State Department Audit Faults Clinton on Email Handling

[SDBoiler1]

State Department's audit findings do not have the weight that FBI investigation may/may not, but still this can't be good for HRC in terms of perception.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apnewsbreak-state-dept-audit-faults-140853390.html

 

[qazplm]

Why? What's new that will affect perception? The audit findings found she did stuff she shouldn't have done. She's admitted to mistakes. Everyone on either side is already baking that in. It's not like folks are saying no mistakes were made. So what perception will be affected by this?

 

[SDBoiler1]

Why? What's new that will affect perception? The audit findings found she did stuff she shouldn't have done. She's admitted to mistakes. Everyone on either side is already baking that in. It's not like folks are saying no mistakes were made. So what perception will be affected by this?

I disagree. HRC has never really come clean on this. There are scores of videos of her denying she's done anything wrong. She constantly refers to the FBI's criminal investigation as a "security review". Then James Comey comes out and says he "doesn't even know what that means".

If anything, this bolsters the recurring theme that she's a liar, untrustworthy, and thinks she's "above the law".

 

[qazplm]

I disagree. HRC has never really come clean on this. There are scores of videos of her denying she's done anything wrong. She constantly refers to the FBI's criminal investigation as a "security review". Then James Comey comes out and says he "doesn't even know what that means".

If anything, this bolsters the recurring theme that she's a liar, untrustworthy, and thinks she's "above the law".

"Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility."

 

[CWS]

"Everything that I did was permitted". HRC

 

[qazplm]

"Everything that I did was permitted". HRC

One statement happened before the other. The critique was "she never really came clean on it" not "she only came clean after first denying it."

 

[CWS]

One statement happened before the other. The critique was "she never really came clean on it" not "she only came clean after first denying it."

So then she lied?

 

[qazplm]

So then she lied?

Maybe. Depends. She said she did nothing that was not permitted. Just because something is permitted (or not specifically barred) does not mean that doing it isn't a mistake, or poor judgment, or wrong. So you can do something that is "permitted" and still have it be all those other things.

I don't know what the State Dept rules were or weren't. If the rules in fact did not permit it (as in specifically barred it), then she lied about them being permitted. If they did permit it, she did not. If they were silent one way or the other, then she's in the moral gray area since the perfectly correct answer would be that it was neither permitted nor barred.

But, again, the argument was that this new report would change perceptions, and, again, I say, what change? There's no one out there who thinks she did everything mighty fine. She no longer says she did everything mighty fine. Whatever negatives are out there at this point are baked in, i.e. folks like you are already convinced she's a lying liar who violated the law and shouldn't be President. This won't change your perception, and the FBI coming out and saying no crime won't change your perception. It won't change my perception that the audit thinks she (and other SoS) didn't handle email well and that she's the most culpable as the most recent SoS. That was already known and accepted.

An FBI indictment would certainly change things since I consider them unbiased enough.

 

[CWS]

Maybe. Depends. She said she did nothing that was not permitted. Just because something is permitted (or not specifically barred) does not mean that doing it isn't a mistake, or poor judgment, or wrong. So you can do something that is "permitted" and still have it be all those other things.

I don't know what the State Dept rules were or weren't. If the rules in fact did not permit it (as in specifically barred it), then she lied about them being permitted. If they did permit it, she did not. If they were silent one way or the other, then she's in the moral gray area since the perfectly correct answer would be that it was neither permitted nor barred.

But, again, the argument was that this new report would change perceptions, and, again, I say, what change? There's no one out there who thinks she did everything mighty fine. She no longer says she did everything mighty fine. Whatever negatives are out there at this point are baked in, i.e. folks like you are already convinced she's a lying liar who violated the law and shouldn't be President. This won't change your perception, and the FBI coming out and saying no crime won't change your perception. It won't change my perception that the audit thinks she (and other SoS) didn't handle email well and that she's the most culpable as the most recent SoS. That was already known and accepted.

An FBI indictment would certainly change things since I consider them unbiased enough.

Is the State Department Inspector General unbiased enough?

It may change perspective. This sort of forces the left-wing media to at least start to cover this. It can't be blamed on right-wing conspiracy anymore. This is coming from President Obama's people. Moderates may start to peel away as she loses their trust. I know that she will never lose your trust, but moderates may be a different story.

