Hillary can't be trusted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Illinois Enema Bandit said:
citation as to collusion & pay offs from wall street CEO's given one page back,Hillary's vote on that bill is public record,if u don't believe hillarys fellow democrat pal elezibeth warrens own words used as cite fell free to do your own google,or post more memes & ad Homs like the last 4 quotes u fired off:clap:
Click to expand...
nope, no citation. you wasted my time looking for it panhead. I think Big Lou is right. senile dementia.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Illinois Enema Bandit said:
you can count can't you ? this is a partial list of campaign donations from 2016 alone .

his page shows contributions grouped by contributor to the candidate's campaign committee plus any super PACs or hybrid PACs working on his or her behalf.
Contributor
Total
Paloma Partners $11,111,100
Saban Capital Group $10,041,246
Renaissance Technologies $9,521,500
Pritzker Group $8,323,257
Soros Fund Management $7,043,700
Newsweb Corp $5,013,500
Laurel Foundation $3,422,713
DE Shaw Research $3,054,306
Unilever $3,016,746
Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation $3,002,700
Sda Enterprises $3,000,000
Barbara Lee Family Foundation $2,105,004
DreamWorks SKG $2,015,700
Laborers Union $2,005,869
Bohemian Foundation $2,005,400
BLS Investments $2,002,700
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $1,507,255
Progressive Women Silicon Valley $1,500,000
FAIR SHARE ACTION $1,250,000
Depot Landmark LLC $1,102,700
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

NOTE: Federal-level numbers are for the 2016 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, September 12, 2016.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

Find Your Representatives
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a lot of money being thrown around on both sides of this campaign. Do you think that Democrats, because they want to put campaign finance reform in place and cap PAC contributions or end corporate donations, should unilaterally stop taking money and let the other side just walk into office with all the advantages that billions of dollars in contributions give? Two years ago, every Democratic Party Senator along with most independent Senators voted for a constitutional amendment that would end the Citizen's United ruling's influence in political campaign spending. Every Republican Senator voted it down and ended the measure by filibuster. The time to change the rules was two years ago. CITATION: https://www.thenation.com/article/senate-tried-overturn-citizens-united-today-guess-what-stopped-them/
(by the way, ^^that's what a citation looks like)​


If you cared so much about this issue you couldn't put the Republican Party's candidate in the White House. Hillary Clinton has made a campaign promise to support the same amendment when she gets into office. Of course, you have a problem with believing her. So then why are you voting for anybody if you hate campaign spending so much?

If your entire complaint about Clinton started and ended with her vote for the Iraq war then I'd at least respect your opinion on that. But Trump isn't some peacenik. He's pretty much a hawk, maybe more so than Clinton. And for what it's worth, he was on record as saying that he supported the invasion when it happened. He lied about supporting it too. So there is that. On examination, your argument is not rational. It's your right to be irrational.
 
I

Illinois Enema Bandit

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yes, there is a lot of money being thrown around on both sides of this campaign. Do you think that Democrats, because they want to put campaign finance reform in place and cap PAC contributions or end corporate donations, should unilaterally stop taking money and let the other side just walk into office with all the advantages that billions of dollars in contributions give? Two years ago, every Democratic Party Senator along with most independent Senators voted for a constitutional amendment that would end the Citizen's United ruling's influence in political campaign spending. Every Republican Senator voted it down and ended the measure by filibuster. The time to change the rules was two years ago. CITATION: https://www.thenation.com/article/senate-tried-overturn-citizens-united-today-guess-what-stopped-them/
(by the way, ^^that's what a citation looks like)​


If you cared so much about this issue you couldn't put the Republican Party's candidate in the White House. Hillary Clinton has made a campaign promise to support the same amendment when she gets into office. Of course, you have a problem with believing her. So then why are you voting for anybody if you hate campaign spending so much?

