KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

The Clinton Thread: All things Hillary

thetaxmancometh · 26963

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline phtlc

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 4,574
    • Woos/Boos: +207/-6
    • Gender: Male
Reply #580 on: December 05, 2016, 12:02:14 AM

Oh well, I guess I have to be wrong just once in my life.



That's true. But please don't start making a habit of it!
  ;)


It's never happened before and I can assure you it will never happen again  ;D


I will take that as a promise...






You have my word. I must say though, being wrong was such an unusual experience.

While you're waiting in vain for that apology, why don't you make yourself useful by getting on your knees and opening your mouth


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,272
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #581 on: December 11, 2016, 02:30:28 AM
Quote
At the risk of blowing my own horn, at one point I posted on the Board this exact scenario -- Clinton voters staying home as a result of assuming a Clinton landslide -- as one path to a Trump victory.

Okay, the horn blowing's over.

I agree and disagree about your second point. While I agree that the mainstream media will not learn their lesson, I believe that the Democrats will learn from their mistakes and get their act together enough to score some victories in the 2018 Midterms.



If Clinton voters stayed home thinking she had it locked up, how did she win the popular vote?
« Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 02:34:10 AM by Sensualtravler »

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,272
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #582 on: February 07, 2017, 11:44:04 AM
It's not over yet


Judicial Watch Notifies National Intelligence Director Clapper, Former Secretary of State Kerry of Intent to Sue to Force Official Damage Assessment of Clinton Use of Unofficial Email Account

JANUARY 26, 2017
Email
Print
Text Size

‘Should the required assessment not be undertaken, we are prepared to file suit in an appropriate federal district court seeking to compel compliance … Please advise us no later than February 10, 2017 if an assessment will be undertaken’ – Jan. 10 Certified Letter

Letter Follows on Heels of FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Records Relating to Office of the Director of National Intelligence Decision Not to Conduct a Damage Assessment

(Washington DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it has taken a two-pronged legal action to force the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to conduct a full-scale damage assessment of Hillary Clinton’s use of an “unsecure, unofficial email account” and to explain why it failed to do so when information about the former secretary of state’s use of a private email server to transmit classified information first surfaced.

The demand for a damage assessment was contained in a January 10 certified letter sent to Director of National Intelligence Director James Clapper, former Secretary of State John Kerry, and Director of National Intelligence counterintelligence executive William Evanina. The request for an explanation of why the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had failed to act earlier was part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on January 11. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (No. 1:17-cv-00053)).

In the January 10 letter informing Clapper, Kerry, and Evanina that it is “prepared to file suit,” to force a damage assessment, Judicial Watch first cites an assessment by FBI Director James Comey revealing that 110 emails Clinton returned to the State Department contained “classified information,” while others contained “Top Secret,” “Secret,” and “Confidential” information. Judicial Watch then cites Intelligence Community Directives that require a damage assessment to be conducted when classified national intelligence is actually or suspected to have been compromised:

    Intelligence Community Directive (“ICD”) No. 732 requires a damage assessment be conducted when there is “an actual or suspected unauthorized disclosure or compromise of classified national intelligence that may cause damage to U.S. national security” or “an actual or suspected loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of classified national intelligence that could adversely affect national security. The National Security Act of 1947, as amended, mandates that the Director of National Intelligence “shall protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disc1osure” (50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1)), and ICD No. 700 requires that agency heads “within the Intelligence Community, including the Department of State, [p]rotect national intelligence and intelligence sources, methods, and activities from unauthorized disclosure.” Assessing the damage from actual or suspected, unauthorized disclosure plainly is an important part of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and activities.

Judicial Watch concludes the letter by putting the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State Department on notice:

    A damage assessment such as the one required by ICD No. 732 is a quintessential type of record that Judicial Watch would request and obtain under FOIA, analyze, and then make available to the public in carrying out its educational mission.

    ***

    Should the required assessment not be undertaken, we are prepared to file suit in an appropriate federal district court seeking to compel compliance with ICD No. 732, so that we might seek and obtain access to the assessment…. Please advise us no later than February 10, 2017 if an assessment will be undertaken. If we do not hear from you by that date, we will assume no assessment will be undertaken and will act accordingly.

