards them when they were teens. In addition, one guy claimed Moore was on a watch list for a mall. Other people claim it was well known that Moore had a thing for teen girls.

I don't know if Trump has mentioned anything about either.

Then you are not paying attention. HOURS after the news of Franken, Trump tweeted the pic and made comments about "Al Frankenstien". Trump is a hypocrite and has no morals himself.

As far as "People like Moore", his is all hear say at this point, although I think he's guilty as hell,

Of course he is guilty. He is bordering on being a pedophile. And, Trump has no room to criticize these things, since he bragged about going backstage to see teens changing during Ms Teen USA.

Frankin is photographed.

And, Moore signed a yearbook.

There were many instances brought up on Frankin and another woman has appeared, with more to come I'm sure.

The other woman was on Politicaly Incorrect with Bill Maher. It sounds like the two argued and they BOTH obsessed about winning the argument. It had NOTHING to do with sexual assault.

If Frankin was a Republican, you'd all be screaming for his ass.

WRONG. I had NOTHING to say about Moore until Trump started commenting on Franken....to me, it is about Trump. Again, I see this as party politics that I really want nothing to do with. BUT, I *DO* have lots to say about Trump...his actions were never brought to a conclusion..they just were put on the backburner in favor of the next distraction. Trump's Tweet brings them back to the forefront. If Franken needs an ethics investigation, so does Trump. If Moore is going to be kicked out of congress before he's even elected, Trump should be kicked out of the White House. Trump doesn't deserve special treatment - it's wrong.

[Monker]

You do realize that this article was written FOUR YEARS AGO, correct?

lmao............. news media is turning on HRC...

NEW ALLEGATIONS OF A STATE DEPARTMENT COVER-UP
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52184794/t/ne ... -cover-up/

By Evan Puschak
The Last Word
updated 6/12/2013 5:16:40 PM ET

New allegations rocking the State Department involve alleged incidents during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.

NBC News has obtained documents tied to ongoing investigations at the State Department involving eight cases of alleged misconduct by state department workers, contractors, and a United States ambassador. The incidents reportedly occurred during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, according to the documents.

An internal Inspector General memo from last October reported the ambassador under investigation “routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children.” The report also states that a high-ranking official at the State Department directed investigators to “cease the investigation.”

The ambassador, whom NBC News has chosen not to identify, denied all allegations.

While refusing to comment on the specific investigations, a state department spokesperson said “the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct in a case, in any case, is preposterous.”

[Boomchild]

1. Roy Moore now has a defense. He was a Democrat when he did those things and that makes it perfectly acceptable.

2. I think the DOJ and Sessions have been caught in a lie defending Uranium One. John Soloman and Sara Carter are having none of it and will produce damning evidence next week hanging the Clintons and Russia. The informant is livid about his words being twisted, or out and out lied about, and has given Soloman and Carter what he had. He is also battleing Cancer. He even has video of the Russians calling Americans stupid while they open brief cases of money. Much of this went down when Hillary was a Senator. I think the lid is about one or two weeks from blowing off Boomchild.

Why would an AG be defending the situation? That's not part of the job. Their job is to investigate and look for and present facts. Also those that were involved with HRC\BC and want to speak out against them better make sure they have really good witness protection. You know how people like this tend to have "accidents" or "untimely" deaths.

3. Didn't take Dems very long to turn on Frankin did it? Rats deserting their ship. Glad to see he's done and by the same game liberals play.

This is what happens sometimes when you take a virtuous position. It backfires on you. Frankin should have stuck to acting.

[Boomchild]

You do realize that this article was written FOUR YEARS AGO, correct?

NEW ALLEGATIONS OF A STATE DEPARTMENT COVER-UP
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52184794/t/ne ... -cover-up/

By Evan Puschak
The Last Word
updated 6/12/2013 5:16:40 PM ET

New allegations rocking the State Department involve alleged incidents during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.