 

[Purdue97]

Why? What's new that will affect perception? The audit findings found she did stuff she shouldn't have done. She's admitted to mistakes. Everyone on either side is already baking that in. It's not like folks are saying no mistakes were made. So what perception will be affected by this?

I will say that I agree in the sense that this is not news. It could be more filed under no crap.

That said, she has admitted to mistakes? She had every excuse and twist in the book on why she did what she did even though anybody with the slightest background in how to handle this information knows she is guilty of handling it wrong. She came out and said it was a mistake in only that it caused a diversion and a circus, and then it was mistake but not an error in judgement or some crap.

Anyway, not sure it matters. The email issues, Benghazi, the shady and corrupt pay for play foundation-people do not seem to care much if at all. A sign of the times and it is not a good sign.

 

[qazplm]

Is the State Department Inspector General unbiased enough?

It may change perspective. This sort of forces the left-wing media to at least start to cover this. It can't be blamed on right-wing conspiracy anymore. This is coming from President Obama's people. Moderates may start to peel away as she loses their trust. I know that she will never lose your trust, but moderates may be a different story.

peel away to whom? Trump?

 

[CWS]

peel away to whom? Trump?

Trump, or sit at home. Voter fraud aside, it takes some effort to vote. Some will be less likely to do this effort if they feel they are voting for a liar. Even some democrats have scruples I kid, I kid.

 

[qazplm]

Trump, or sit at home. Voter fraud aside, it takes some effort to vote. Some will be less likely to do this effort if they feel they are voting for a liar. Even some democrats have scruples I kid, I kid.

Hillary has more raw votes than Trump does at this point. She has the demographic favs. Trump will drive up dem voters to come out to oppose him. Sure, Hillary will do the reverse, but at the end of the day, presidential elections are almost always about base turnout, not how moderates vote.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Hillary has more raw votes than Trump does at this point. She has the demographic favs. Trump will drive up dem voters to come out to oppose him. Sure, Hillary will do the reverse, but at the end of the day, presidential elections are almost always about base turnout, not how moderates vote.

Latest polls show white women coming around to Trump's side more. HRC still leads but Trump is gaining ground with this key demographic. Women are smarter than the Democrats give them credit for - most won't vote for HRC because she's a female. They'll vote for the candidate whose policies they like better.

With Hispanics Trump is doing slightly better than Romney did in 2012 according to latest polls. Not great, but improving too.

Gotta say, the Mexican anarchists are not helping their cause by damaging property, injuring cops, and flying Mexican flags. The more they do this the more it seemingly bolsters Trump's position on illegal immigration. These people look like lawless idiots.

 

[qazplm]

Latest polls show white women coming around to Trump's side more. HRC still leads but Trump is gaining ground with this key demographic. Women are smarter than the Democrats give them credit for - most won't vote for HRC because she's a female. They'll vote for the candidate whose policies they like better.

With Hispanics Trump is doing slightly better than Romney did in 2012 according to latest polls. Not great, but improving too.

Gotta say, the Mexican anarchists are not helping their cause by damaging property, injuring cops, and flying Mexican flags. The more they do this the more it seemingly bolsters Trump's position on illegal immigration. These people look like lawless idiots.

tell you what, you name the bet...more women will vote for HRC than Trump. I won't even make you bet anything. I'll literally do anything you ask if more women vote for Trump. They won't, and they vote more than men. No one said anything about women voting for Hillary because she's female. That's your statement. It's 08 and 12 all over again where someone gloms on to polling done right after the republican clinches the nom but before the Dem does...third time ought to be just as fun.

 

[SDBoiler1]

tell you what, you name the bet...more women will vote for HRC than Trump. I won't even make you bet anything. I'll literally do anything you ask if more women vote for Trump. They won't, and they vote more than men. No one said anything about women voting for Hillary because she's female. That's your statement. It's 08 and 12 all over again where someone gloms on to polling done right after the republican clinches the nom but before the Dem does...third time ought to be just as fun.

HRC herself has alluded to this and has made it part of her campaign spiel. Her surrogates say it regularly, too.

Trump doesn't have to win more female votes than HRC, he just needs to do somewhat better than Romney. Trump is killing HRC with male voters, and there is much more energy with male voters in this cycle than last time.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I hate to break it to you guys, but Trump is a liar too, so thinking "people won't want to vote for a liar" has been disproven. Time and time again.