The Judicial Watch January 11 FOIA lawsuit was filed after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to comply with a September 16, 2016, FOIA request seeking access to the following:

    All records that form the foundation for the decision by ODNI not to conduct an assessment of the damage to national security resulting from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sending and receiving classified national security information on a private email server.

    All records sent to or from ODNI officials regarding the decision not to conduct an assessment of the damage to national security resulting from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sending and receiving classified national security information on a private email server.

Two days before Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request, Joel D. Melstad, a spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, released a statement saying, “ODNI is not leading an [intelligence community]-wide damage assessment and is not aware of any individual IC element conducting such formal assessments.”  Melstad would not answer questions about the reasoning behind the decision.

“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has a legal obligation to assess the damage done by Hillary Clinton’s illicit email practices,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “Therefore, the American people have a right to know the basis of that decision. And they have a right to expect the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to follow the law and determine how badly Mrs. Clinton’s actions compromised national security and put our nation at risk.”

###

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-notifies-national-intelligence-director-clapper-secretary-state-kerry-intent-sue-force-official-damage-assessment-clinton-use-unofficial-email-account/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,280
    • Woos/Boos: +614/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #583 on: February 07, 2017, 02:43:43 PM
The popular vote only counts within each State/Commonwealth/District contest, and the only vote that matters for the Presidency is the Electoral College vote.

That was her goal, and that was Trump's goal, to win the volume of Electoral College votes, by winning the various States to gain a total of at least Half +1.

Hillary and her campaign supporters failed in this regard.

Another few million, or another Ten Million Hillary votes in any of the State contests she won would make NO DIFFERENCE as to who won the Presidency in the November 2016 election.


If Clinton voters stayed home thinking she had it locked up, how did she win the popular vote?

That's like the old riddle that ends with "where were the survivors burried?" If they did not vote, they could not have been Clinton voters. However, the confidence of Clinton's supporters in the final weeks of the election cycle may have been a deciding factor for many citizens on whether or not to vote, both in terms of those who chose to make sure their vote for Trump was cast and those who may have seen casting their vote for Clinton as a lower priority than other chores or responsibilities they had that particular day. Clinton won the popular vote because more people voted for her. If the voter turnout had been higher, I agree with Barbara in that I think it's likely Clinton would have won the popular vote by a wider margin, though we can only speculate.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Northwest

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,163
    • Woos/Boos: +55/-1
Reply #584 on: February 07, 2017, 06:21:16 PM
The popular vote only counts within each State/Commonwealth/District contest, and the only vote that matters for the Presidency is the Electoral College vote...

...Another few million, or another Ten Million Hillary votes in any of the State contests she won would make NO DIFFERENCE as to who won the Presidency in the November 2016 election.

You should let Trump know this. Near as I can see, he's the only one who continues to hammer on this issue.



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,280
    • Woos/Boos: +614/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #585 on: February 08, 2017, 01:33:38 AM
I am letting YOU know that, to help you get over yourself, and move on. The fact that Hillary got the plurality to win contests in 2/5 of the United States, is something she cannot deny. She lost in 3/5 of the United States. That was the meaningful 'contest', winning the majority of the Electoral College votes.

No matter how many 'extra' votes, legal voters or illegal voters, she may claim in the States awarded to her, Hillary Clinton knows she lost the election, due to her own and her Party's actions and excesses.

Was not Russians who forced Podesta to stockpile unprotected, incriminating data describing the activity of the DNC, and the rest of the usual suspects. Was all Hillary's to lose, and she lost it spectacularly. 

Running up the popular vote in places she was expected to win was wasteful, and allowed necessary to win States to go free of her campaign entirely, in some cases.

Neglect on her part and her 'professionals' who showed themselves to be inept at best in the end. Her compliant, near criminal Media support, just the same.


The popular vote only counts within each State/Commonwealth/District contest, and the only vote that matters for the Presidency is the Electoral College vote...

...Another few million, or another Ten Million Hillary votes in any of the State contests she won would make NO DIFFERENCE as to who won the Presidency in the November 2016 election.

You should let Trump know this. Near as I can see, he's the only one who continues to hammer on this issue.


Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Northwest

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,163
    • Woos/Boos: +55/-1
Reply #586 on: February 08, 2017, 02:12:07 AM
Once again, we seem to have a communication problem here.

I think your answer is marvelously comprehensive. What I want to know is who is asking the question which you are answering?

As I pointed out in my prior post, the only person still grumbling about the vote count is Donald Trump.

If you think the ongoing criticism of Trump is because people are still holding out for Clinton to win, I believe that's a complete misread of the situation. The criticism of Trump is based, so far as I can see, on the thoroughly inept and misguided choices that President Trump is making.

I wouldn't expect it to stop (in fact I think it will continue to intensify) unless Trump changes his style of governing at the core.



Offline Northwest

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,163
    • Woos/Boos: +55/-1
Reply #587 on: February 08, 2017, 02:43:56 AM
Or maybe you didn't realize you were responding to a two month old post?


(This is where the problems lies...)

Trump Has Highest Disapproval Numbers Yet In Gallup Tracking Poll



Disapproval of Donald Trump's performance as President reached a new high on Monday in Gallup's daily tracking poll.

The tracking poll, which averages results over the previous three days, found that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of Trump’s performance in office, while only 42 percent approved. On Jan. 22, two days after his inauguration, respondents were split 45-45 percent on Trump’s performance.



Trump’s net approval rating in the Gallup poll dropped 8 points during his first week in office, though the gap between approval and disapproval has never been higher for Trump than what the poll currently reflects, a 12-point spread.

Gallup tracks the percentage of Americans who approve and disapprove of the President’s performance in office every day, based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 national adults, according to the company. The poll’s margin of error is 3 percentage points.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-largest-net-disapproval-yet-gallup-tracking
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 02:50:13 AM by Northwest »



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,280
    • Woos/Boos: +614/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #588 on: February 08, 2017, 09:06:48 AM
More butthurt and whining. Take your opinion elsewhere, maybe find someone who cares what you think. Certainly President Trump does not care what you think or believe. And his supporters believe the same. Stop the whining, and spamming the politics board with your drivel, please.

Once again, we seem to have a communication problem here.

I think your answer is marvelously comprehensive. What I want to know is who is asking the question which you are answering?

As I pointed out in my prior post, the only person still grumbling about the vote count is Donald Trump.

If you think the ongoing criticism of Trump is because people are still holding out for Clinton to win, I believe that's a complete misread of the situation. The criticism of Trump is based, so far as I can see, on the thoroughly inept and misguided choices that President Trump is making.

I wouldn't expect it to stop (in fact I think it will continue to intensify) unless Trump changes his style of governing at the core.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


_priapism

  • Guest
Reply #589 on: February 08, 2017, 09:28:35 AM
More butthurt and whining. Take your opinion elsewhere, maybe find someone who cares what you think. Certainly President Trump does not care what you think or believe. And his supporters believe the same. Stop the whining, and spamming the politics board with your drivel, please.

Once again, we seem to have a communication problem here.

I think your answer is marvelously comprehensive. What I want to know is who is asking the question which you are answering?

As I pointed out in my prior post, the only person still grumbling about the vote count is Donald Trump.

If you think the ongoing criticism of Trump is because people are still holding out for Clinton to win, I believe that's a complete misread of the situation. The criticism of Trump is based, so far as I can see, on the thoroughly inept and misguided choices that President Trump is making.

I wouldn't expect it to stop (in fact I think it will continue to intensify) unless Trump changes his style of governing at the core.

OMFG.  "Stop the whining, and spamming the politics board with your drivel, please." At 3 in the morning, Joan time.  Pathetic.  Beat off to Brietbart some more.



Offline Northwest

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,163
    • Woos/Boos: +55/-1
Reply #590 on: February 08, 2017, 10:20:53 AM
Joan seems to be stunningly unclear about what forums are for, and how they work. However, in fairness, "stop talking, and go away" is a thoroughly unique way of responding to the comments of others, which I've not seen tried before; I wonder how it's working for her?

Still, if you ignore the complete lack of communication skills, and the inability to incorporate the comments of others into her thinking and responses, her posts are actually quite entertaining. They have a refreshing sort of "Sean Hannity with a tooth ache, after ten drinks" quality about them; full of snarl and stupidity, and with a double helping of outraged victimhood.

