Hillary Clinton

[John Cuthber]

Are you a Yale educated lawyer?

No, I'm an Oxford educated civil servant.

Why did you think that was important?

Unlike Hillary I don't have a bunch of security adviser helping me- so I have to remember the stuff myself.

[Delta1212]

Maybe I shouldn't have said welfare, but disability. My uncle is the perfect example of a "welfare queen" (or king if you will). Hasn't had a real job (or a job at all) in at least 20 years. You'd be appalled at how many people, like my uncle, carry a power chair to the disability office when its time to collect their check. I invite you to the south my friend if you think the "welfare queen" stereotype is a myth. "Complete fiction" is not on point at all.

 

Besides, this was a minute portion of my post and not one I care to debate. My political stances have changed quite substantially since the primaries. I was merely sympathizing with Sander's views as at least understandable. I consider myself more conservative now than liberal.

Alright, so I'll cop to being slightly hyperbolic.

 

However, I've seen some research point to there being three types of people who are unemployed and may find their way through the system for assistance.

 

Type 1 are the people who have had some bad luck, or made a bad decision, but do actively want to work and may need some help staying out of a financial downward spiral until they can get back on their feet. These people will stay on government assistance only as long as needed to get back on their feet and frequently rebound to become very productive members of society. Depending on circumstances some people may require assistance for longer than others, but it's a necessity to maintain a basic level of existence while they are putting in the work that is otherwise expected of them either at a low paying job or in looking to put themselves into a sustainable working position.

 

Type 2 are the people who are looking to game the system and find whatever ways they can get whatever they can out of the system for the least amount of effort. This can range from building an intimate knowledge of the laws surrounding government assistance in order to get the most out of the system while working as little as possible to simply outright fraud.

 

Type 3 are the people who, for reasons usually of mental or physical illness, are incapable of holding down a job that could sustain them. In the case of mental illness in particular, these people may actually be less likely to seek the help that they need.

 

 

I've noticed a trend whereby people who are economically liberal or conservative (within the range of average positions under the current system) tend to split on how they prioritize dealing with these different types of people.

 

An idealized liberal position would be that all of Type 1 and 3 should be taken care of, and the number of Type 2 should be reduced in any way that doesn't conflict with helping everyone in the other two categories.

 

An idealized conservative position would be eliminating all of Type 2, and helping anyone from Type 1 and Type 3 that can be helped as long as it doesn't open the door to Type 2s taking advantage.

 

Now, in actual practice, most people compromise a bit from those extremes. A more liberal minded person may agree that it's a good idea to implement a regulation that will cut fraud in half and only affect a fraction of a percent of those with legitimate need, while a conservative minded person may agree that a regulation that blocks half of legitimate applications and only prevents one or two instances of fraud isn't a good regulation.

 

But whether you think helping the most people at the cost of accepting some mooches or blocking the most mooches at the expense of failing to help some people is the better approach seems to be rather in line with political ideology from what I've seen.

[swansont]

If Hillary wins, there will be a war. At least from my perspective.

From a nations perspective massive civil unrest doesn't constitute a war. From a bystander, watching armed people shooting at police and the army, it is a war. And believe me, people will die in my town if she gets elected. Maybe only the truly insane ones, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of "sane" people did.

Yep. My town is not the place you want to be if Hillary gets elected.

 

 

So your town is rife with people who will become violent if Clinton is democratically elected? That's not her fault. That's all on the traitors to this country who would resort to violence in that situation.

[Raider5678]

So your town is rife with people who will become violent if Clinton is democratically elected? That's not her fault. That's all on the traitors to this country who would resort to violence in that situation.

Yeah, the biggest problem is that philly pa has 59 register precincts with 100% Obama votes, yet so many of them "claimed" sometimes violently, that they didn't. Obviously they're lying, Obama got 100% of their votes. Oh, and in places of Ohio. And more that I don't care to list. Obviously nothing going on here.

And no, I'm not voting for trump because I want peace. Are you voting for Hillary because you want peace?

[swansont]

Yeah, the biggest problem is that philly pa has 59 register precincts with 100% Obama votes, yet so many of them "claimed" sometimes violently, that they didn't. Obviously they're lying, Obama got 100% of their votes. Oh, and in places of Ohio. And more that I don't care to list. Obviously nothing going on here.

Evidence? This isn't a conspiracy site. Why are the members of the right that show up here so allergic to backing up their claims?

 

Why didn't any of these voters come forward when these allegations were made?