If your entire complaint about Clinton started and ended with her vote for the Iraq war then I'd at least respect your opinion on that. But Trump isn't some peacenik. He's pretty much a hawk, maybe more so than Clinton. And for what it's worth, he was on record as saying that he supported the invasion when it happened. So there is that. On examination, your argument is not rational. It's your right to be irrational.
Click to expand...
responding with " if I cared so much about this issue " in no way explains away the hundreds of millions in graft taken by Hillary,not even a good attempt .

try answering questions directly instead of offering comparisons,I cite Hillary's collision with wall street providing exact figures from exact wall street CEO types & everybody dodges with double talk :lol:
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Illinois Enema Bandit said:
responding with " if I cared so much about this issue " in no way explains away the hundreds of millions in graft taken by Hillary,not even a good attempt .

try answering questions directly instead of offering comparisons,I cite Hillary's collision with wall street providing exact figures from exact wall street CEO types & everybody dodges with double talk :lol:
Click to expand...
you said hundreds of billions, neo-nazi.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Illinois Enema Bandit said:
so you don't break a sweat hitting the back button here ya go,1st with wall street millions this election cited,can't Dodge that bullet :bigjoint:

more ad Homs on the way lmfao

his page shows contributions grouped by contributor to the candidate's campaign committee plus any super PACs or hybrid PACs working on his or her behalf.
Contributor
Total
Paloma Partners $11,111,100
Saban Capital Group $10,041,246
Renaissance Technologies $9,521,500
Pritzker Group $8,323,257
Soros Fund Management $7,043,700
Newsweb Corp $5,013,500
Laurel Foundation $3,422,713
DE Shaw Research $3,054,306
Unilever $3,016,746
Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation $3,002,700
Sda Enterprises $3,000,000
Barbara Lee Family Foundation $2,105,004
DreamWorks SKG $2,015,700
Laborers Union $2,005,869
Bohemian Foundation $2,005,400
BLS Investments $2,002,700
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $1,507,255
Progressive Women Silicon Valley $1,500,000
FAIR SHARE ACTION $1,250,000
Depot Landmark LLC $1,102,700
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

NOTE: Federal-level numbers are for the 2016 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, September 12, 2016.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]


Find Your Representatives
Click to expand...

ONOZ, the plumbers/pipefitters union!
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Illinois Enema Bandit said:
responding with " if I cared so much about this issue " in no way explains away the hundreds of millions in graft taken by Hillary,not even a good attempt .

try answering questions directly instead of offering comparisons,I cite Hillary's collision with wall street providing exact figures from exact wall street CEO types & everybody dodges with double talk :lol:
Click to expand...
Explain the graft please with credible sources.

In the spring of this year, I was a Bernie supporter. When it became clear that Clinton was going to win, I checked my prior impressions, gathered what I could of all the rumors and "corrupt" shit said about Clinton, made a list and went through it, checking multiple sources on the web. What I found? They took some furniture that they shouldn't have when they left the WH after Bill's term ended. They returned it.

That's it. Her speaking fees are legit and she would be unusual if she hadn't run the speaking circuit and made big bucks. Want to stop that? OK, but don't demand she not do it when it is common practice for everybody else.

The Clinton foundation is clean. Or that's what I gather from multiple sources -- credible ones, not Breitbart, Fox or right wing echo chamber blogs.

I cannot respond specifically your accusations of graft because I don't know specifically what you are talking about. In general, I'll say you are full of bullshit. I think you are specifically full of bullshit too but I'm willing to check your citations. Not that video BS.

What do you think about the fact that every Republican Senator voted against the very same campaign finance reform that you apparently support? Or maybe you don't support it. I can't figure out what the fuck you are trying to say. What I hear from you is that you want Clinton to unilaterally disarm by returning all her campaign donations and not Trump. Of course, Trump is losing on that front but there are some big wheels giving to his campaign too. Why don't you demand that he return his donations?
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I get that some people are put off by her vote in support of the Iraq war
I get that some people are put off by her statements in support for the 1995 crime act including the one about young black "super predators"
I get that some people can't stand her voice (well I get it but don't understand how that can be a voting issue)

I don't get this "corrupt" Hillary bit. Everything I've heard is bullshit. Especially regarding the Clinton foundation. Care to elaborate on the corruption bit? Because whenever I fact check or spend time trying to understand what the hoo haw is all about, I come away amazed that people are swayed by the argument. Including Benghazi, including the e-mail scandal, including the DNC wikileaks stuff, including the stuff about the Clinton foundation. But hey, maybe I'm missing something. I'm willing to read good reporting. Just no fucking videos. That is a terrible medium for communication.
Click to expand...
That's because you keep referencing politifact.