More utterances from the alt-thinking crowd.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 10:23:16 AM by Northwest »



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,156
    • Woos/Boos: +766/-56
Reply #591 on: February 08, 2017, 03:05:57 PM
I think you won this round NorthWest. And yes, she did just tell you to go away. Someday I hope she will learn to listen, but until then .....



Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,272
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #592 on: February 10, 2017, 05:20:08 PM
If Clinton voters stayed home thinking she had it locked up, how did she win the popular vote?

That's like the old riddle that ends with "where were the survivors burried?" If they did not vote, they could not have been Clinton voters. However, the confidence of Clinton's supporters in the final weeks of the election cycle may have been a deciding factor for many citizens on whether or not to vote, both in terms of those who chose to make sure their vote for Trump was cast and those who may have seen casting their vote for Clinton as a lower priority than other chores or responsibilities they had that particular day. Clinton won the popular vote because more people voted for her. If the voter turnout had been higher, I agree with Barbara in that I think it's likely Clinton would have won the popular vote by a wider margin, though we can only speculate.

She hit Florida, Ohio and Michigan hard. May we assume then, the voters did in these states not like what she said, as well as her demeanor? Approximately 67% of overall voters claimed they did not trust her, with the exception of California where most of the kooks live, which everyone knows would vote for anything with Democrat stamped on their foreheads.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 05:30:21 PM by Sensualtravler »

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,042
    • Woos/Boos: +3084/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #593 on: February 10, 2017, 06:00:20 PM

If Clinton voters stayed home thinking she had it locked up, how did she win the popular vote?


That's like the old riddle that ends with "where were the survivors burried?" If they did not vote, they could not have been Clinton voters. However, the confidence of Clinton's supporters in the final weeks of the election cycle may have been a deciding factor for many citizens on whether or not to vote, both in terms of those who chose to make sure their vote for Trump was cast and those who may have seen casting their vote for Clinton as a lower priority than other chores or responsibilities they had that particular day. Clinton won the popular vote because more people voted for her. If the voter turnout had been higher, I agree with Barbara in that I think it's likely Clinton would have won the popular vote by a wider margin, though we can only speculate.


She hit Florida, Ohio and Michigan hard. May we assume then, the voters did in these states not like what she said, as well as her demeanor? Approximately 67% of overall voters claimed they did not trust her, with the exception of California where most of the kooks live, which everyone knows would vote for anything with Democrat stamped on their foreheads.


To answer your first question, despite the fact that many potential Clinton voters didn't cast their ballots, Clinton still won the clear majority of popular votes because, even as a mediocre candidate running an even more mediocre campaign, she STILL appealed to many more voters across the country than her opponent. She just didn't capture enough votes in the right places, which speaks to the mediocrity of her campaign more than anything else.

Still, I agree that you CAN assume that voters in the four swing states -- don't forget Pennsylvania! -- did not like what she said, though her "demeanor" clearly had nothing to do with it. She and her campaign failed to understand what resonated most highly with voters in those states, and it cost her the election. Trump and his campaign, wittingly or not, understood the zeitgeist in those states, and it won him the election.

Though you provide no citation for your 67% figure, even if true, it's a relatively meaningless stat. Polling data and actual voting often have little correlation, as has been proven time and time again. In this particular instance, this point is confirmed by the fact that so many observers, professional and amateur alike, greeted the news of Trump's election with words like "shocked." Why were they shocked? Part of the reason, and this especially applies to the media, is that they had their heads up their asses and failed to see a trend that was developing before their eyes. But another part of the reason is that many "mainstream" (for lack of a better word) voters -- like those in MI, OH, and PA -- were afraid to express their support of Trump in public, and even in relatively anonymous polls. As one pundit put it, they kept their heads down, only raising them to cast their votes on Election Day. And there's a lot to that.







"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,272
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #594 on: March 28, 2017, 10:14:00 AM
Hmmm? Interesting articles!

http://consjournal.com/col-andrew-wood-u-s-rescue-team-was-on-its-way-to-benghazi-but-ordered-to-turn-back/


There is more evidence coming out against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

Col. Andrew Woods has come forward with information that further indicates that help was ready and actually in route to Benghazi, but was forced to turn back because Barack Obama would not give the go-ahead order.

