|
BROCK LESBIAN posted:
FTFY
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
theshim posted:and even more to the point, what does God need with a starship? He needed a reason for Kirk, Spock and McCoy to punch him in the dick. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
zoux posted:He's not endorsing her because he likes her ideas on secret illegal Southeast Asian bombing campaigns, but because the other guy is blithely sparking a lighter in the gasoline room. He still likes her ideas on secret illegal southeast asia bombing campaigns though. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:That might be an outcome of locking up drug dealers for 20 years but it ain't the reason. And Nixon.  But yeah, mostly Reagan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Between Nate's "the electoral college may not save Clinton" and Reuters we have the full on war on reality is begun. A few pages ago, but I'd just like to point out that the war on reality started on October 7, 1996.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/saudi-diplomat-accused-of-raping-two-maids-uses-immunity-to-leave-india $25 million is a rounding error of a donation considering that just one of the saudi royal family has pledged to donate $32 billion to charity. No really, $25 million is less than 0.08% of what only one of them has pledged, and that it ended up in one of the largest and most well respected charities in the world that lists womans issues as one of it's 5 core issues is again not surprising in the least bit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Anyone else think the Clinton campaign is intentionally holding back on using their oppo research until sooner to the election? People have short memories and it seems the Khan gaffe has already been collectively forgotten. Clinton's campaign has been spending money in red states; is it optimism or do they know something we don't about Trump? Admittedly it's hard to think of anything that could be revealed that is more disqualifying for Trump to be president than what we already know about him. I agree with everything else you said, but I absolutely think that the Clinton camp is holding back a lot of oppo research since the only adds that have been attacking him have been super focused ones in red states about Trump stiffing contractors, and their internal polling has to be positive as gently caress considering how great the public polling has been for her. As far as the most damning thing that could come out about Trump, that would be that he's not even a billionaire though since his entire brand is built on that image alone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The fact is that the factual statement that 85 of 154 people that Hillary met outside her official duties as a cabinet minister donated to her foundation, looks really, really bad, all on its own, and it's not the AP or NYT's responsibility to mitigate the implications of those facts. I'm sure there are good reasons for all of those meetings, but there might be good reasons for any activity that looks incredibly suspicious. And anyways outside of 2 of those cases, the Bangladeshi guy and the Holocaust survivor, the reasons aren't public to my knowledge. Sorry It only looks bad if you have your head up your rear end though.. maybe look into that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wait you seriously think Elie Wiesel is part of a pay to play scheme with the Clinton Foundation and the State Department? Look man, all these investigations means that she's corrupt even if they didn't find anything. Stop being such a shill for Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
St. Dogbert posted:Unfortunately, this applies to a very large percentage of the electorate. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Petr posted:Remember when trump literally bought an attorney General with money from his charity Remember when it's something that was easily proven while literally every single "corruption" accusation made against Clinton falls apart the second you don't automatically assume that she's actually corrupt?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Remember when calling people out for automatically assuming that Clinton is corrupt despite mountains of evidence to the contrary provided through dozens of investigations mans that you're actually accusing them of sexism?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It wasn't part of her job though. Her job was to conduct official business with foreign foreign ministries Holy poo poo you're dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Binow's already gone apeshit over people confusing what hat she was wearing when collecting definitely-not-bribe money, please don't. She was wearing the SecState hat for these, not the charity SecState Helmet. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The fact that she's a public official at the same time, and thus in a position to potentially give preferential treatment to people who give her money. Do you understand what corruption is and how it works? I mean it's pretty loving obvious you don't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Remember when one of the higher ups of the Clinton foundation asked for diplomatic passport while she ran state? Totally evidence of corruption even though it was denied
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If the story doesn't look bad it doesn't make much sense why Clinton people are pushing back so hard at it Are you trying out for the dumb rear end olympics right now or something, because god drat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:"She looks incredibly corrupt because I keep saying she's corrupt but can't provide any proof" is laughable. You're free to vote for whoever you want but that doesn't mean your justifications have any more meaning than the guy who didn't vote for Obama because he is a secret muslim. Wait, I'm getting word that Carl Rove has found proof of Hillary's corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Really?  Southern Democrats
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
greatn posted:Denying guilt is almost as much a sign of guilt as saying nothing, and that's almost as signifying of guilt as a guilty plea! Hillary turned Sanders into a newt! (he got better)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
AbuBakerAlBaghdadi posted:I, for one, will only vote for Lawful Good Paladins Look at this loving Arthas supporter! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:So you're basically railing against her because she's a woman. Wow, that's totally sexist man. He's railing against her because she was a woman in power, big difference.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Has anyone tried to cast Detect Evil on Clinton? Seems like an easy solution IMO She's so decrepit turn undead would work better.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The charity is controlled by her family and political allies? Like, this isn't debatable. It's a major conflict of interest, of the public interest vs the interest of Clinton and her allies, definitionally. Throwing a shitfit is not a good response It's really less of a shitfit and more of a public mockery though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
I think what's amazing is seeing all the progressives that are really just republicans deep down. It's like watching the next rendition of hillaryis44 unfold before our eyes. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The donations weren't in concert with her taking a meeting with them. If a foundation that her and her husband setup took a cent from someone though she couldn't meet with them while she was an employee of the government because ~optics~
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Spoiler that poo poo, god drat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Every candidate who doesn't run or help run a $200 million private foundation $199 million private organization is fine though. $200 million, boy I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You don't need to draw a line anywhere, actually, because you don't have to take donations from anyone while in public office 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, I'm faulting her for allowing a large conflict of interest to exist while holding the second or third most powerful office in the world Wait, since when has Hillary been the vice president or speaker of the house?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:she's not even president pro tempore of the senate Exactly. She was at most in the fifth most powerful position in the world. Why does icantfindaname keep lying all the time?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:So does this jack off even know what the Clinton Foundation does? Kills anyone with the last name of Foster, duh. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Only a sith lord deals in absolutes. The "H" in sith is in the wrong place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Petr posted:Regulates drugs, I think. The Clinton foundation employs Warren G?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:well cmon... you can't just be any geek from the street, gotta be handy with the steel if you know what I mean Oh I do know what you mean... 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:there is, but no such conflict of interest exists between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department In fact there's evidence proving that there was no collusion between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department... but lets not only conveniently ignore that but instead report about how it implies the opposite. Yes I do work for the NYT.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:yes i can imagine how easy it must be to skim money from a 501(c)3 where all the finances are available to the public without anybody knowing Why won't Hillary be more transparent will all her dealings. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The standard you're creating literally means that a person cannot be a Secretary of State AND do anything else. They shouldn't have had to literally shut the Clinton Foundation down because Hillary was Secretary of State, that's ludicrous on it's face Yeah, but think of all those people with aids in Africa who would die without the work the foundation does. No wait... gently caress Africa. I need purity of essence in my candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:the major difference is, and will always be, that the Foundation is a charity that is publically scrutinized, and really can't operate towards enriching herself or her friends We rate this statement "pants on fire" since anything a Clinton touches is corrupt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i mean that's what's happening, like 16 people are screaming that conflicts of interest don't exist or don't matter because it makes hilldawg look bad No, we're saying that you have yet to prove that there was a conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when there is evidence to the contrary of your claim you keep refusing to even acknowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 18:41
|
|