If you would watch the actual trials, or read the dispositions, you would see how her actions endangered national security. You would also begin to notice how her friends and donors kept getting cut in on state projects.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Illinois Enema Bandit said:
so you don't break a sweat hitting the back button here ya go,1st with wall street millions this election cited,can't Dodge that bullet :bigjoint:

more ad Homs on the way lmfao

his page shows contributions grouped by contributor to the candidate's campaign committee plus any super PACs or hybrid PACs working on his or her behalf.
Contributor
Total
Paloma Partners $11,111,100
Saban Capital Group $10,041,246
Renaissance Technologies $9,521,500
Pritzker Group $8,323,257
Soros Fund Management $7,043,700
Newsweb Corp $5,013,500
Laurel Foundation $3,422,713
DE Shaw Research $3,054,306
Unilever $3,016,746
Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation $3,002,700
Sda Enterprises $3,000,000
Barbara Lee Family Foundation $2,105,004
DreamWorks SKG $2,015,700
Laborers Union $2,005,869
Bohemian Foundation $2,005,400
BLS Investments $2,002,700
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $1,507,255
Progressive Women Silicon Valley $1,500,000
FAIR SHARE ACTION $1,250,000
Depot Landmark LLC $1,102,700
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

NOTE: Federal-level numbers are for the 2016 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, September 12, 2016.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]


Find Your Representatives
Click to expand...
Is it your claim that Clinton is corrupt because people are donating to her campaign using the practices that every candidate and donor must, by law, follow? Also those monies must be tracked and spent on campaigns and not to the individual benefit of the candidate.

Did you know that Trump may be violating that law because his business is raking in millions from Trump's choice to use his own hotels for office space and facilities for his campaign events? No other campaign would choose to set up offices in such extravagant and expensive locations but Trump has chosen to spend donor's money in an extravagant way that benefits his private interests. This may be illegal but there is no time to investigate it. At least not yet.

PACs donate to Clinton's campaign according to the same corrupt law that Democratic Senators tried to end in 2014 and Republicans foiled. I'm against that kind of campaign funding. Aren't you? In case you haven't heard yet, Clinton promises to support an amendment to the constitution that would make it possible to end super-PAC campaign funding.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
That's because you keep referencing politifact.

If you would watch the actual trials, or read the dispositions, you would see how her actions endangered national security. You would also begin to notice how her friends and donors kept getting cut in on state projects.
Click to expand...
You don't know what I read or watch. If you did, that would be creepy. By the way, there was no reference to Politifact in the post you replied to. Politifact isn't only one place that I check for information. I even go to faux news to get their perspective. I wash my hands afterward however.

But really Pie, you don't understand what a fact is. Facts are verifiable and don't change. That's the substance of Politifact. Sometimes they aren't comfortable but they are verifiable and to reject facts and accept comfortable lies is what you do. There are times that I check my belief at Politifacts or Fact check and learn that I am wrong. I correct my beliefs and move on. Politifacts is rejected by truthy fact free people like you because, well, I don't know why. You are just stupid I guess.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I never was much of a fan of this story when the right wing claimed that Clinton was hiding from the press. But to set the record straight, it seems that the tables have turned over the past couple of months and the press is starting to play the game: "Where's Donald?"

http://time.com/4500027/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-press-conferences/
Hillary Clinton Now Gives Press Conferences While Donald Trump Avoids Them
For months journalists complained they couldn’t get Hillary Clinton to answer questions from her traveling press entourage, while Donald Trump cavorted with reporters and appeared on television ad nauseam.

Now the tables have turned.

In the past two weeks, Clinton has taken informal and formal questions from traveling reporters on at least eight occasions, while Trump has not taken questions at a formal press conference for more than 50 days.

