Hillary Clinton

[EmeraldBullet]

Yes, the servers were in place so Hillary could funnel foreign government bribes (given as donations to the foundation in bitcoin) to her own pockets. Good luck proving this happened, but it did.

[savvyman]

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) again - I am so impressed by his unique and from what I can tell completely original insight on this Presidential Campaign. What a great mind this guy has.


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146945783646/the-crook-versus-the-racist


>>>>>>

The Crook Versus the Racist

Posted July 5th, 2016 @ 9:27am in #trump #clinton2016

Do you remember the detailed policy proposal that came out of the Clinton campaign last week?

Neither do I.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m just saying that if Clinton said something about her policies, I didn’t notice. The Clinton campaign has wisely ditched facts and reason for pure persuasion. And it is working.

As you know, Trump has branded Clinton as “crooked.” And that branding has stuck. If you doubt it, watch ABC’s Martha Raddatz literally imagine the word “crooked” in a Trump tweet she is reading about Clinton.

But while Trump has defined Clinton as crooked, the Clinton campaign has put together an impressive confirmation bias case that Trump is a racist. As I have described in prior posts, none of the “evidence” is real. Trump talks about other countries, illegal immigrants, and religion. He has no proposals about race. But the facts are not important to politics. Never have been, never will. What matters is that the Clinton side – including parts of the media – have branded Trump a racist, and it is sticking.

Let me be perfectly clear about this: In a contest for the office of the Presidency of the United States in 2016, crooked beats racist every time. So if things stay the same, Clinton wins in November.

Trump has made us afraid of immigration – and fear is a powerful persuader. But Clinton countered by making us afraid of Trump! Persuasion-wise, it was exactly the right play. It would be nearly impossible to make voters less afraid of terrorism while things are blowing up all over the world. But you can make voters more afraid of Trump, and that strategy is working for Clinton.

Speaking of confirmation bias, this week we saw Trump retweet an image that included a Star of David symbol, or at least a six-sided star that looks a lot like one. An article at Breitbart mimicked my writing about Trump – while crediting me – and suggested that Trump cleverly made this “mistake” on purpose to enjoy the free publicity it generated. And while I appreciate the credit, that’s not how I saw it this time.

My best guess is that Trump and his campaign didn’t notice that the image looks like the Star of David. I say that because I didn’t notice it the first time I saw it. To me, this situation looks more like an unfortunate oversight than either a sign of dog-whistle racism or a clever ploy to get free media. But that’s not now the public is seeing it.

Thanks to the confirmation bias trap set by the Clinton team, Democrats are primed to see it as one more piece of circumstantial evidence that Trump is a racist.

And thanks to the confirmation bias trap I set with my own writing about Trump’s persuasion tactics, Trump supporters are primed to see the tweet as a clever ploy to get free publicity.

But I’m reasonably certain Trump’s retweet of the offensive image was not intentional, either as a racist dog whistle or as a clever plan to get free advertising. The worst thing the Trump campaign could do is create more confirmation bias for the racist branding Clinton put on them. There isn’t the slightest chance someone on the Trump team thought tweeting a racist-looking image was a good tradeoff for all the free publicity.

The Democratic convention is July 25-28. Until then, Trump’s team is probably holding back their best attacks. The last thing Trump wants is a stronger opponent to replace a weakened Clinton at the last minute. As soon as Clinton is locked-in at the convention, expect to see Trump bring out the big weapons. I assume he is saving the best attacks for then. That would be the smart play here.

Trump needs to reframe this situation in August to win, because otherwise crooked will beat racist. So look for Trump to reframe things this way:

Clinton has a race-first view of the world that is corrosive to society.

Trump has an American-first view of the world that creates healthy competition with other countries.

If Trump sells the reframe, he wins in a landslide. And if Clinton’s email scandal escalates, Trump also wins in a landslide. You might see both.

Note: I endorsed Hillary Clinton – for my personal safety – because I live in California. It isn’t safe to be viewed as a Trump supporter where I live. My politics don’t align with either candidate, but backing Clinton reduces my odds of dying at the hands of my fellow citizens. (And yes, I am 100% serious. It just happens to be funny by coincidence.)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[savvyman]

All Polls are moving in the direction of Trump though most still has Clinton holding a slight to a few point leads in various states.

Still you have to take most of those Poll results with skepticism - the ruling class are the owners of most of the "Pollsters" and the pollsters are using biases in gathering their results. Several people have written about this. Think this is wrong? All the Polls had Great Britain not leaving the European Union - But "Surprise Surprise"..... the people voted to leave - same will happen with Trump.