NBC News has obtained documents tied to ongoing investigations at the State Department involving eight cases of alleged misconduct by state department workers, contractors, and a United States ambassador. The incidents reportedly occurred during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, according to the documents.

An internal Inspector General memo from last October reported the ambassador under investigation “routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children.” The report also states that a high-ranking official at the State Department directed investigators to “cease the investigation.”

The ambassador, whom NBC News has chosen not to identify, denied all allegations.

While refusing to comment on the specific investigations, a state department spokesperson said “the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct in a case, in any case, is preposterous.”

Yes, what a shame the Obama "justice Department" did everything it could to block and delay.

When the article was written is not the question. The question should be, are the allegations accurate and if so what was done about it.

[Boomchild]

[Monker]

When the article was written is not the question. The question should be, are the allegations accurate and if so what was done about it.

This is not the context of what is written on Sluc's post. He was saying the media had turned on the Clinton's...while the article was written four years ago. What he wrote made no sense.

[Monker]

I get accused of being a Democrat shill....while people like you consistantly post propaganda like this.

Where are your posts about Moore? Another Republican candidate for Ohio governor made a post bragging about fucking 50 women. Then of course there is your fuhrer comrade Presidente pussy grabber himself. Where are your meme's about them? Or, are you a Republican shill?

[The_Noble_Cause]

I get accused of being a Democrat shill....while people like you consistantly post propaganda like this.

Shit it is funny. If you want to create Roy Moore memes, have at it.

[Boomchild]

I get accused of being a Democrat shill....while people like you consistantly post propaganda like this.

Where are your posts about Moore? Another Republican candidate for Ohio governor made a post bragging about fucking 50 women. Then of course there is your fuhrer comrade Presidente pussy grabber himself. Where are your meme's about them? Or, are you a Republican shill?

The point of this post is to show that Franken is guilty of doing the very thing he has been "virtue signalling" about. As far a your claim about "propaganda", I think not. There is photographic evidence as well as Franken's own ADMISSION that it happened. It seems your labeling this as propaganda is a way of trying to deny it exists and\or defend Franken. I guess maybe it's possible that somewhere you have read that it's not true and now you can't locate the information anymore.

[Boomchild]

Another Democrat on her way to prison. The party of the people, right?

http://www.salon.com/2017/11/17/former- ... ity-theft/

I find it interesting that they are able to find and expose charity fraud like this but the biggest fraud case in history (most likely), The Clinton Foundation remains unscathed.

[Memorex]

They know it’s coming..

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=89645

Innocent people say bring it on.

[Memorex]

Another Democrat on her way to prison. The party of the people, right?

http://www.salon.com/2017/11/17/former- ... ity-theft/

I find it interesting that they are able to find and expose charity fraud like this but the biggest fraud case in history (most likely), The Clinton Foundation remains unscathed.

But surely people are still giving in big numbers to the foundation. I mean, it was always about charity, right? So even though she is no longer in a position of power, that should affect the donations. I bet it's gangbusters over there now.

[Boomchild]

Another Democrat on her way to prison. The party of the people, right?

http://www.salon.com/2017/11/17/former- ... ity-theft/

I find it interesting that they are able to find and expose charity fraud like this but the biggest fraud case in history (most likely), The Clinton Foundation remains unscathed.

But surely people are still giving in big numbers to the foundation. I mean, it was always about charity, right? So even though she is no longer in a position of power, that should affect the donations. I bet it's gangbusters over there now.

The decline in donations coupled with her election loss should signal maybe something isn't right with the organization. The foundation has NEVER had an outside independent or Federal audit. Which also should raise questions based on the scope and size of the foundation. Then you have the simple fact that the organization only applied for and obtained tax exempt status for building Clinton's presidential library and for archiving Bill's documents while president. They never sought nor obtained non profit status for all the other operations that the foundation has engaged in. Which is a violation in itself at both state and federal levels. What this means is, that any donation that was not for the approved purpose of the foundation is not tax exempt. The federal government could in fact demand tax payment on said donations or it would force the foundation to return all of said donations. Lionel Lebron whom I have mentioned here before is a lawyer and he has said the foundation is the biggest case of charity fraud hidden in plain sight in the country's history.

