When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@snood,

I wasn't clear. Sorry. Weyrich clearly understood that reduced voter rolls benefited conservative elections (he says this explicitly). Pa House Leader Mike Turzai (Farmerman's reference) was equally explicit in his party's strategy to reduce voters to help Romney win the state http://bit.ly/2aj3op3 I have no doubt that John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky and many other senior strategists and politicos and media elements (along with the wonderful people at ALEC who compose and push legislation into the red states) are completely aware that there is no significant voter fraud but significant electoral gains to be had if they can peel off Dem voters through suppression tactics. That's one class of actors here.

The other class of actors are Republican voters. These are the people who I meant to indicate are believers in voter fraud because of the propaganda efforts from the folks in the first class.

Obviously, that's too clear-cut but it is the rough outline of how this works.

There's another factor here too, I think. And that's racism. Where individuals engaged knowingly in this strategy or those more thoughtful Republican voters who find the story not quite sound, are more willing than they normally might be to overlook contradictions because the target demographic is mainly black Americans.

And a final element. What to make of Scalia, Alito, Thomas and the chief justice, not to mention judges lower down? They aren't stupid guys and they aren't propagandists like Fund or van Spakovsky. So far as I can discern this group, I think it is ideological and partisan favor. I think they, or many of them, do not view democracy as a viable system. I do think they reflect the sort of thinking voiced by Weyrich - that conservative ideas are superior and that conservative goals, achieved, will produce a better country (as they view "better"). All are associated with the Federalist Society which has as explicit goal, the forwarding of conservative ideas in the area of jurisprudence through training lawyers in conservative theory and placing them into the court system as broadly as possible (just read the FS mission statement).

Does that help?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

snood, oralloy loves to talk about fiction; not facts.

You have a big mouth for someone who has no ability to point out a single fact that I am wrong about.

cicerone imposter wrote:

According to fact check, there is no evidence anyone hacked into Hillary's email.

The Left really had to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with the argument that "security so lax that all the hackers could grab everything without leaving a trace" means that there were no hackers.

I know you have to work with what you have, but really. At some point you'd think pride or shame would come into effect and people would say "no, that argument is simply too ridiculous".

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Well, now he's saying that the fact there's no evidence she was hacked only proves definitively she was hacked.

Nonsense. You are falsely accusing me of the sort of goofy arguments that the Left is using in their desperation to distract from Hillary's wrongdoing.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't you just love his kind of logic? oops, "illogic."

Says the clown who can't poke any holes in my arguments.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Yes, thanks.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Russia is effectively contained now anyway. NATO forces have been deployed to the east.

Russia has just taken over Crimea from Ukraine, and fomented a civil war where the part of Ukraine nearest Russia will become either a part of Russia or a pro-Russian republic. Even though Ukraine is not a NATO ally and we are therefore not obligated to protect it, Russia is clearly moving into a country it recognized as independent, and if allowed to do this with impunity will doubtless be trying similar tactics-arming various militias, then possibly adding "volunteer" Russian troops to support them-in NATO countries.

Trump's proposal to disband NATO and remove American pledges to defend our NATO allies against Russia would have been viewed as near treasonable not many years ago.

It's extremely curious that you proposed to put NATO troops along the Russian border with the Baltics last year, and this year support a candidate who's buddy buddy with Putin and want to deliver an essentially unarmed Eastern Europe to him to easily conquer, while we stand by silently.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

It is corruption according to you which frankly, doesn't mean a whole lot.

Exactly. Her statements carry no water and she offer no proof.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

Her statements carry no water and she offer no proof.

Of corruption in politics? Heaven forbid!

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

No, since everyone in the State Department and most of the rest of the government knew she had a private server. Colin Powell used a private Email account and nobody kicked up a fuss. Hillary took the same secure situation that her ex-President husband used for her private Email account, and then sent any work related Emails to her State Department assistants or people in other government departments, (where they were automatically recorded by the government Email system), and thereby fulfulled the requirement at the time that her Emails must be recorded. She thought she was okay doing this. She was wrong, but there was no indication that she knew she was breaking the rules.

If she didn't know that she was breaking the rules, why did she avoid having the state department approve/disapprove of the email setup, even though it was standard procedure to get such approval? Avoidance of standard procedure suggests knowledge that approval would not have been granted had it been sought.