All Trump needs to do is keeping pounding the facts about the "Most Corrupt Candidate In USA history" down the American peoples throat for the next four months and even Die Hard Hillary Supporters like Bob will be too ashamed to wear their "I'm With Her" campaign buttons.

Here is probably the most respected pollsters in the country - this is what they are reporting as of today:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

[Steady_Hawk]

Savvy,

I just watched a video a couple of days ago saying Hillary has now spent more than 100,000,000 on her campaign commercials vs almost zero for Trump, and she's losing ground fast. Now that's a business man, LOL!

I've been talking with more of my neighbors and actually found a Hillary supporter!....But then she admitted almost her entire family is voting Trump...landslide brother, landslide.

[Rideaducati]

Savvy,

I just watched a video a couple of days ago saying Hillary has now spent more than 100,000,000 on her campaign commercials vs almost zero for Trump, and she's losing ground fast. Now that's a business man, LOL!

I've been talking with more of my neighbors and actually found a Hillary supporter!....But then she admitted almost her entire family is voting Trump...landslide brother, landslide.

I think so too. People have been afraid to be labelled racists or attacked for a while, but more and more people are finding out that there are a LOT of people that think the same way and are now finding themselves emboldened and unafraid to show their support for Trump.

[savvyman]

LOL - Do You really think that America are going to elect these two clowns ?




Landslide alert - Sorry Bob but you will be Wrong - Spectacularly So - Once again.

[c_hawkbob]

You're really a jackass you know. I asked you in PM to leave me out of your delusional political diatribes and I'm serious about it. Quit it. I got nothing to say to you about politics in general or your clown candidate specifically.

And for the record I'm am not a Hillary supporter, I'm a Sanders supporter.

That's the last I'll have to say about it.

[RiverDog]

The only good thing I could see in Sanders is that he wasn't Hillary and he wasn't Trump. Outside of that, he's nothing more than another tax-and-spend liberal.

This election has produced the worst two choices since I started voting back in 1972. I've decided that I'm casting my vote for the Libertarian candidate in the hope that he'll garner enough votes that it might motivate others to join a 3rd party movement.

[c_hawkbob]

He's honest. His message has been the same his entire career. Trust is important in a POTUS.

[savvyman]

You're really a jackass you know. I asked you in PM to leave me out of your delusional political diatribes and I'm serious about it. Quit it. I got nothing to say to you about politics in general or your clown candidate specifically.

And for the record I'm am not a Hillary supporter, I'm a Sanders supporter.

Firstly I don't "PM" so therefore I never saw your message - What i have to say is open and transparent for everyone to see. Secondly - you are the one who initiated every singe attack on me - I only responded. Thirdly, Name calling is such a weak tactic of an intellectually ineffective mind. Fortunately, I won't respond in kind to your insult because quite frankly you have demonstrated time and again that your assessments and opinions are not worth much

That's the last I'll have to say about it.

I suggest you follow what you wrote here as the examples below provide evidence that this is good advice:



Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:34 pm
I don't know what you mean by "the reciprocal of", but what I am saying is that she is not, as a candidate should she get the nomination, as likely to drive people away from her party as Trump would be. By half.

Meaning that I believe a Trump nomination could split the Republican party wide open. I don't believe a Clinton nomination would have even half that effect on the Democratic party.




Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:21 pm


I don't equate Trump and Hillary. I don't see her as qualified for the job and I'm not likely to vote for her, but I would not be embarrassed if she were to become the next president as I would be with Trump.




Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:09 am
I said when the republicans first started taking him seriously that he was the best thing could ever happen for the Democratic party.



Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:03 am
I keep seeing people draw that analogy but I don't buy it. Hillary is not equal to (or inversely proportionate to, if you prefer) Trump. Not by half.




Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:30 am
I'm not arguing any of what you said about Hillary. I'm arguing the level of hate, divisiveness and bigotry of Donald, and the damage having a man like that in the White House could do to this country,especially in the eyes of the rest of the world. We haven't seen this level of hatred and incitement to violence in a candidate in decades




Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri May 13, 2016 6:06 am
I have no doubt that Hillary's corrupt (although i severely doubt "the most corrupt ever") and I'm going to go see Bernie this weekend and will be casting my vote against her in the primary on Tuesday.

But if it comes down to her vs Trump in November she'll have my vote as a vote against Trump and his fear mongering politics of hate.




Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:33 am
As I said when he first began being taken seriously: Trump is the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party. But the GOP has only themselves to blame. I don't agree with every detail of this op-ed in the Washington Post, but he hit's a lot of nails right on their heads; https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html




Re: Donald Trump

Postby c_hawkbob » Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:56 am
Donald Trump, the Democrats best friend.

[RiverDog]

He's honest. His message has been the same his entire career. Trust is important in a POTUS.

Agreed.

But if that were the sole criteria for POTUS, then you and me would be qualified, too.

[c_hawkbob]

You say you never saw my PM I'll take you at your word and apologize for the jackass comment and offer this one last response (where politics is concerned anyway).

None of those quotes evidence my being pro Hillary, what they all do evidence is that I'm anti Trump. And I am very, extremely anti Trump.

And other than the Jackass comment none of them constituted an "attack" either.

BTW according to FiveThirtyEight your boy has a 20 to 25% chance of winning the presidency. When this is all over I hope you can admit you may have been wrong, but if not I won't bother you about it (even though I'm quite certain the opposite would not be true).

[Steady_Hawk]

I think so too. People have been afraid to be labelled racists or attacked for a while, but more and more people are finding out that there are a LOT of people that think the same way and are now finding themselves emboldened and unafraid to show their support for Trump.[/quote]

Rideaducati,

You couldn't be more right on that. I notice that the people who throw around those labels are the "actual" racists. My family as a whole isn't racist, nor homophobic. Anyone who actually thinks that people who want Trump elected fall into those categories are majorly broad brushing his supporters and getting all of their info from the broken left wing media.

I have respect for Bernie supporters as they wanted change as well and it was stolen from them via Super Delegates. I have met quite a few Bernie supporters that are voting Trump because they ultimately wanted a non establishment selection and they feel completely ripped off.

Ultimately, I'm an independent and the next candidate will have the possible potential to select five Supreme Court Justices. The idea of that being left to Hillary is so unnerving it's unreal. She represents the epitome of corruption and everything wrong with this nation today. If you're a Hillary supporter, watch "13 hours". If you still want to vote for her after that, go enlist.....please.

[burrrton]

Take it from an enterprise-level IT guy who held a clearance for 13 years, ObS- she's discredited herself thoroughly all on her own.

[Steady_Hawk]

Time to throw a grenade into this discussion. The GOP strategy is totally to discredit HC, and it is working evidenced by the reactions in here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11 ... e-internet

Trump can't get in soon enough. Hillary for prison. Here's a great video on what was found in the leak scandal that screwed Bernie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pgzugkPqJU

[Rideaducati]

Time to throw a grenade into this discussion. The GOP strategy is totally to discredit HC, and it is working evidenced by the reactions in here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11 ... e-internet

That was the dumbest article I have ever wasted time reading. Now we're sexists if we hate Hillary and she is the most honest candidate of all time... If only we could ignore the OBVIOUS lies like her supporters and the author of that article.

[RiverDog]

Time to throw a grenade into this discussion. The GOP strategy is totally to discredit HC, and it is working evidenced by the reactions in here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11 ... e-internet

Oh, come on, ObS. I'm no Trump supporter as I can't stand the guy and won't be voting for him, either. But Hillary and the Dems have discredited themselves. Trump and the R's aren't the ones that compelled her to send and receive classified emails from an unsecured server then lied about it when she was questioned, and they're not the ones that rigged the party process to defeat Bernie. I'm not saying that the R's haven't done things to try to discredit her... it's hardball politics and such attempts are made by each candidate's supporters in every election cycle. But if Hillary loses this election, she and the Dems have only themselves to blame.

Donald Trump is the best thing to have happened to the Democratic Party since Watergate. If Hillary can't beat him, she wouldn't be able to beat Mickey Mouse.

[savvyman]

Donald Trump is the best thing to have happened to the Democratic Party since Watergate. If Hillary can't beat him, she wouldn't be able to beat Mickey Mouse.

Riverdog you and hawkstar say this but this is not true. The facts are that Donald Trump caused an all time record turnout for republicans in the primaries. Just how could that fact be bad for the republicans and good for the democrats? Hillary results were a 30% decline in turnouts from Obama. Last election in 2012, Republican establishment candidate Romney got crushed. Republican establishment candidates such as Cruz or Rubio would be soundly defeated by Clinton. Trump emerging as the republican nominee in 2016 is the worst thing that could happen for the Democrats and Hillary.