 

[qazplm]

I hate to break it to you guys, but Trump is a liar too, so thinking "people won't want to vote for a liar" has been disproven. Time and time again.

Most politicians lie. Voters WANT them to lie to them to some degree. The promises made in campaigns are almost always way beyond what can done, yet if politicians didn't make them, they'd never get elected. Some are more lying than others of course, but voters vote for liars every election, and some of those lies they KNOW are lies, and they demand those lies.

Obamacare isn't being repealed. We all know this. Yet try and be a republican running who says that fact, he'd never make it out of the primary. $15 minimum wage isn't happening. Single payer isn't happening, but Dems have to promise it in many of their primaries to get elected.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I hate to break it to you guys, but Trump is a liar too, so thinking "people won't want to vote for a liar" has been disproven. Time and time again.

ya but there's a giant chasm between idealistic campaign ideas and lying about your actions as a government official. cmon man. One will get you investigated and potentially prosecuted.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I hate to break it to you guys, but Trump is a liar too, so thinking "people won't want to vote for a liar" has been disproven. Time and time again.

HRC is a liar and is also corrupt as hell. Trying to compare HRC and Trump in terms of lying and corruption is laughable.

 

[SDBoiler1]

HRC is a liar and is also corrupt as hell. Trying to compare HRC and Trump in terms of lying and corruption is laughable.

The Clinton's are about as corrupt as they come..

http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-and-their-associates/

 

[SDBoiler1]

The Clinton's are about as corrupt as they come..

http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-and-their-associates/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-know-hillary-lied-multiple-101500675.html

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Trump has lied on his campaign; he's lied about what he's done and said in the past; he's swindled people out of money by making false claims; hell, he's even lied about his identity in the name of self-promotion (John Miller); he remains the only serious presidential candidate in the last 40 years to not have released tax returns.

The only reason Trump hasn't lied while in public office is because he's never held public office.

A hint: You should probably focus on "Why should I vote for Trump?" rather than "why I shouldn't vote for Hillary?" because I have already evaluated Hillary over the years, and while I don't like her, I like your preferred candidate even less. Try something new....

 

[Bruce1]

Why? What's new that will affect perception? The audit findings found she did stuff she shouldn't have done. She's admitted to mistakes. Everyone on either side is already baking that in. It's not like folks are saying no mistakes were made. So what perception will be affected by this?

What's New in this release? A lot!

She said she was in compliance with State Dept Regs but did not get permission for her private server even though she received training regarding the new guidelines put in place after the C. Powell experience.

She has always said she would talk to anyone about this. NOT.

I had never heard before that she had violated that Federal Records Act by not turning over docs when she left office.

this from the AP

Investigators found no evidence Clinton “requested or obtained guidance or approval” to conduct official business on her personal email account or server despite having an “obligation” to discuss this. The report said had she notified the appropriate offices, they would not have approved her “exclusive reliance” on a personal account.

And the report noted that during Clinton’s tenure, the guidance was “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated” than in the past. Yet she still defied the guidelines.

Further, while Clinton has said she’s happy to talk to “anybody, anytime” about the issue, the report said she declined an OIG request for an interview, though her predecessors made themselves available. Aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan also declined interviews with government investigators.

The report said Clinton “should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service.”

She did not, the report said, and therefore “did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

 

[SDBoiler1]

Trump has lied on his campaign; he's lied about what he's done and said in the past; he's swindled people out of money by making false claims; hell, he's even lied about his identity in the name of self-promotion (John Miller); he remains the only serious presidential candidate in the last 40 years to not have released tax returns.

The only reason Trump hasn't lied while in public office is because he's never held public office.

A hint: You should probably focus on "Why should I vote for Trump?" rather than "why I shouldn't vote for Hillary?" because I have already evaluated Hillary over the years, and while I don't like her, I like your preferred candidate even less. Try something new....

I get it. You don't like Trump. Mitt Romney didn't release his until October 2012 so don't act like Trump is some outlier. He's got how many months before the election?

I'll tell you why I like Trump.

