Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton had something to do with the shootings? Because otherwise this "perfect timing" thing you're babbling on about makes no sense.
Not that I wouldn't put it past the nuts on the right to build some kind of inane conspiracy around this now. Stupidity like that is right up their alley.
I think everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why Hillary is "conveniently" out of the MSM spotlight... now the MSM can go back to bashing Trump to discourage voters so they'll hop on the Hillary bandwagon.
I think everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why Hillary is "conveniently" out of the MSM spotlight... now the MSM can go back to bashing Trump to discourage voters so they'll hop on the Hillary bandwagon.
So what you're saying is that you DO believe this whole thing was a Clinton conspiracy to take the focus off of Hillary. Congratulation, you fit right in with the tinfoil brigade of the far right.
Last edited by HeyJude514; 07-08-2016 at 02:51 PM..
At the time Hillary sent or received them? I haven't seen evidence of that presented. But I tend to look into factual sources so maybe I "missed" something.
Well, apparently you don't look into factual sources because you didn't listen to Comey's statement.
"From the 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 of them in 52 e-mail chains were determined by the owning agency to have contained classified information when they were sent or received."
Actually, Trump has demonstrated his ignorance about world economics when he's proposing trade sanctions - he clearly doesn't understand that trade is a two way street and sanctions or punitive penalties tend to invite retaliatory actions.
So your answer to our trade deficit is that we do nothing when other countries keep our products out of their markets while we let them enter our markets.
Very good...
There is a middle ground between them screwing us and us screwing them.
It's called "negotiation," which Trump wants to do on a bilateral basis.
Quote:
He also lacks any awareness of tact and diplomacy - which are an essential part of negotiating complicated agreements between nations.
He has successfully done business all over the world.
So your argument fails.
Quote:
Trump also shows no inclination to learn or take advice from others.
Right. That's why he didn't win against 16 other Republican candidates...
Oh, wait...
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731
Let's not put all Democrats in the same boat guys and gals. I'm a Democrat that's supporting Trump as are my neighbors. Do we wish there was an alternative sometimes - yes - but a vote for Johnson will not keep Hillary out of the WH..
But a majority of Democrats just vote the flavor of the month and this time it's to see a woman in power. They proved this back in 2008 when they elected Obama over Hillary - Obama had far less experience than Hillary at the time which they claim is why Trump would be a bad president and yet they chose Obama over Hillary. She wasn't good enough then but she's good enough now - go figure!
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
It was a hotly contested primary and she got millions of votes, but fell just short at the end. But yeah, you're right, Hillary is the only candidate who failed to win the presidential nomination one year and came back to win it four years later.
What was that stupid Ronald Reagan thinking when he came back in 1980 after losing a hotly contested race in 1976? The idiot! Didn't he know if he wasn't good enough in '76, then he wasn't good enough in '80? It must be true because xray731 says it is.
You should read a history book once in a while so you don't look so silly.
You might consider reading a history book.
Reagan ran against an incumbent president -- Gerald Ford -- for the Republican nomination.
Hillary ran against Obama -- a one term senator who mostly voted "present."
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50
They were not marked classified. Only three were marked with a (C).
So you're saying Hillary couldn't recognize classified material?
If that's the case, then she had no business being Secretary of State.
Last edited by dechatelet; 07-09-2016 at 12:31 AM..
So what you're saying is that you DO believe this whole thing was a Clinton conspiracy to take the focus off of Hillary. Congratulation, you fit right in with the tinfoil brigade of the far right.
i didn't think it was a conspiracy, but when the shootings happened i thought that the spotlight goes off hillary a bit.
i didn't think it was a conspiracy, but when the shootings happened i thought that the spotlight goes off hillary a bit.
hard to ignore.
... and I'd agree. I'm not ignorant enough to believe it was a conspiracy... Nor am I ignorant enough to vote for a candidate because of their race or gender.
I'm not a Democrat either... but that should be obvious by now.
They were not marked classified. Only three were marked with a (C).
Not only that, but the (C) was temporary, and should have been removed in at least one instance. Because it was in reference to a congratulatory phone call to another head of state. And the (C), apparently, meant "confidential" under the classification system.
I'm going to post the email in question, yet again. Crickets so far.
Quote:
Kirby said such "call sheets" are often treated as classified when being prepared but as unclassified when forwarded to the secretary for his or her use.
The State spokesman said he was aware of two instances where "Confidential"-level classification markings appeared in the set of emails State processed for public release under the Freedom of Information Act. He appeared to refer to a Fox News report last month that highlighted an email proposing a call from Clinton to Malawi Presidential Joyce Banda after she took power following the death of President Bingu wu Mutharika in April 2012.
Reagan apparently "wasn't good enough" in 1976 but was "good enough" in 1980. Go figure!
It's all comparative.
You might consider looking up that word.
Hillary wasn't good enough compared to Obama -- a nobody -- while Reagan wasn't good enough compared to Ford -- a sitting U.S. president.
Get it now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
