Data from Clinton's calandar seems to be missing...

[Moonbeam]

No, that's not it

You assume you would know if true. I would not assume that. Gender bigotry, like any bigotry, is can be sourced in the unconscious. It could also be something else.

 

[Moonbeam]

How many times can her detractors cry wolf before the rubes realize that there is no wolf?

My OP was from a newspaper. Is that what you mean by detractors crying wolf? Apparently the facts are as stated. I'm interested in the reactions to them. I find that when rubes support somebody they can be as likely to deny evidence that paints their candidate in a bad light as the other side is to attribute ill meaning to anything that candidate does. Would you agree with that? Could you be a rube who is guilty of projection?

 

[ivwshane]

My OP was from a newspaper. Is that what you mean by detractors crying wolf? Apparently the facts are as stated. I'm interested in the reactions to them. I find that when rubes support somebody they can be as likely to deny evidence that paints their candidate in a bad light as the other side is to attribute ill meaning to anything that candidate does. Would you agree with that? Could you be a rube who is guilty of projection?

Oh course. The problem is that we have decades worth of crying wolf with exactly zero presence of any actual wolves. So you'll have to forgive me if I seem a little skeptical about any claims about the Clinton's.

 

[Jhhnn]

My OP was from a newspaper. Is that what you mean by detractors crying wolf? Apparently the facts are as stated. I'm interested in the reactions to them. I find that when rubes support somebody they can be as likely to deny evidence that paints their candidate in a bad light as the other side is to attribute ill meaning to anything that candidate does. Would you agree with that? Could you be a rube who is guilty of projection?

It's not like I'm projecting conspiratorial intent onto the SoS, is it?

Why else would anybody bother to laboriously make the comparison between the different records?

It's not like there's anything else to be gained from the exercise.

 

[Starbuck1975]

How many times can her detractors cry wolf before the rubes realize that there is no wolf?

Given the threat of a Trump presidency, I started to accept holding my nose and voting for Clinton as the lesser of two evils. However, the IG report and latest reveal of security protocols abandoned to accommodate her email setup and evidence of hack attempts on her server are not the fabrications of some vast right wing conspiracy.

I doubt she will face charges, but I can't see how any reasonable person can perceive her as being transparent and honest since this scandal first broke.

 

[werepossum]

Have you pondered how we might have become so jaded?

We're frogs in a slowly boiling pot.

Out of all the things I think Hillary was/is complicit in, this was pretty low on the radar.

So many things happened in Arkansas that helped the Clintons, it was amazing. One or two or three things weren't a big deal, but there was a lot. Decades old now, and tinfoil hat time, I know, but so many coincidences...

My favorite Hillary joke: she and bill were out for a Sunday afternoon drive, they stop at a little gas station, the attendant is shocked it's Hillary, as they used to date. Bill is territorial, even though she's not an ideal spouse, and says, "See Hillary, if you'd have married him, you wouldn't be married to the president of the United States." Hillary responded, "No, I'd still be married to the president..."

Mine is:
Hillary and Bill Clinton are traveling in a small plane when it crashes and all are killed. Ascending to Heaven for Judgement, they are taken before G-d sitting on a massive golden throne. The pilot says "Hello, I'm James Smith and I'm so honored to be here before You." G-d says "I know you well, my child. You've been a good and faithful servant, and I have a seat for you right here by My side."

Bill Clinton steps up and says "Hi, I'm Bill Clinton." G-d shakes his head and says "Oh, I know you too, My child. You've been a very naughty boy, broken almost every single Commandment. But you are a believer, so I have a seat for you way over there."

Hillary Clinton steps up and says "I'm Hillary Clinton and you're in my seat."

Just think, less than a handful of elections ago, the election was, in part, determined by a few dozen people deciding to vote Libertarian in Florida. How different would the world be today if they had decided the lesser of two evils was Gore?

Reality: our system of government pretty much means there are always going to be two major parties, not three. That's the way it works.

Algore is NEVER the lesser evil.

I take your point on our system of government, but if we accept that only votes for the two big evils really count, then the two big evils have little reason to change.

 

[zinfamous]

Algore is NEVER the lesser evil.

Compared to Dubya?

are you insane? :hmm:

 

[werepossum]

Compared to Dubya?

are you insane? :hmm:

Yes.

No.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jhhnn: It's not like I'm projecting conspiratorial intent onto the SoS, is it?

M: Looks that way to me only in reverse. You seem to be indulging the conspiracy that facts about missing data is have been unearthed our of an intention to add to clintons negatives, rather than a part of what the fourth leg of government is supposed to do to keep the public informed as voters.

J: Why else would anybody bother to laboriously make the comparison between the different records?