Unlike the politically-correct drivel that HRC spews on a daily basis, Trump actually says things he believes most of the time. He's raised important issues that HRC would never raise. All she plays is identity politics - Black vs. White, Gay vs. Straight, Muslim vs. Christian, Female vs. Male, etc., etc. etc. The country is damned tired of it.

Trump is not bought and sold by the Russians, the Chinese, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, even Iran, like HRC is. Where did this $2B in the Clinton Foundation come from? Who is buying her?

HRC and her husband have a 30+ year track record of political shenanigans and corruption going all the way back to their days in Arkansas. Thank God Trump doesn't have this record of corruption.

HRC thinks she's above the law. How else do you explain the email fiasco? (And it is a fiasco, for her and her surrogates). Trump is smarter than HRC - he wouldn't do this.

HRC's biggest claim to fame is being Secretary of State. What did she actually accomplish? Nation building in Egypt? Nation building in Libya, where ISIS now runs a majority of the country? Pulling out of Iraq prematurely and allowing ISIS to set up shop? Helping to set the stage for Obama to give $100B to Iran for almost nothing in return? Her record as SOS is a disaster. Please refute this. Trump will have advisors who are much better than Obama and HRC have had.

Trump will put conservatives on the Supreme Court. Having HRC choose justices would be a disaster. Kiss your freedoms goodbye.

Trump has a business background. We need someone who understands business in the worst way running the country. His business record isn't perfect, but he's accomplished one hell of a lot more than HRC. "Elect me so my husband can be economic advisor". What a joke.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

So, you started out OK, then four paragraphs about HRC. I get it. I don't like her either.

I don't think Trump is telling you what he believes. He is the Webster's definition of a demagogue and it's fairly plain to see that once you peel back the (R) label, there isn't anything (R) about him. So either way, you're electing a moderate liberal, in reality, because that's what Trump historically is. He doesn't even know what his own party's platform is, but he's been programmed to say various things and when asked tough questions, he trips. Case in point: the "punish women who get abortions" statement. He said that because he thought that was the answer conservative voters wanted, then backtracked it when he found out it wasn't. Second case in point: the wall - it's not going to happen, and certainly not funded by Mexico.

I don't have faith that I can accurately determine what Trump will do because I think he's purposefully misleading, thus I intend to vote for the Devil I Know.

If something whacky happens and Sanders is nominated somehow, I will vote for Trump. If Trump can somehow make me believe he's genuine and at least a little bit predictable - as in, I actually know what he stands for and believes - maybe I'll reconsider... but he's put himself in quite a hole with his behavior thus far, and name-calling Hillary into submission isn't going to make it any better. He needs to demonstrate substance, and he's not done that to this point. I don't believe he is capable under his present campaign management, either.

 

[burbo]

So, you started out OK, then four paragraphs about HRC. I get it. I don't like her either.

I don't think Trump is telling you what he believes. He is the Webster's definition of a demagogue and it's fairly plain to see that once you peel back the (R) label, there isn't anything (R) about him. So either way, you're electing a moderate liberal, in reality, because that's what Trump historically is. He doesn't even know what his own party's platform is, but he's been programmed to say various things and when asked tough questions, he trips. Case in point: the "punish women who get abortions" statement. He said that because he thought that was the answer conservative voters wanted, then backtracked it when he found out it wasn't. Second case in point: the wall - it's not going to happen, and certainly not funded by Mexico.

I don't have faith that I can accurately determine what Trump will do because I think he's purposefully misleading, thus I intend to vote for the Devil I Know.

If something whacky happens and Sanders is nominated somehow, I will vote for Trump. If Trump can somehow make me believe he's genuine and at least a little bit predictable - as in, I actually know what he stands for and believes - maybe I'll reconsider... but he's put himself in quite a hole with his behavior thus far, and name-calling Hillary into submission isn't going to make it any better. He needs to demonstrate substance, and he's not done that to this point. I don't believe he is capable under his present campaign management, either.

In regards to his present campaign management, it appears there was a shake up today.

http://fox6now.com/2016/05/25/top-a...kers-campaign-manager-departs-trump-campaign/

Edit, after reading that article again, apparently there is less chance of a change of management now that Wiley has left the campaign.

 

[Bruce1]

I get it. You don't like Trump. Mitt Romney didn't release his until October 2012 so don't act like Trump is some outlier. He's got how many months before the election?

I'll tell you why I like Trump.