 

And no, I'm not voting for trump because I want peace. Are you voting for Hillary because you want peace?

International peace, yes. And because she's much better qualified to run the country. She has actual policies she wants to implement, and an actual history of public service and helping others. And she's not Trump: she's not a white supremacist, not a narcissistic megalomaniacal bigot, not threatening to back out of treaties with NATO, not planning to try and violate the constitution by banning Muslims. When she was being investigated for wrongdoing, she didn't try and bribe the investigator.

 

All of which you can't say about Trump (if we limit ourselves to facts, at least)

[Endy0816]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20121112_In_59_Philadelphia_voting_wards__Mitt_Romney_got_zero_votes.html

 

Not uncommon. Demographics and a pretty sucky candidate.

[DrmDoc]

But Clinton, gosh, what a heartless woman. At least she seems that way. Power hungry, dishonest, and corrupt. She is smart, and knows how things work in gov't, so I'm sure she'd do the job just fine, but I cannot buy into her phoniness. She does not seem like a person who is in politics because she has a vision to make our country better, she gives off this impression that she's in it for the power and control. I don't think she's everything people say she is, but I still don't like her much at all.

 

Power hungry? What politician isn't if not for the power to pursue some cause or agenda? Even Bernie is guilty of that. Dishonest? A honest politician is as rare as a truthful Used Car salesman, I'm sure you don't naively think Sen. Sanders is somehow a rare honest exemption. Corrupt? As Secretary of State, where was it found that Mrs. Clinton used her position to illegally advance the cause of some outside agency? Accusations and perceptions of pay-for-pay are not the same as solid evidence that she engaged in some direct or indirect illegal act on behalf of some group, corporation, or contributor. If Mrs. Clinton has engaged corruption, why isn't she being prosecuted instead of persecuted?

 

Yeah, the biggest problem is that philly pa has 59 register precincts with 100% Obama votes, yet so many of them "claimed" sometimes violently, that they didn't. Obviously they're lying, Obama got 100% of their votes.

 

I fail to see what your issue is here, I'm from Philly and I voted for Obama. He was the best selection given how badly our nation's economy and world standing were ruin under the leadership of a republican administration in the years prior to Obama's. Despite Mr. Trump's claim, America is already a greater nation because of Obama's presidency.

[Phi for All]

So can you blame anyone for not knowing what security classification a document might be?

 

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it or not, but this may be more of a lawyer thing than a memory thing. In a police/FBI investigation, it may be considered more suspicious if someone accurately remembers some things and answers questions freely about them but for some reason fails to recollect other things with the same detail (which would actually be quite normal). Or a good prosecutor might be able to cast doubt by pointing out that she remembers one classification but not another. By answering (technically) correctly that you don't recall all the details on any question about the past, you establish that you're human & fallable, and that broad questions will get similar replies.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I've been told by lawyers that the ONLY response to a police officer who pulls you over and asks "Do you know how fast you were going?" is "No sir/ma'am, I don't know." It's the only answer that doesn't incriminate you, admit your guilt, lie, or give the officer any other reason to automatically ticket you, or suspect you of something worse. Investigators are looking to trip you up, and there's no quicker way to paint yourself in a corner than to answer a broad question with a specific answer. Look what happens when scientists make that mistake with popsci reporters.

[Raider5678]

I know people who live in some of those districts, and their die hard conservatists. Heck, my neighbor was in one of those districts and he's constantly complaining about republicans, but he admits that while he loves Obama, it was definitely foul play somewhere. And I have no reason why nobody stood up and spook out, but there is lots and lots of things where people should speak out and don't.

Again, whether you believe me or not, I know too many people who believe its true. But that doesn't matter. The point is that the people in MY town believe it, and if Hillary wins and anything remotely close to a rigged election comes out, there will be hell to pay.

[Phi for All]

I voted for Sanders in the primary because that man seemed like he meant every word of what he said, and had a deep passion for the vision and values he expressed. He also seemed very reasonable, and like he could have his mind changed by reasoned argument and conversation on any given issue. It didn't matter so much to me that he was a "socialist", as I understood that the type of socialism he was advocating was essentially just "Socialism for America". Good socialism wherein one actually has to work and pay into the system in order to benefit from it, rather than the bad type of socialism we currently have in the form of handouts (welfare, food stamps, etc.) wherein people can mooch off of taxpayers without having to work at all.