From PJ Media:

Col. Andrew Wood had once commanded a Special Forces anti-terrorism team protecting Ambassador Chis Stevens and other diplomats in Libya. In October of 2012, Woods told Congress that one month before the attacks in Benghazi, his team had been removed from Libya by the Obama administration, despite the numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks. Wood told Attkisson that Special Forces (the ones mentioned in the “spinning up” email from Jeremy Bash) were on their way to Benghazi, but were ordered to turn back.

“Those individuals I know loaded aircraft and got on their way to Benghazi to respond to that incident. They were not allowed to cross the border as per protocol until they got approval from the commander in chief,” Wood explained.  “That authority has to come from him or they’re not allowed to enter the country.”

Attkisson told Malzberg, “This is something that the president and the White House has steadfastly denied, but there’s now what I would call an overwhelming body of evidence that leads us to believe that somebody stopped a number of teams and potential rescuers from entering Libya or going to Benghazi to help while those attacks were underway.”

“They could have gotten there before the last two Americans died,” Attkisson noted. “Those attacks went on for eight hours.”

The email from Jeremy Bash to Jacob Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, came at 7:19 pm Washington time.

Attkisson notes in Part One of “Rescue Interrupted” that “the White House has refused to detail the involvement of President Obama — the Commander-in-Chief — while Americans were under attack on foreign soil.”

There is a mountain of evidence against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with this being some of the most specific accounts of what happened in Benghazi.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the decisions of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration out our guys in harms way in Benghazi. It is crystal clear to anyone actually paying attention.
========================================================

Leader of WikiLeaks Julian Assange is sharing some facts about Hillary Clinton once again. Clearly we already know Hillary is corrupt, but this may take the cake.

In the interview below Assange discusses how one email in all of Hillary’s emails stand out above the rest. He shares that “All serious analysts know, and even the US government has agreed, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS and funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it is some “rogue” princes using their oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.” However this Hillary Clinton email says that it’s not just a rogue prince, but the actual governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

When asked more details about the relations between Hillary and these governments Assange shares a startling discovery. These governments are funding the Clinton Foundation, buying arms from the U.S. AND funding ISIS and ISIL.

He shares “Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value.”

She’s even more wrapped up in criminal activities than we originally thought and using the U.S. to arm the enemy.

Watch the video below:

http://consjournal.com/wikileaks-julian-assange-releases-video-america-needs-to-see-trump-was-right/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook_NEXT&utm_medium=NEXT
========================================================

Videos
Julian Assange BREAKS SILENCE on His Source…It All Makes Sense Now!
By Proud Conservative
Posted on August 27, 2016
Email
Comments

Julian Assange just revealed some information so massive that it blows the DNC email leak wide open!

If you will recall, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington and it was called a “robbery”, yet nothing was taken from him. Not only was it odd that nothing was taken, but the timing of the murder was extremely suspect and we now may know why. (read more below)
Here is what has been reported…

From Gateway Pundit:

Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

On Tuesday Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.
Now this…

Julian Assange just suggested Seth Rich was the Wikileaks informant…

Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.

Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?

Julian Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.

One thing is for certain. This thing just took a turn that will send shockwaves through Washington by the time it’s said and done. It’s pretty easy to read between the lines of what Julian Assange just told the world.

http://consjournal.com/julian-assange-breaks-silence-on-his-source-it-all-makes-sense-now/


 Hot Topic
FBI Director Just BLASTED Obama’s Lie To The Entire Nation…We’ve Had Enough!
By Proud Conservative
Posted on August 1, 2016
Email
Comments

Barack Obama and his loyal supporters want you to believe that our hands are totally tied if someone on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list walks into a gun store and wants to buy a gun. They want you to believe there is nothing that can be done to stop the transaction, but FBI Director James Comey just exposed Obama’s lie for the entire nation to see.