Unlike the politically-correct drivel that HRC spews on a daily basis, Trump actually says things he believes most of the time. He's raised important issues that HRC would never raise. All she plays is identity politics - Black vs. White, Gay vs. Straight, Muslim vs. Christian, Female vs. Male, etc., etc. etc. The country is damned tired of it.

Trump is not bought and sold by the Russians, the Chinese, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, even Iran, like HRC is. Where did this $2B in the Clinton Foundation come from? Who is buying her?

HRC and her husband have a 30+ year track record of political shenanigans and corruption going all the way back to their days in Arkansas. Thank God Trump doesn't have this record of corruption.

HRC thinks she's above the law. How else do you explain the email fiasco? (And it is a fiasco, for her and her surrogates). Trump is smarter than HRC - he wouldn't do this.

HRC's biggest claim to fame is being Secretary of State. What did she actually accomplish? Nation building in Egypt? Nation building in Libya, where ISIS now runs a majority of the country? Pulling out of Iraq prematurely and allowing ISIS to set up shop? Helping to set the stage for Obama to give $100B to Iran for almost nothing in return? Her record as SOS is a disaster. Please refute this. Trump will have advisors who are much better than Obama and HRC have had.

Trump will put conservatives on the Supreme Court. Having HRC choose justices would be a disaster. Kiss your freedoms goodbye.

Trump has a business background. We need someone who understands business in the worst way running the country. His business record isn't perfect, but he's accomplished one hell of a lot more than HRC. "Elect me so my husband can be economic advisor". What a joke.[/QUOTE

 

[Purdue85]

Why? What's new that will affect perception? The audit findings found she did stuff she shouldn't have done. She's admitted to mistakes. Everyone on either side is already baking that in. It's not like folks are saying no mistakes were made. So what perception will be affected by this?

Horse(crap). She's a liar. She willfully violated the law.

We get it. You'll do anything to defend the indefensible. As long as a person advances the radical leftists agenda the radical leftists are fine with whoever it is.

 

[Bruce1]

So, you started out OK, then four paragraphs about HRC. I get it. I don't like her either.

I don't think Trump is telling you what he believes. He is the Webster's definition of a demagogue and it's fairly plain to see that once you peel back the (R) label, there isn't anything (R) about him. So either way, you're electing a moderate liberal, in reality, because that's what Trump historically is. He doesn't even know what his own party's platform is, but he's been programmed to say various things and when asked tough questions, he trips. Case in point: the "punish women who get abortions" statement. He said that because he thought that was the answer conservative voters wanted, then backtracked it when he found out it wasn't. Second case in point: the wall - it's not going to happen, and certainly not funded by Mexico.

I don't have faith that I can accurately determine what Trump will do because I think he's purposefully misleading, thus I intend to vote for the Devil I Know.

If something whacky happens and Sanders is nominated somehow, I will vote for Trump. If Trump can somehow make me believe he's genuine and at least a little bit predictable - as in, I actually know what he stands for and believes - maybe I'll reconsider... but he's put himself in quite a hole with his behavior thus far, and name-calling Hillary into submission isn't going to make it any better. He needs to demonstrate substance, and he's not done that to this point. I don't believe he is capable under his present campaign management, either.

Like others discussing Trump comments about punishing women for abortion you leave out a critical critical point. He was asked if the world changed and abortion was made illegal should women be punished for having one. That was the question. Those people wanting to make Trump look ridiculous conveniently leave off the hypothetical firs point. Trump's inexperience being set up by the press caused him to answer a hypothetical question designed to trap him.

Your comment about Trump being a Demagogue can easily be applied to the other candidate of interest in the race too

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Like others discussing Trump comments about punishing women for abortion you leave out a critical critical point. He was asked if the world changed and abortion was made illegal should women be punished for having one. That was the question. Those people wanting to make Trump look ridiculous conveniently leave off the hypothetical firs point. Trump's inexperience being set up by the press caused him to answer a hypothetical question designed to trap him.

Your comment about Trump being a Demagogue can easily be applied to the other candidate of interest in the race too

I agree it was a trap question, but when you're president, not everything is teed up for you either. He should be able to think in his feet, and that exchange wouldn't have been so painful if he's actually been saying what he thought instead of trying to say what he thinks his voter base wants to hear.