 

I blame the media for conflating perspectives/approaches on an issue with the people who have them, and this is a good example of why it can be a very bad thing. By labeling people "conservative", or "socialist", we judge those perspectives based on people, and that's pretty stupid if you ask me. People shouldn't think of themselves this way, these are approaches to issues.

 

Anyone should be able to adopt a liberal or conservative stance on a specific issue. It's nuts to think one approach will be good for everything. Our representation shouldn't come down to the equivalent of answering "C" on all the questions on a multiple choice test. Having a completely capitalist or socialist or communist society would never work, and people who always made conservative choices would never do anything new.

 

Socialism is a series of investments in programs and features the whole country can prosper from. When it makes sense to spend it this way, our taxes support public parks, and interstate highways, and recreation centers with swimming pools, and museums, and other things that most people couldn't afford if they were funded by capitalism. Socialism is the best way to make sure people who will make the best contributions to our society aren't hobbled by circumstances of birth. Unfortunately, many people don't understand why socialism is good when used correctly, so we end up with a "compromised" version of social programs and features that don't do what they should, and give more of a bad name to socialism. They end up looking like handout programs instead of minimum subsistence platforms for educating a purposeful and dedicated citizenry.

 

And this is a big gripe for me, that Clinton won't do enough to educate people about economic systems, or change the capitalist to socialist to communist ratio we have. I think we need to reduce the unfair, unequal influence capitalism has over our policies. Each economic system works best in some circumstances, and none works best in all. It's only natural that capitalism wants to take over; growth is where it works best. We need socialism and even communism because not everything should get bigger or make profit.

[DrmDoc]

I know people who live in some of those districts, and their die hard conservatists. Heck, my neighbor was in one of those districts and he's constantly complaining about republicans, but he admits that while he loves Obama, it was definitely foul play somewhere. And I have no reason why nobody stood up and spook out, but there is lots and lots of things where people should speak out and don't.

Again, whether you believe me or not, I know too many people who believe its true. But that doesn't matter. The point is that the people in MY town believe it, and if Hillary wins and anything remotely close to a rigged election comes out, there will be hell to pay.

 

It requires just 1 vote of a majority for a district to swing one way or another and we may not know all the people in our voting districts and how they feel about an election. Perhaps you do know what some people your town believe; however, unless it's a very small town and you actually do know everyone, you may not know what all the people believe. The only person who has inferred a rigged election has been the candidate who knows he is behind in the poles and is currently unlikely to win. That same candidate, as I recalled, made a similar claim against his own party during the nominating process, which ultimately proved to be invalid. Threats of a revolution over an election loss infers your belief that your life and freedoms will somehow be irrevocably changes and damage by the election of the other candidate. Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton would have that power? During the whole of the United States governance history has any single elected official ever held or wield such power? Our governance is specifically design is such a way that no single individual could unilaterally change the freedoms we enjoy without the support of other governing branches and the American people. A prime example of that fact has been the efforts against our people's right to keep and bear firearms. The fear you seem to express over Hillary's potential presidency is incredibly similar to those expressed over the election of Obama nearly 8 years ago--and, as you can see, our nation is still here and you still have your freedoms.

And this is a big gripe for me, that Clinton won't do enough to educate people about economic systems, or change the capitalist to socialist to communist ratio we have. I think we need to reduce the unfair, unequal influence capitalism has over our policies. Each economic system works best in some circumstances, and none works best in all. It's only natural that capitalism wants to take over; growth is where it works best. We need socialism and even communism because not everything should get bigger or make profit.

 

I agree, each governing approach may have its advantages; however, I don't think educating the public about them is Clinton's job alone. I believe it's incumbent upon the voting populace of our nation to educate themselves on the issue involving their governance as responsible and involved members of our society. Some of us have but, unfortunately, many of us are like sheep content to being led by wolves.

Edited September 5, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Phi for All]

I agree, each governing approach may have its advantages; however, I don't think educating the public about them is Clinton's job alone. I believe it's incumbent upon the voting populace of our nation to educate themselves on the issue involving their governance as responsible and involved members of our society. Some of us have but, unfortunately, many of us are like sheep content to being led by wolves.

 

Clinton's "job" should be about shoring up the center of this country, and not catering to the wealthiest capitalist bankers who want even more capitalism in our present economic mix. This is what the Sanders campaign stressed, and why I don't understand why Republicans don't like Clinton more. She'll be very predictable in her conservative approaches, unlike loose-cannon, who-the-hell-knows Trump.