Comey was asked about this subject and you can bet the response he gave has embarrassed Obama, to say the least. The next time someone tells you this lie, put them in their place with these hard facts.
Here is what was said…

From Cain TV:

“Last week, our president stated that there are individuals who can’t get on planes, but they can go to a gun shop and buy a firearm there and he said ‘nothing we can do to stop them,’ but – and correct me if I’m wrong – the FBI is notified when someone on the terrorist watch list attempts to purchase a firearm, and a NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check is requested, and the FBI has multiple avenues that they can pursue,” Grassley said at the committee’s hearing on the oversight of the FBI.

“These are some of these avenues: delay the firearms transaction, and if the person is actually a terrorist, the FBI can arrest them for any crime for which there is probable cause, and in addition, the FBI can intervene and directly confront the individual. The FBI can also put the suspect on what’s called around-the-clock surveillance. My question: Aren’t these some of the tools available to the FBI to stop a suspected terrorist from buying a gun?” Grassley asked.

“Mr. Chairman, you’re right,” said Comey. “There are a variety of things that we do when we are notified that someone on our known or suspected terrorist database is attempting to buy a firearm.

“The FBI is alerted when that is triggered, and then we do an investigation, understand, are there disqualifiers that we’re aware of that could stop the transactions, and if the transaction goes through, the agents who are assigned to that case, to that subject are alerted to it so they can investigate,” Comey added.

“Thank you very much for that clarification,” said Grassley. “So there are then actually many things that can be done, done right now to stop one, someone on the no-fly list from buying a gun, and that leads me to say that our president is misrepresenting the facts and misleading the American people on that point.”

In short, the laws already exists that will stop a suspected terrorist from purchasing a weapon. Just like with  the so called “gun show loophole” Obama likes to talk about, he is feeding you lies about things and situations that don’t exist to support his argument to pass more gun control laws that will accomplish nothing.

http://consjournal.com/fbi-director-just-blasted-obamas-lie-to-the-entire-nation-weve-had-enough/
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 10:43:54 AM by Sensualtravler »

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,272
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #595 on: March 31, 2017, 11:33:12 AM


Though you provide no citation for your 67% figure, even if true, it's a relatively meaningless stat. Polling data and actual voting often have little correlation, as has been proven time and time again. In this particular instance, this point is confirmed by the fact that so many observers, professional and amateur alike, greeted the news of Trump's election with words like "shocked." Why were they shocked? Part of the reason, and this especially applies to the media, is that they had their heads up their asses and failed to see a trend that was developing before their eyes. But another part of the reason is that many "mainstream" (for lack of a better word) voters -- like those in MI, OH, and PA -- were afraid to express their support of Trump in public, and even in relatively anonymous polls. As one pundit put it, they kept their heads down, only raising them to cast their votes on Election Day. And there's a lot to that.





[/b]

There were many instances of voters claiming they did not trust Hillary over the past several months prior to the election, on many web sites, and not only Republican sites. In almost every case it was in the mid 60 percentile range.

I believe the reason most voters were shocked was because of the 'hype' the Democrats spewed endlessly before the election. The Democrats 'knew' Hillary was going to win, and quite a few Republican and others that had already made up their minds to vote 'anti Hillary' bought into their hype also. It did not deter how they voted though.

I live in Cuyahoga county (Cleveland) which is highly Democratic because of the high black population. I also live in a very large apartment complex that has an extremely diverse cross section of ethnic groups. In a building of 12 apartments, I'm the only white renter. During many conversations with my neighbors, no one was still sure of who they were voting for, but there were quite a few Latins and blacks that expressed their disfavor with Obama and his policies. Perhaps the close ties between Obama and Hillary had a large part in hot the election turned out?

As for electorates not wanting anyone to know whom they supported, I found this not to be the case. Neither Hillary nor Trump supporters were bashful in verbalizing support for their candidate.

In the long run most voters, particularly in the key states, were simply tired of the current establishment and wanted it gone and they expressed their wishes at the poles.  

« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 11:36:58 AM by Sensualtravler »

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,209
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #596 on: March 31, 2017, 01:03:51 PM
What they got, hasn't been what they wanted.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,156
    • Woos/Boos: +766/-56
Reply #597 on: March 31, 2017, 07:56:24 PM
Hillary has been the victim of a smear campaign the likes of which we have never seen before.  This is why people felt she could not be "trusted".  It had nothing to do with reality.