HRC is a lot of things, a demagogue she is not.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

State Department's audit findings do not have the weight that FBI investigation may/may not, but still this can't be good for HRC in terms of perception.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apnewsbreak-state-dept-audit-faults-140853390.html

This is naked treason. When the government says they're going to investigate themselves all that tells everyone is they want to lie it away. That is all an investigation is. Hillary ran a rogue operation to signal foreign intelligence agencies classified information so that arming terrorists could be done completely off the books. The State Department knew. The State Department is run by the Council on Foreign Relations. The entire department is a British Intelligence front, it is the sister of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. They run the US State Department. The entire group is guilty of treason. Hillary Clinton has over 2 billion dollars in bribes from foreign enemy states, including the Russians, in a tax free slush fund that she calls her foundation. She took bribes to authorize the Russians ownership over US Uranium companies. Russia owns over 1/3rd of US Uranium production. They can corner the entire market with a position like that if they want. Essentially Russia controls US power prices. She took bribes to sell high tech weaponry to virtually all middle eastern countries, including Iran. She is guilty of highest level treason. And it doesn't start with her. The US government is rogue. This is a rogue government filled with foreign agents that have an end goal to completely overthrow the United States and every principle of the United States and socially re-engineer the country into totalitarian slavery under world government control. The US is subordinated and controlled by foreign governments. The State Department doesn't investigate anything. They just throw a few cherries out there to make it look authentic, this entire thing will be brushed under the carpet real soon now that Trump won. It is high treason.

How embarrassed are all you people going to be when this fully gets exposed. These people are so bold the very people that slaughtered Kennedy, that were involved, they run their children for president. And they get away with it to your faces. This country is a cuck. A bunch of mindless idiot cuck faces. I got some news for everyone. They threw a coup in this country and all of you are collaborators. You aren't patriots. You are collaborators. George Bush who is a direct descendant of every sitting and non sitting monarch of Europe, and in the same secret society as Adolf Hilter, in a death cult Illuminati society known as the "order of death", AKA Skull and Bones, who's father Prescott Bush was supposed to be tried for treason and had his bank seized by the government for funding Adolf Hilter, he had a kid become CIA director when Kennedy had his head splattered on his wife, later became President, had a kid become president himself also in Skull and Bones, and then a fat faced loser run for president against Trump. Do you realize the magnitude of this?

 

[Bruce1]

I agree it was a trap question, but when you're president, not everything is teed up for you either. He should be able to think in his feet, and that exchange wouldn't have been so painful if he's actually been saying what he thought instead of trying to say what he thinks his voter base wants to hear.

HRC is a lot of things, a demagogue she is not.

So HRC, veteran in politics, was totally trapped on CNN

I agree it was a trap question, but when you're president, not everything is teed up for you either. He should be able to think in his feet, and that exchange wouldn't have been so painful if he's actually been saying what he thought instead of trying to say what he thinks his voter base wants to hear.

HRC is a lot of things, a demagogue she is not.

Hmmm.
Demagogue | Definition of Demagogue by Merriam-Webster
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › demago...
Full Definition of demagogue. 1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. 2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times.

HRC not a demagogues? Well pitting women a gains men, rich vs poor, black vs white,making promises to everyone sure fits the bill to me. SMH

 

[gr8indoorsman]

So HRC, veteran in politics, was totally trapped on CNN


Hmmm.
Demagogue | Definition of Demagogue by Merriam-Webster
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › demago...
Full Definition of demagogue. 1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. 2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times.

HRC not a demagogues? Well pitting women a gains men, rich vs poor, black vs white,making promises to everyone sure fits the bill to me. SMH

No, she isn't. Sorry.

 

[Purdue97]

So, you started out OK, then four paragraphs about HRC. I get it. I don't like her either.

I don't think Trump is telling you what he believes. He is the Webster's definition of a demagogue and it's fairly plain to see that once you peel back the (R) label, there isn't anything (R) about him. So either way, you're electing a moderate liberal, in reality, because that's what Trump historically is. He doesn't even know what his own party's platform is, but he's been programmed to say various things and when asked tough questions, he trips. Case in point: the "punish women who get abortions" statement. He said that because he thought that was the answer conservative voters wanted, then backtracked it when he found out it wasn't. Second case in point: the wall - it's not going to happen, and certainly not funded by Mexico.