[RiverDog]

Riverdog you and hawkstar say this but this is not true. The facts are that Donald Trump caused an all time record turnout for republicans in the primaries. Just how could that fact be bad for the republicans and good for the democrats? Hillary results were a 30% decline in turnouts from Obama. Last election in 2012, Republican establishment candidate Romney got crushed. Republican establishment candidates such as Cruz or Rubio would be soundly defeated by Clinton. Trump emerging as the republican nominee in 2016 is the worst thing that could happen for the Democrats and Hillary.

Not impressed. All he's done is play to his base. According to the poll I've linked, 39% of Republicans have a negative view of their own party, obviously most of that being due to Trump's success in getting the nomination. That's huge. Only 13% of Democrats have a negative view of their party... although the poll was taken before this latest scandal about the Dems rigging their nomination process.

Donald Trump scores a whopping 57% negative rating, the highest ever recorded for a presidential candidate since they started doing the survey back in 1984. Contrast that with someone like Bush 43, whom the opposition hated with a passion (Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin threatened to leave the country if he was elected), only scored a 39% and 32% negative rating.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trum ... snyt-poll/

Ironically, Hillary has scored the second highest negative and not that far behind Trump at 52% unfavorable. They both have the highest negative rating BY FAR than any presidential candidate in at least the past 32 years. No one else has even come close to the negative ratings that those two knuckleheads have managed to garner as the next highest after Trump and Hillary is 41%. This bears out what I've been saying for the past 6 months, ie that these are the two WORST choices we've had for POTUS since I started voting back in '72.

That's why I say that if Hillary can't beat Trump, about the only candidate I can think of that she might beat would be David Duke. She's drawn the weakest candidate that the Republicans have put forth in modern memory.

With those types of negative numbers from the two major candidates and in light of all the social problems we are currently dealing with, we are heading for the most divisive 4 years this country has seen since the 60's no matter which of those two idiots gets elected.

[Steady_Hawk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ1Udo-BR7Q

Hey Savvy, this was delicious.

[savvyman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ1Udo-BR7Q

Hey Savvy, this was delicious.

Thanks Steady_Hawk - Yes the Bernie Supporters should move to Trump if they decide that they don't want to move to Jill Stein (She is more in line with Bernie Economic policies and beliefs than Clinton by a long shot...... Plus she has integrity)


This is almost word for word what I have told some simpleton Hillary voters who say "Trump is a racist so I am voting for Hillary":


https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/762000543082512384

While What I have actually said to these confused souls are "I will Just give you that Trump has said some bad things - However Hillary has done many bad things"


Jill Stein has a great platform for the American People though a generous portion is kinda pipe dream and would be difficult to achieve.

http://www.jill2016.com/platform


You know it amazes me that people can overlook the 60 foot high, 1,000 mile wide wall of stench and dirty facts that surround this candidate Clinton and still vote for her.

[RiverDog]

As a rule, I don't pay too much attention to these politically motivated fringe groups such as Judicial Watch, but this one has my attention as it has made it into the mainstream press:

Even the Clintons are admitting there’s something wrong,” said Tom Fitton, the organization’s president, “which is why they’re running away from their own foundation’s activities.”

Fitton was referencing the Clinton Foundation’s new promise to stop taking foreign and corporate donations should former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton win the presidency in November. Former President Bill Clinton also promised to step down from the board should his wife win.

"You have a meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain that was moved along by the foundation’s Doug Band, who was an executive there,” said Fitton. “Why did this important ally have to go through the Clinton Foundation and rely on their donor-friend relationship with the Foundation to get a meeting with the secretary of state? It looks like foreign policy was being outsourced by Mrs. Clinton to the Foundation. If you were a foreign national or a foreign head of state it was your connections to the foundation that got you special consideration at the State Department. Wildly improper and a violation of Mrs. Clinton’s explicit promises to keep the two situations different.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judicial-wat ... 00241.html

On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that many Clinton Foundation donors from outside of government met with Clinton while she was at the State Department.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors- ... ction.html

The Associated Press ain't no fringe group.

By the way, does anyone remember how Bill Clinton's presidency ended, with pardons in exchange for donations to his library, with names like Marc Rich, Hugh Rodham, and Roger Clinton that were in the news nearly 16 years ago? About all the Clintons have learned from that episode is how to cover their tracks, by using private email servers that the government has no control over, so that they can claim that there's no proof. What was the buzz word the libs used to throw around? Plausible deniability? I don't trust that b*tch any further than I can spit. The woman's a snake, and unfit to be the POTUS.