 

If we're stuck with a Congress that would blow up the building to keep it from being saved by anyone else, I'd rather have someone who was pushing for radical reform, the way Sanders was. We'd stand a better chance of meaningful progress for 99% of America. Clinton will be a safe choice, but it will be a choice that pushes the US further right, imo.

[swansont]

I know people who live in some of those districts, and their die hard conservatists. Heck, my neighbor was in one of those districts and he's constantly complaining about republicans, but he admits that while he loves Obama, it was definitely foul play somewhere. And I have no reason why nobody stood up and spook out, but there is lots and lots of things where people should speak out and don't.

Again, whether you believe me or not, I know too many people who believe its true. But that doesn't matter. The point is that the people in MY town believe it, and if Hillary wins and anything remotely close to a rigged election comes out, there will be hell to pay.

So, no evidence it is. Again.

[DrmDoc]

 

Clinton's "job" should be about shoring up the center of this country, and not catering to the wealthiest capitalist bankers who want even more capitalism in our present economic mix. This is what the Sanders campaign stressed, and why I don't understand why Republicans don't like Clinton more. She'll be very predictable in her conservative approaches, unlike loose-cannon, who-the-hell-knows Trump.

 

If we're stuck with a Congress that would blow up the building to keep it from being saved by anyone else, I'd rather have someone who was pushing for radical reform, the way Sanders was. We'd stand a better chance of meaningful progress for 99% of America. Clinton will be a safe choice, but it will be a choice that pushes the US further right, imo.

 

I agree, Clinton is more of the status quo; however, if I may ask, what legislative acts has Clinton championed that catered to the wealthy? Other than elicit funding from the wealthy, what actually has she done or promised to do on behalf of the wealthy?

[Willie71]

While Clinton has been pulled to the left by Sanders and populism, she is firmly a third way democrat.

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/23/america_has_abandoned_the_90_percent_partner/

 

recently, the doctor who delivered me in 1951 was almost certainly a Republican (then the party of the professional class), but today would almost certainly be a Democrat. In the 1950s and 1960s virtually the entire professional class (the top 10%) was Republican; today it’s virtually all Democratic.

 

In the late 1980s, the DLC Democrats (and now the Third Way/Clinton Democrats) embraced the professional class and embraced complex solutions to our nation’s problems. They consciously moved away from labor/working class and towards an elitist embrace of banksters, the emerging “geniuses” of Silicon Valley, and the college-educated at all levels.

 

They even went so far as to suggest it was a good thing that much of America’s blue-collar working-class high-school-diploma jobs go to China and Mexico, as we here in America needed to move to the “new economy” jobs of technology, medicine, and finance, requiring a college education.

 

recently, the doctor who delivered me in 1951 was almost certainly a Republican (then the party of the professional class), but today would almost certainly be a Democrat. In the 1950s and 1960s virtually the entire professional class (the top 10%) was Republican; today it’s virtually all Democratic.

 

In the late 1980s, the DLC Democrats (and now the Third Way/Clinton Democrats) embraced the professional class and embraced complex solutions to our nation’s problems. They consciously moved away from labor/working class and towards an elitist embrace of banksters, the emerging “geniuses” of Silicon Valley, and the college-educated at all levels.

 

They even went so far as to suggest it was a good thing that much of America’s blue-collar working-class high-school-diploma jobs go to China and Mexico, as we here in America needed to move to the “new economy” jobs of technology, medicine, and finance, requiring a college education.

 

VIDEOGavel bangs to open second night of Democratic convention

 

This ideological change in the Party led to the Clinton-era 1990s policies that gutted our industrial base, ripped apart the social safety net (ending “the era of big government”), and financialized our economy.

 

As Frank points out, while FDR had a “brain trust” of the best and the brightest in the nation, they were drawn from a broad cross-section of America in terms of class and education. Many didn’t even have a college education. The Clinton and Obama administrations, on the other hand, while optically more racially diverse, are almost entirely run by people with elite educations from elite universities (particularly Harvard), who share the worldview of the DLC/Third Way.

 

The policies that came out of this new Democratic Party ideology (largely taken from the 1950s Republicans) have resulted in a boon for the professional class, but almost totally left behind the bottom 90%.

 

President Obama’s failure to even bring up Card Check (the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have strengthened Labor), even after campaigning on it twice, is one of the most obvious examples of the Party’s decision to give lip service to working people, but keep their emphasis on elite complexity and the professional class that embodies it.