M: Hehe, and you're not conspiratorial.

J: It's not like there's anything else to be gained from the exercise.

M: Of course not. None of it suggests what a tragic mistake Clinton voters made by not voting for Sanders, just to list one example.

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn: It's not like I'm projecting conspiratorial intent onto the SoS, is it?

M: Looks that way to me only in reverse. You seem to be indulging the conspiracy that facts about missing data is have been unearthed our of an intention to add to clintons negatives, rather than a part of what the fourth leg of government is supposed to do to keep the public informed as voters.

J: Why else would anybody bother to laboriously make the comparison between the different records?

M: Hehe, and you're not conspiratorial.

J: It's not like there's anything else to be gained from the exercise.

M: Of course not. None of it suggests what a tragic mistake Clinton voters made by not voting for Sanders, just to list one example.

Do you suppose that no discrepancies at all would have been reported had it been that way? Do you suppose that every digging for dirt expedition tells us when they can't find anything vaguely resembling dirt? Or will they do their best to make it look like dirt?

I wouldn't expect that the attendees of every meeting that the SoS ever had would be documented. Other than for the purposes of mudslinging it's meaningless minutiae.

Shee-it, Moonbeam- even the most passionate Hillary haters realize this isn't really meaningful.

 

[Jhhnn]

Compared to Dubya?

are you insane? :hmm:

I somehow doubt that Gore would have engaged in a massive propaganda campaign leading to the invasion of Iraq or that he'd have told financial regulators to stand back while the true Bush constituency engaged in the greatest looting spree in the history of finance.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jhhnn: Do you suppose that no discrepancies at all would have been reported had it been that way? Do you suppose that every digging for dirt expedition tells us when they can't find anything vaguely resembling dirt? Or will they do their best to make it look like dirt?

What I see is that you suppose differently than I suppose, that we are talking rushing expedition whereas what I suppose is that the press's job is to report on what is found so that we can apply whatever judgment we feel fits with the evidence.

J: I wouldn't expect that the attendees of every meeting that the SoS ever had would be documented. Other than for the purposes of mudslinging it's meaningless minutiae.

M: You suppose again.

J Shee-it, Moonbeam- even the most passionate Hillary haters realize this isn't really meaningful.

M: I think your partisanship determines what has meaning to you. I believe it likely that Clinton will do what she can to avoid being tied to Wall Street in the face of a progressive uprising and folk like me willing to abandon the party over it. Do you think Clinton has moved to the left to defeat Sanders? I think you just go too far asking me to be utterly stupid. I'm too liberal not to get a bit arrogant when you ask me to think like a conservative and go with your gut level partisan assumptions.

Geez, it's that God danced conservative press that's the problem. Lol.

 

[Jhhnn]

You already made up your mind that Clinton is a pawn of Wall St, Moonbeam, & will readily accept any information tending to confirm that. Her detailed policy positions tell us otherwise & they're impossible to back away from-

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

The Trumpster, OTOH, apparently wants to return to the good ol' days of the way things were done during the housing bubble-

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/trump-dodd-frank-wall-street/

ust imagine what Donald & a Repub Congress could accomplish together....

 

[Moonbeam]

You already made up your mind that Clinton is a pawn of Wall St, Moonbeam, & will readily accept any information tending to confirm that. Her detailed policy positions tell us otherwise & they're impossible to back away from-

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

The Trumpster, OTOH, apparently wants to return to the good ol' days of the way things were done during the housing bubble-

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/trump-dodd-frank-wall-street/

ust imagine what Donald & a Repub Congress could accomplish together....

I think a Clinton presidency will be acceptable to Wall Street. I think a Sanders presidency would not. I have no idea what Trump would do. I think your calling me seeing her as a pawn is irrational. I also think the wealthy have too much voice in our democracy and you backed the inferior candidate to solve that. I think you were blind to do that. I also see your defensiveness and distortion of my position to be a product of a refusal to accept your agency in why things donT change. You are partisan and not committed to truth.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think a Clinton presidency will be acceptable to Wall Street. I think a Sanders presidency would not. I have no idea what Trump would do. I think your calling me seeing her as a pawn is irrational. I also think the wealthy have too much voice in our democracy and you backed the inferior candidate to solve that. I think you were blind to do that. I also see your defensiveness and distortion of my position to be a product of a refusal to accept your agency in why things donT change. You are partisan and not committed to truth.

So what Trump says he'll do makes no difference because you choose to ignore it along with what Hillary says as well.

All while going on about the lost cause of Bernie.