What do you think, @Flaming Pie and @OddBall1st ? Clinton is more accessible to the press than Benedict Donald. This which was very, very important and noteworthy to you not too long ago, and a key indicator of Clinton's trustworthiness.

Now that the tables have turned, do you think that Clinton is more trustworthy? You both made such a stink over this. Could it be that now Clinton is more accessible to the press and taking questions in formal press conferences, are you changing your mind and planning to vote for her? After all, she's doing what you said was very important to do and it seems she listened!
 
squarepush3r

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary
A Kennedy outs a Bush who favors a Clinton.

By Darren Samuelsohn

09/19/16 11:20 PM EDT

Updated 09/19/16 11:36 PM EDT

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Former President George H.W. Bush is bucking his party's presidential nominee and plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to a member of another famous political family, the Kennedys.

Bush, 92, had intended to stay silent on the White House race between Clinton and Donald Trump, a sign in and of itself of his distaste for the GOP nominee. But his preference for the wife of his own successor, President Bill Clinton, nonetheless became known to a wider audience thanks to Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy.


On Monday, Townsend posted a picture on her Facebook page shaking hands next to the former president and this caption: "The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!”

In a telephone interview, Townsend said she met with the former president in Maine earlier today, where she said he made his preference known that he was voting for a Democrat. “That’s what he said,” she told POLITICO.


POLITICO screen grab

Asked about Townsend’s post, George H.W. Bush spokesman Jim McGrath in an email replied, "The vote President Bush will cast as a private citizen in some 50 days will be just that: a private vote cast in some 50 days. He is not commenting on the presidential race in the interim."

George H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush have stayed out of the political debate since campaigning earlier this year for their son Jeb's unsuccessful bid for president. Neither George H.W. Bush nor his son, former President George W. Bush, attended this summer's Republican National Convention in Cleveland where Trump accepted the nomination.


2016

50-day countdown begins
By Alex Isenstadt and Gabriel Debenedetti

Many former GOP officials from both Bush administrations have also announced their support for Clinton over Trump, including national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.

One Bush official who has taken Trump's side is former Vice President Dan Quayle, who told POLITICO in an interview this summer he was still holding out hope both Bushes would back Trump. "Clearly in their heart of hearts I should hope they would want a Republican president, but they can speak for themselves," Quayle said in an interview in July.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395#ixzz4KmXTL4R6
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Illinois Enema Bandit said:
you of all people amaze me sky,as soon as you stood your ground on the DNC/Clinton rigging of the primary & stealing votes from Sanders you were attacked by your " friends " here,yet you still want to be part of them,the same friends ( SJW's )you fucked up & let know personal things about you now use those issues to "gleefully "attack you,in the cruelest ways possible,yet you still want to be part of the club ?

I watched your "friends" laugh at your children calling another woman mommy,I watched your friends laugh at your husband leaving you,I watched as your Social Justice Warrior friends called you a horrible mother & wife,self proclaimed men of principal ripped your fuckin heart out because you " dared " speak out demanding democracy & honesty,yet you still want to be in the car with those people,amazing !

don't you get it yet ? either your a full blown radical whack job who's willing to take a steaming shit on the constitution & democracy for "the cause" ,or your the enemy,to be attacked using any & all means up to & including getting you fired from your job,turning you into the police,attacking your family,posting your personal info online,calling parloe officers,snitching you out etc,there are no uncrossable lines with these vile hypocrites .

you've fell prey to the SJW movement which has showed you its vile hypocrisy ,yet you don't seem able to divest yourself from them, even though you know they are wrong in every way , again amazing .
Click to expand...

For 'it' to bother me, 'it' would have to be true:wink:

I'm the ultimate puppet master; it's so much fun to watch the fervor and scurry of little mice.
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
jill stein is an anti-vaxxer. that makes her a dumbass.

and for that matter...

Click to expand...
+rep :clap: I didn't know that..you're right..Jesus Christ no vaccines? We've basically wiped out many disease including small pox. In could never vote for someone who really believes that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top