And the there are people like MissB who don't care for Hillary, but at least base their judgement in facts and rational judgments, not lies.  I still think she is wrong in her assessment of HRC, as she has not taken HRC's reality fully into account. 

Personally I don't think that women should remain in the shadow of their husbands.  She may have started there but that is no reason to stay there.



Offline Northwest

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,163
    • Woos/Boos: +55/-1
Reply #598 on: July 24, 2017, 09:13:16 PM
I don't like the title of this piece, nor the implication that there was an act of betrayal here. Schumer has the guts to talk about the elephant in the room, and its to his credit. I'm sorry if Clinton is going to have to get her feelings hurt, but that's tough. She blew an absolutely staggeringly lead, with the biggest war chest in history and a field of professionals assisting her like has never been assembled before. And what I remember -- from the perspective of a voter -- is that in the final two months of the campaign I heard almost nothing from her, and when I did hear from her it was to simply point out that Trump was classless clod (and we didn't need a billion dollar war chest to get that message across). Hillary Clinton lost the campaign because she recklessly botched her run for the presidency. Trump won because in the final sixty days he continued to campaign like a mad man while Hillary focused on picking out material for the curtains.

Hillary tried to coast into the presidency, doing just enough to get into the White House. And because of is she blew what amounted to a fifty point half-time lead. I don't care if she doesn't want to hear it -- it's the truth, and it needs to be told.

It doesn't get you the win to simply have the best messaging machine that money can buy; you still need to have a message, and to this day I defy anyone to tell me what Clinton stood for.

Chuck Schumer just threw Hillary Clinton under the bus



(CNN)In the 2016 campaign, there was no one more loyal to Hillary Clinton than her one-time Senate colleague Chuck Schumer. He defended his fellow New Yorker and the race she ran at every turn.

Which makes what Schumer said about Clinton over the weekend all the more intriguing.
"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."

[...]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/schumer-clinton-2016/index.html
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 09:20:55 PM by Northwest »



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,042
    • Woos/Boos: +3084/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #599 on: July 24, 2017, 10:13:51 PM

I don't like the title of this piece, nor the implication that there was an act of betrayal here. Schumer has the guts to talk about the elephant in the room, and its to his credit. I'm sorry if Clinton is going to have to get her feelings hurt, but that's tough. She blew an absolutely staggeringly lead, with the biggest war chest in history and a field of professionals assisting her like has never been assembled before. And what I remember -- from the perspective of a voter -- is that in the final two months of the campaign I heard almost nothing from her, and when I did hear from her it was to simply point out that Trump was classless clod (and we didn't need a billion dollar war chest to get that message across). Hillary Clinton lost the campaign because she recklessly botched her run for the presidency. Trump won because in the final sixty days he continued to campaign like a mad man while Hillary focused on picking out material for the curtains.

Hillary tried to coast into the presidency, doing just enough to get into the White House. And because of is she blew what amounted to a fifty point half-time lead. I don't care if she doesn't want to hear it -- it's the truth, and it needs to be told.

It doesn't get you the win to simply have the best messaging machine that money can buy; you still need to have a message, and to this day I defy anyone to tell me what Clinton stood for.

Chuck Schumer just threw Hillary Clinton under the bus



(CNN)In the 2016 campaign, there was no one more loyal to Hillary Clinton than her one-time Senate colleague Chuck Schumer. He defended his fellow New Yorker and the race she ran at every turn.

Which makes what Schumer said about Clinton over the weekend all the more intriguing.
"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."

[...]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/schumer-clinton-2016/index.html


I read a similar story, with a similar headline, this morning, and I came here to rant about it. You beat me to it, and what I was going to write was precisely what you wrote (though likely less eloquently and concisely than you wrote it).

I think Schumer is correct, both in what he said and in the way he said it. Though this author does not cite Schumer's words at any length, in his statement Schumer chiefly says "we," and not "her."

It's a wake-up call, and a perfectly delivered one. The fact that many Democrats have responded to Schumer's assertions like this author only serves to prove Schumer's point. Those two off-term elections a few months ago -- both of which were won by Republicans, should have served as a similar wake-up call, and were not. The New York Times, in it headline for their story on the elections, referred to them as elections that Democrats "almost won." Where I come from, "almost won" means "lost."






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."