Too many people want to forget that Repub ideology made policy during the Bush years nearly collapsed the economy into another Great Depression back in 2008. Since then, Repubs' purpose in life has been to hold on to as much of that as they can for the true Bush constituency. They've largely succeeded in that with the most obstructionist Congresses in history.

Even with that we've achieved stability & growth, things that are of enormous benefit to working people. It's not all we want, of course, but it's a helluva lot better than where the Repubs left us last time they were in charge.

Trump says give 'em what they want & things will be different this time, scout's honor. No, really, because the magical wall will solve all problems & bring back the jobs. He denies the very nature of the lootocracy of which he is clearly a member.

Hillary says we have to watch 'em like a hawk because they're varmints (necessary varmints, unfortunately) who don't give a fuck about anything other than making big money by taking big risks with other people's money.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jhhnn, at a time when a large number of democrats are calling for a war against the influence of money in politics, a number of meetings Hillary had with Wall Street people are not showIng up on certain records. This is meaningless to you and noteworthy to me. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find some connection to locust plagues.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I have to admit I haven't really read up on this because it seems pathetic. But one question. How many meetings with Wall Street people DID show up on the calendar?

 

[werepossum]

Jhhnn, at a time when a large number of democrats are calling for a war against the influence of money in politics, a number of meetings Hillary had with Wall Street people are not showIng up on certain records. This is meaningless to you and noteworthy to me. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find some connection to locust plagues.

lol +1

 

[nickqt]

Jhhnn, at a time when a large number of democrats are calling for a war against the influence of money in politics, a number of meetings Hillary had with Wall Street people are not showIng up on certain records. This is meaningless to you and noteworthy to me. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find some connection to locust plagues.

Which "certain records" are you talking about?

What do you think those "certain records" show? That Hillary Clinton promised that she would help Wall St. further destroy the US and World economy so that they can make a little more in Fees, Commissions and Bonuses?

S̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶c̶e̶r̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶t̶e̶!̶!̶!̶1̶ err, I mean,

S̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶c̶r̶i̶p̶t̶s̶!̶!̶!̶1̶ err, I mean,

Show me the "certain records"!!!1

What is hilarious is watching the purity trolls adopt the same talking points that show conservatives to be delusional.

But hey, go get 'em, amateur psychologist.

#Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary is just too dangerous.

 

[Brian Stirling]

She could have turned anyone into POTUS

Actually, BC won the White House in SPITE of Hillary, not because of her. That, and hundreds of millions from the elite. Selling out the middle class is a winner!


Brian

 

[Moonbeam]

Which "certain records" are you talking about?

What do you think those "certain records" show? That Hillary Clinton promised that she would help Wall St. further destroy the US and World economy so that they can make a little more in Fees, Commissions and Bonuses?

S̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶c̶e̶r̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶t̶e̶!̶!̶!̶1̶ err, I mean,

S̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶c̶r̶i̶p̶t̶s̶!̶!̶!̶1̶ err, I mean,

Show me the "certain records"!!!1

What is hilarious is watching the purity trolls adopt the same talking points that show conservatives to be delusional.

But hey, go get 'em, amateur psychologist.

#Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary is just too dangerous.

Her calendar as it says in the OP link. Now would you also like me to change your diaper?

 

[Moonbeam]

lol +1

Thank you. Sometimes I get the feeling my stuff is just wasted.

 

[nickqt]

Her calendar as it says in the OP link. Now would you also like me to change your diaper?

Her calendar.

LOL!

Her calendar is missing information, folks.

It's pretty obvious that she murdered Vincent Foster, ordered the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, and sent ISIS classified information.

Keep on keepin' on, amateur psychologist.

 

[werepossum]

Her calendar as it says in the OP link. Now would you also like me to change your diaper?

+1

Thank you. Sometimes I get the feeling my stuff is just wasted.

Never wasted, although sometimes it goes over my head until pointed out.

 

[agent00f]

I think a Clinton presidency will be acceptable to Wall Street. I think a Sanders presidency would not. I have no idea what Trump would do. I think your calling me seeing her as a pawn is irrational. I also think the wealthy have too much voice in our democracy and you backed the inferior candidate to solve that. I think you were blind to do that. I also see your defensiveness and distortion of my position to be a product of a refusal to accept your agency in why things donT change. You are partisan and not committed to truth.

The interesting history of american politics in the last few decades is there used to be a party that was more about big money, and another more about the little guy. The Clintons were at the head of a transition for the Democrats to the middle, to get those middle class money votes.

As unfortunate as that is, it's rather bizarre for people in the OG McMoney party to criticize others for becoming more like them. Shouldn't it be a positive thing for conservatives that democrats are coming around to their way of doing business? Why would they want the Clintons to be less republican, that's just self-defeating.