 

The result of these decisions and policies provided the opening for the most unlikely phenomenon (on the Democratic side) of my lifetime: a rumpled, acerbic, 74-year-old Jew with a Brooklyn accent who calls himself a “Democratic Socialist” drawing tens of thousands to stadiums across the nation and holding his own against the anointed candidate of the Democratic Party and Third Way elders.

 

Bernie Sanders carries into the Democratic Party the message of the bottom 90%, the Occupy Movement, and the Black Lives Matter movement – and the aspirations of students and working people – so successfully in large part because they’ve been abandoned by the Democratic Party elites (including the Clinton dynasty).

[Raider5678]

I blame the media for conflating perspectives/approaches on an issue with the people who have them, and this is a good example of why it can be a very bad thing. By labeling people "conservative", or "socialist", we judge those perspectives based on people, and that's pretty stupid if you ask me. People shouldn't think of themselves this way, these are approaches to issues.

 

Anyone should be able to adopt a liberal or conservative stance on a specific issue. It's nuts to think one approach will be good for everything. Our representation shouldn't come down to the equivalent of answering "C" on all the questions on a multiple choice test. Having a completely capitalist or socialist or communist society would never work, and people who always made conservative choices would never do anything new.

 

Socialism is a series of investments in programs and features the whole country can prosper from. When it makes sense to spend it this way, our taxes support public parks, and interstate highways, and recreation centers with swimming pools, and museums, and other things that most people couldn't afford if they were funded by capitalism. Socialism is the best way to make sure people who will make the best contributions to our society aren't hobbled by circumstances of birth. Unfortunately, many people don't understand why socialism is good when used correctly, so we end up with a "compromised" version of social programs and features that don't do what they should, and give more of a bad name to socialism. They end up looking like handout programs instead of minimum subsistence platforms for educating a purposeful and dedicated citizenry.

 

And this is a big gripe for me, that Clinton won't do enough to educate people about economic systems, or change the capitalist to socialist to communist ratio we have. I think we need to reduce the unfair, unequal influence capitalism has over our policies. Each economic system works best in some circumstances, and none works best in all. It's only natural that capitalism wants to take over; growth is where it works best. We need socialism and even communism because not everything should get bigger or make profit.

Agreed. +1

[Willie71]

I agree, Clinton is more of the status quo; however, if I may ask, what legislative acts has Clinton championed that catered to the wealthy? Other than elicit funding from the wealthy, what actually has she done or promised to do on behalf of the wealthy?

Are you aware of the arms deals to foreign powers while Secretary of State following donations to the Clinton foundation, including arms going to radical groups who are supposedly your enemies?

 

How about campaigning against Glass Stiegel?

 

How about calling TPP the gold standard before Bernie and Trump drew attention to it?

 

How about opposing single payer after receiving donations from the insurance industry?

 

There are numerous examples even though the rhetoric from the MSM continually claims there are no examples.

[Raider5678]

So, no evidence it is. Again.

They did win 100%. And if you honestly believe that 19000\19000 in every district voted for Obama, then your stereotyping them. Because then your believe that just because they're black they voted for a black president. And I don't believe that all of them did, twice.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/dr-martin-luther-kings-niece-endorses-donald-trump-believe-many-things-hes-saying/

Saw this in the news. Not related but figured was worth showing.

[swansont]

They did win 100%. And if you honestly believe that 19000\19000 in every district voted for Obama, then your stereotyping them. Because then your believe that just because they're black they voted for a black president. And I don't believe that all of them did, twice.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/dr-martin-luther-kings-niece-endorses-donald-trump-believe-many-things-hes-saying/

Saw this in the news. Not related but figured was worth showing.

 

 

Still no evidence, I see.

[DrmDoc]

Are you aware of the arms deals to foreign powers while Secretary of State following donations to the Clinton foundation, including arms going to radical groups who are supposedly your enemies?

 

If that occurred, that is a prosecutorial offense. So why hasn't the republicans congress requested a special prosecutor for this perceive pay-for-play? Could it be that possession of facts rather than perception of wrong doing is 9/10th of the law?

 

How about campaigning against Glass Stiegel?

 

Wasn't it Mr. Clinton, then POTUS, rather than Hillary as merely FLOTUS who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999? If this is about Mrs. Clinton efforts, this New York Times article regarding Glass-Steagall suggests she has a tougher stance on banking practices than Glass-Steagall or her husband had as POTUS.

 

How about calling TPP the gold standard before Bernie and Trump drew attention to it?.