[S2M]

Another Democrat on her way to prison. The party of the people, right?

http://www.salon.com/2017/11/17/former- ... ity-theft/

She's a fucking HUMAN BEING, and then a female...the 'D' next to her name is irrelevant.

Am I'm going to say this for the last time - I am NOT a liberal. I do, however, share many liberal beliefs - just as I share many conservative beliefs. I'm fiscally conservative, but am socially liberal(no, I'm not a socialist).

I think government is FAR too big. Siphoning TOO much taxes from the american people, and think washington should stay the fuck out of people's private lives unless a law is broken. Government's LONE responsibility should be too keep us safe, that's it. Militarily, and stuff like the FDA...things that DIRECTLY affect us.

I think income tax is unconstitutional. I support Boortz's 'Fair Tax' plan. It's not only revenue neutral, but it EXPANDS the tax base to include EVERYONE. Everyone doesn't work, but everyone consumes. It's a fucking no-brainer. The reason folks are against it is that it has no loopholes. You can't evade paying. You pay whenever you buy something. 23% at the register. You buy something for $100...and you're paying $123. Big fucking deal. Why should folks pay income tax, AND then pay more taxes when they buy something?

All in all, I'm tired of the schism in this country. The schism on this board, in this thread...I believe the people in this thread are decent, hardworking people. I try to stay out of here as a rule. I'm not as versed in day to day politics as some of you, and I haven't had cable in over 7 years...I hear bits and blurbs every now and then from a TV that is on in a store, or whatever...I have not voted since '96, when I voted for WJC, and I didn't regret that vote....still don't.

NEVER liked Hill...honest. And won't defend her. Never liked Obama - how can a community organizer become CIC? Don't like Clyde - how can a misogynist businessman become CIC? And save the 'Ole Slick Willie was just as misogynistic as Trump!' He wasn't. Bill was getting blow jobs from WILLING participants...Pongo was grabbing the pussies in a non-consensual way.

One final thought....just because YOU are doing well in life doesn't mean the country is...I believe folks should have a more broad caring. Because at some point, and it is almost always the case - the scope of the macro will contract into the micro, and what was thought of as outside your personal bubble, will come back to bitchslap the smug grin off your face. Every human being on this planet is trying to survive life...have some fucking compassion.

[scarab]

Another Democrat on her way to prison. The party of the people, right?

http://www.salon.com/2017/11/17/former- ... ity-theft/

She's a fucking HUMAN BEING, and then a female...the 'D' next to her name is irrelevant.

Am I'm going to say this for the last time - I am NOT a liberal. I do, however, share many liberal beliefs - just as I share many conservative beliefs. I'm fiscally conservative, but am socially liberal(no, I'm not a socialist).

I think government is FAR too big. Siphoning TOO much taxes from the american people, and think washington should stay the fuck out of people's private lives unless a law is broken. Government's LONE responsibility should be too keep us safe, that's it. Militarily, and stuff like the FDA...things that DIRECTLY affect us.

I think income tax is unconstitutional. I support Boortz's 'Fair Tax' plan. It's not only revenue neutral, but it EXPANDS the tax base to include EVERYONE. Everyone doesn't work, but everyone consumes. It's a fucking no-brainer. The reason folks are against it is that it has no loopholes. You can't evade paying. You pay whenever you buy something. 23% at the register. You buy something for $100...and you're paying $123. Big fucking deal. Why should folks pay income tax, AND then pay more taxes when they buy something?