I don't have faith that I can accurately determine what Trump will do because I think he's purposefully misleading, thus I intend to vote for the Devil I Know.

If something whacky happens and Sanders is nominated somehow, I will vote for Trump. If Trump can somehow make me believe he's genuine and at least a little bit predictable - as in, I actually know what he stands for and believes - maybe I'll reconsider... but he's put himself in quite a hole with his behavior thus far, and name-calling Hillary into submission isn't going to make it any better. He needs to demonstrate substance, and he's not done that to this point. I don't believe he is capable under his present campaign management, either.

Actually in that post SD1 went back to why he liked Trump. I do not disagree that he is more Independent than anything. He does not seem to mind that he pisses off quite bit of the Republican establishment. I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing.

Not sure why people are so caught up on the wall building. He said it early in the primary, but has since has said we need to be flexible on negotiating these bills. Getting other countries to pay for stuff is not as hard as it seems. People tend to think that he means the USA will receive a check from said country. Simply not the case. Give them less aid, tariffs, taxes that benefit companies when they keep jobs in USA etc etc

You need to re listen to that questioning by Mathews. That was not a statement he made on is own as it was a question on a hypothetical situation if a law was passed(that no details were given on) that made abortions illegal. Trump was damned if he answered the way he did, and damned if he did not answer that way because he has often said we are a nation of laws, and the laws need to be followed. Anyway, I do not understand why Republican candidates repeatedly fall into these trap questions.

Your posting lately has fallen to the quality of qazpalms. As I read your last two paragraphs, they might have some points. That said, how they do not apply to Clinton just as much if not more than Trump is beyond comprehension.

 

[qazplm]

Actually in that post SD1 went back to why he liked Trump. I do not disagree that he is more Independent than anything. He does not seem to mind that he pisses off quite bit of the Republican establishment. I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing.

Not sure why people are so caught up on the wall building. He said it early in the primary, but has since has said we need to be flexible on negotiating these bills. Getting other countries to pay for stuff is not as hard as it seems. People tend to think that he means the USA will receive a check from said country. Simply not the case. Give them less aid, tariffs, taxes that benefit companies when they keep jobs in USA etc etc

You need to re listen to that questioning by Mathews. That was not a statement he made on is own as it was a question on a hypothetical situation if a law was passed(that no details were given on) that made abortions illegal. Trump was damned if he answered the way he did, and damned if he did not answer that way because he has often said we are a nation of laws, and the laws need to be followed. Anyway, I do not understand why Republican candidates repeatedly fall into these trap questions.

Your posting lately has fallen to the quality of qazpalms. As I read your last two paragraphs, they might have some points. That said, how they do not apply to Clinton just as much if not more than Trump is beyond comprehension.

lol the next quality post you type...well, I'll be looking for a bible because it's a sign of the Apocalypse. I have to laugh at the, don't know why folks care about anything Trump says, he's already said he'll be flexible. lmao. Yes, it's so hard to come up with a right answer to a hypothetical that is one of the most serious and often debated questions of the last 60 years or so. I mean no one has ever thought to ask the question of who pays for the crime of abortion. It's so novel and unfair.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

lol the next quality post you type...well, I'll be looking for a bible because it's a sign of the Apocalypse. I have to laugh at the, don't know why folks care about anything Trump says, he's already said he'll be flexible. lmao. Yes, it's so hard to come up with a right answer to a hypothetical that is one of the most serious and often debated questions of the last 60 years or so. I mean no one has ever thought to ask the question of who pays for the crime of abortion. It's so novel and unfair.

Voting for Hillary Clinton is insanity. Why would you do the same thing expecting a different result? We already know Hillary is a traitor. She's a failure. A traitor. She is a filthy animal and looks like one too. It doesn't matter what Trump haters say. You cannot do worse voting for Trump even if every move he made was a mistake, because every move Hillary makes is deliberate treason. This election is real simple. There won't be a second chance.


What is amazing about Trump is that he is basically calling for the most basic assumption in all of politics, which is are the leaders working towards the national interest or not. He is calling them out because it is so clearly not the case.