Not everyone understood it was a private server. There were a couple technicians who discovered it, and were told by higher-ups that it had been vetted (even though it hadn't been), and to never mention it again. So it seems that some in the State Department were completely unaware, and others in the State Department knew that it needed to be covered up.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

It's extremely curious that you proposed to put NATO troops along the Russian border with the Baltics last year, and this year support a candidate who's buddy buddy with Putin and want to deliver an essentially unarmed Eastern Europe to him to easily conquer, while we stand by silently.

What can I do? Hillary is devoted to eviscerating the Second Amendment. Trump will protect my rights.

Hillary and I see eye to eye when it comes to foreign policy. On some issues she is the perfect candidate for me. In many ways she would be an outstanding president.

But she's out to violate my rights, and she would nominate judges and justices who also are out to violate my rights.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

It will suck to be you November 8th.

I bet it sucks right now. His big news is a computer game package which means we will be free on him for a bit. It's not a life I'd wish on my worst enemy. Does it even count as a life, stuck indoors with no friends playing computer games all the time?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I bet it sucks right now.

No.

izzythepush wrote:

His big news is a computer game package which means we will be free on him for a bit.

Big news?

izzythepush wrote:

It's not a life I'd wish on my worst enemy. Does it even count as a life, stuck indoors with no friends playing computer games all the time?

I bet I have more friends than you do. I bet I have more friends in the UK than you do.

Stuck indoors? Games all the time?

I just saw the new Star Trek (in a 3D theater) yesterday. I'm going to crash in a few minutes, but I have DBOX tickets to see the new Jason Bourne movie when I wake up later today.

And World of Warcraft is an amazing game. Lots of people have a lot of fun playing it.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

The voter suppression was done by the DNC in collusion with Hillary Clinton and the media.

This is an example of "THE BIG LIE". You say something loud enough and often enough it becomes the truth. NO district Fed court has hd a case with ANY amount of evidence to support your lie.
You and Oralloy hve a lot on common in these matters. He engages in "political prediction" and you dwell on some bogus "evidence"

My own opinion is that the GOP is fracturing based upon some of those outrageous claims of "truth" that usually go back to tlk show hosts who have no understandings of history but who are mere hucksters, AND bloggers of conservative stripe who live and practice as saprophytes and suck substance from each others.
The "Hillary will appoint juges to overturn th 2nd Amendment" has no basis in fact or evidence. Its an auctioneers chant that has no clear source term.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Wikileaks released evidence that you could read if you weren't so intent on averting your eyes from THE BIG TRUTH which is the DNC actively colluded with Clinton and news outlets to promote Hillary and deny sanders press, float damaging stories about sanders i.e. his possible atheism, and use ridiculous air times for debates to keep people from hearing about him.

We have the proof. Why do you support someone who cheated her way to the nomination? They made a ceremony of firing the DNC chair for it and Clinton hired her.

It's the most in your face lying and cheating since her husband wagged his finger, lying to the American people.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Sorry, I was talking about voter surpression by the GOP in NATIONAL ELECTIONS, and the failed attempts at imposing "voter ID cards" to prevent "voter fraud"

The goings on at the DNC and RNC are over with, there was ample evidence on both sides of shenanigans . The tail wend of your point was that the RNC (or Trumpies) had put those fake ads recruiting actors to "Sit in on the convention"

THE REAL STORY STARTS AFTER THE CONVENTIONS>

YEsterday, several Fed District courts voted to either stomp down the voter id issues or not hear the cases at all.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The goings on of the DNC are definitely not over. By comparison, the GOP were angels.

There's hard evidence against the DNC and Clinton.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

the GOP were angels

Angels? Not hardly.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It is really silly that the Left uses the fact that her security was so lax that there is no way to tell who hacked her, as an argument that she wasn't hacked.

What is silly is your statement, oralloy. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Never has been. Never will be.

There is no evidence the server was hacked. The only means there is no evidence. No credible hacker has come forward with evidence they hacked her server though some have made claims.

1 Reply

By the way, and for those not familiar with it, one of the best resources for information on the issue of voter fraud/voter suppression/voter right is NYU's Brennan Center https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud

0 Replies

For a more immediate peak into the voter fraud bamboozala, you can turn here...

Quote:

7 papers, 4 government inquiries, 2 news investigations and 1 court ruling proving voter fraud is mostly a myth

http://wapo.st/2ayAttZ

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know