All in all, I'm tired of the schism in this country. The schism on this board, in this thread...I believe the people in this thread are decent, hardworking people. I try to stay out of here as a rule. I'm not as versed in day to day politics as some of you, and I haven't had cable in over 7 years...I hear bits and blurbs every now and then from a TV that is on in a store, or whatever...I have not voted since '96, when I voted for WJC, and I didn't regret that vote....still don't.

NEVER liked Hill...honest. And won't defend her. Never liked Obama - how can a community organizer become CIC? Don't like Clyde - how can a misogynist businessman become CIC? And save the 'Ole Slick Willie was just as misogynistic as Trump!' He wasn't. Bill was getting blow jobs from WILLING participants...Pongo was grabbing the pussies in a non-consensual way.

One final thought....just because YOU are doing well in life doesn't mean the country is...I believe folks should have a more broad caring. Because at some point, and it is almost always the case - the scope of the macro will contract into the micro, and what was thought of as outside your personal bubble, will come back to bitchslap the smug grin off your face. Every human being on this planet is trying to survive life...have some fucking compassion.

The only way America will ever be great is not electing a D or R.
Sad to these these silly kids so radicalized,, enough to spew their hatred on a melodic rock website.
Come on Andrew, shut this forum down.

[Boomchild]

NEVER liked Hill...honest. And won't defend her. Never liked Obama - how can a community organizer become CIC? Don't like Clyde - how can a misogynist businessman become CIC? And save the 'Ole Slick Willie was just as misogynistic as Trump!' He wasn't. Bill was getting blow jobs from WILLING participants...Pongo was grabbing the pussies in a non-consensual way.

Your bias towards Billy Bob is showing here. He has had a long history of deviant sexual behavior beyond the oval office. Your trying to state as a fact that all the women involved were willing participants. Are you fully aware of all the incidents and the facts behind them? I don't think anyone is. This comes off as a way of defending his behavior.

One final thought....just because YOU are doing well in life doesn't mean the country is...I believe folks should have a more broad caring. Because at some point, and it is almost always the case - the scope of the macro will contract into the micro, and what was thought of as outside your personal bubble, will come back to bitchslap the smug grin off your face. Every human being on this planet is trying to survive life...have some fucking compassion.

I think you are making an assumption that people with certain political beliefs or positions are "doing well". Take the people that participate in the forum as an example. Do you know what the personal financial, employment or health situations are of ANY of them? If you want to talk about people living in a "personal bubble" look to the politicians. They are the ones that living in them and that is one of the main reasons they do such a horrible job of governing. Also, if you are sick of the divide in this country, look to the politicians, they are one of the biggest reasons for it. Also, you mentioned that you haven't voted in a long time. Sorry but I firmly believe if you don't vote then you really can't complain about who is running the government. In short, you sit back and do nothing and expect to have your opinion count.

[Boomchild]

The only way America will ever be great is not electing a D or R.
Sad to these these silly kids so radicalized,, enough to spew their hatred on a melodic rock website.
Come on Andrew, shut this forum down.

So are you saying that the people that participate in this forum are ONLY Democrats or Republicans? Listen to yourself, you want to dictate to someone on what they are allowed to talk about and where they should be allowed to do it. How "holier then thou" of you. BTW, there is one simple solution if you don't like a topic or discussion in a thread on this forum. Don't click on it.

[Monker]

The only way America will ever be great is not electing a D or R.
Sad to these these silly kids so radicalized,, enough to spew their hatred on a melodic rock website.
Come on Andrew, shut this forum down.

So are you saying that the people that participate in this forum are ONLY Democrats or Republicans? Listen to yourself, you want to dictate to someone on what they are allowed to talk about and where they should be allowed to do it. How "holier then thou" of you. BTW, there is one simple solution if you don't like a topic or discussion in a thread on this forum. Don't click on it.

Holy shit. You are actually criticizing somebody for having a "holier than thou" attitude because they dictate what type people post in this forum? TNC and KC have been doing that for over a year now. Maybe you should clean up the asses that regularly post here before you go about saying such things to people who hardly post at all.