 

According to this government Trans-Pacific Partnership website, this agreement "will make it easier for American entrepreneurs, farmers, and small business owners to sell Made-In-America products abroad by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes & other trade barriers on American products across the 11 other countries in the TPP—barriers that put American products at an unfair disadvantage today".​ ​So...how is this catering to the wealthy?

 

How about opposing single payer after receiving donations from the insurance industry?.

 

I think Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, may have supported her President's, Barak Obama, position on this issue well before being in a position to accept donations towards making legislative changes regarding our healthcare delivery. Her position has been in support of the Affordable Care Act, which has been under constant and considerable republican attack since being enacted. If her opposition came before her candidacy, I hardly see how subsequent donations from interested parties altered her prior position.

 

Political accusations and perceptions of collusion with the wealthy or elite is not the same as an individual, unbiased evaluation of the available facts. From my assessment of the facts and in my opinion, it appears Mrs. Clinton has been the subject of a rigorous propaganda campaign, which some may have gullibly accepted as rote rather than investigate.

[Raider5678]

Still no evidence, I see.

Would you be willing to come to Pennsylvania and my home town? I'll gladly let you tell my town that.

[swansont]

 

 

I don't recall - it's not something I keep track of. But it's not zero.

 

 

Given the sheer number of documents a top-level bureaucrat signs, no. I don't recall when I signed my security documents. Why would I? The date is one of the least significant bits of information involved.

 

Standards are relative here. If you are going to hold the scale up to Hillary, then hold the same scale up to Donald.

 

The big problem here is that Trump has no track record of government service, or of security. But for recollection? Consider the number of times Trump has said something and then claimed he didn't say it. His recollection is abysmal. Other comparisons are also possible. Compare the alleged "pay for play" involving charitable contributions. One of them has been sanctioned by the government for illegal activity (hint: it's not the Clinton foundation); while Clinton was fighting segregation, Trump was denying housing to minorities. The list goes on and on.

 

So you can manufacture dissatisfaction with Hillary, much like the way the GOP has decided that Obama has done nothing right for the last 7.5 years. But just saying it doesn't make it true.

 

 

Edit: we can compare recollections further. Trump's had quite a few depositions (he's been sued/investigated a LOT)

"I don't remember," Trump told lawyers 35 times during his December testimony, which was released on Wednesday.

...

The lawsuits documents released Thursday also included a 2012 deposition in which Trump said, "I don't remember" another 24 times. Between the two depositions, he also said, "I don't recall" seven times and "can't remember" three times"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-u-lawsuit-deposition-trump-can-t-remember-world-s-n597986

 

 

 

So, apparently this "I don't recall" brouhaha is bogus.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-fbi-notes-didnt-really-show-39-times-hillary-couldnt-remember/

 

The report was not a transcript, it was a retelling by an FBI agent, so many of the "I don't recall"s are are not her not remembering.

 

"“Did not recall” is FBI-speak that doesn’t actually mean someone can’t remember something that they should be able to remember, as evidenced by the 15 times Hillary Clinton is said to “not recall” things that she would have no reason to recall because there’s no evidence they happened. For example, “Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system” because she, in fact, did not receive any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system. She couldn’t recall using a flip-phone while she was at State because as far as anyone knows, she didn’t use a flip-phone while she was at State."

 

and

 

"There were also an additional ten examples cited that consisted of Hilary Clinton not being able to recall a specific email based solely on the date of the email, or on the subject line, or some other singular identifying characteristic, which is a completely reasonable thing not to remember. In most of those instance, though, she went on to provide reasonably detailed responses based on the context provided to her, despite the appearance or inference of evasion this talking point has promoted."

[iNow]

There you go again with your "facts," swansont. Don't you know that narrative is much more important in today's climate? Reality has a well known liberal bias. The bubbles will not be penetrated. You shall not pass!

Edited September 5, 2016 by iNow

[swansont]

There you go again with your "facts," swansont. Don't you know that narrative is much more important in today's climate? Reality has a well known liberal bias. The bubbles will not be penetrated. You shall not pass!

 

 

PSA: It's not voting for the lesser of 2 evils when one is a white supremacist & the other is a qualified woman who rubs you the wrong way

 

https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/772765175627784192

[MigL]

Maybe, DrmDoc, H.Clinton does have skeletons in her closet, but the republican congress hasn't requested a special prosecutor for these transgressions because they're afraid of a D.Trump presidency also.