Clinton cuck'g America like America is her cuck. Putting the country under foreign occupation and coup d'etat takeover.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS? Your little pot belly bald professor cuck faced denial brain doesn't make this not so. THIS IS IN THE WILL OF CECIL RHODES. UNDERSTAND THAT. The next time you lick the stink out of another Rhodes Scholars feet.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Actually in that post SD1 went back to why he liked Trump. I do not disagree that he is more Independent than anything. He does not seem to mind that he pisses off quite bit of the Republican establishment. I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing.

Not sure why people are so caught up on the wall building. He said it early in the primary, but has since has said we need to be flexible on negotiating these bills. Getting other countries to pay for stuff is not as hard as it seems. People tend to think that he means the USA will receive a check from said country. Simply not the case. Give them less aid, tariffs, taxes that benefit companies when they keep jobs in USA etc etc

You need to re listen to that questioning by Mathews. That was not a statement he made on is own as it was a question on a hypothetical situation if a law was passed(that no details were given on) that made abortions illegal. Trump was damned if he answered the way he did, and damned if he did not answer that way because he has often said we are a nation of laws, and the laws need to be followed. Anyway, I do not understand why Republican candidates repeatedly fall into these trap questions.

Your posting lately has fallen to the quality of qazpalms. As I read your last two paragraphs, they might have some points. That said, how they do not apply to Clinton just as much if not more than Trump is beyond comprehension.

It strikes me that people on here think my post quality has taken a turn for the worse as I haven't lined up behind Trump.

I'm sorry guys, but I see things differently from you, but that doesn't mean my thought processes are any different nor that the quality of what I post is any different. That said, I do see plenty of what qaz talks about when he dismisses some of your (the group's) posts because it's like reading a comment section on Fox News. Same stuff, over and over again. Blaming things on people who have little to nothing to do with what you're blaming them for.

That last part is the thing that pissed me off in the Bush administration when Democrats would blame Bush for literally everything, even when he didn't have control over Senate and House actions as his party wasn't a majority. I'm smart enough to figure out that the same thing is happening with Obama now - specifically with this ridiculous argument about immigration under Obama - and I see the hypocrisy that Republicans are guilty of which is the same as the Democrats will be guilty of in the future when Republicans are back in control some day. I just choose not to participate.

If that makes you think the quality of my posts is different or that I'm applying any different logic, well, I suggest that that's a you problem, not a me problem.

 

[Bruce1]

No, she isn't. Sorry.

Sorry, she is. It is very obvious if you take an open minded look. Trump is too, so is Sanders, and on and on

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Sorry, she is. It is very obvious if you take an open minded look. Trump is too, so is Sanders, and on and on

A demagogue is someone who isn't principled. In other words, they say what they need to say to embrace voters rather than what they believe. Bernie Sanders is as far from a demagogue as I've ever seen this late in an election... maybe someone like Ron Paul or Ross Perot would be along those lines. Bernie is as genuine as they come. He's just genuinely nuts.

I think Hillary is saying what she believes. She has run a little further left to combat Bernie, so I think that saying she is a demagogue is more fair than calling Sanders one, but she still pales in comparison to Trump, who has more or less admitted he's just saying what's popular with the voters he wants to attract, and that all of his stances are negotiable/flexible.

Yes, stances are always flexible, but the major problem I have with Trump, and the problem I keep repeating over and over and over again to you guys is that the Trump you think you know isn't Trump. It's a character created to attract voters on a scale I haven't seen in a long, long time.

I cannot vote for someone whose principles I don't understand. That he has not stood on any principles that he actually believes is the biggest turnoff for me - bigger than the fact that he's a loose cannon and would be a poor representative of the United States overseas, IMO.

That you think all three of these candidates are equally demagogic leads me to believe you don't really understand what the word means.

As I've said before, while I don't like Hillary, at least I know what she thinks and where she stands and what to expect from her (for better and for worse) when she is president. I have no clue what to expect from Trump, but based on everything I've seen in the campaign so far - from his missteps to his sophomoric behavior in debates and in rallies - I cannot see myself voting for him.

You are all entitled to your opinions and your votes, as I am to mine. One man can change my mind, and he doesn't have a login on this website. He's got a hell of a lot of work to do with me and many other voters to have a prayer at winning enough electoral votes in November against Hillary.

If it makes you feel better, I vote in California, so I doubt my vote for Hillary will be the one that awards her the state...