Hillary is done

You know I meant no offense right? And I do recall you talking about being pulled over for stuff you wouldn't otherwise just i also remember you talking about being passing. My grandmother was passing as hell. My mom is light (often gets mistaken for some breed of Hispanic) but my grandmother? I don't care what anybody says. Bitch was white.
 
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Are you aware she won largely by attracting black voters?

I am just refuting your description of them as being "confederate flag waving right wing" voters. I will concede some of the black voters in SC might be hyper-Christian.
 
Hillary aint done, in fact after Super Tuesday she might be the only candidate running , that is, depending on how much money Bernie has....but i know Hillary has MORE$$

That said, can she go head to head with The Donald?.....does America want families running this country, or an outsider/insider such as Trump. Does America want more Bush's, Clintons and you just know Michelle Obama is going to run, and Chelsea Clinton is up next... I say enough already!
 
I certainly don't want another Clinton or Bush or Kennedy perpetuating the American Oligarchy.


But I'll believe Hillary is done only if and when I see on the news that she's been staked and beheaded. She has a remarkable ability to rise from the "dead".
 
I certainly don't want another Clinton or Bush or Kennedy perpetuating the American Oligarchy.


But I'll believe Hillary is done only if and when I see on the news that she's been staked and beheaded. She has a remarkable ability to rise from the "dead".

It might take a wooden stake driven through her heart and burial at a crossroad. :rolleyes:
 
It's interesting that Tulsi Gabbard just quit the DNC in order to endorse Bernie. That makes him more credible in my eyes.

As for Hillary, she showed her true colors in this 60 Minutes interview. I wouldn't dream of voting for her.
 
Colo. gov: Clinton would be treated differently if she were a man

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper suggested Sunday that Hillary Clinton's email scandal would be treated differently if she were a man.

"Some people say, and you'd have to look at it, if she was a man all this stuff wouldn't be at the same level," the Democratic governor said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "There's an awful lot of criticism--literally millions of dollars of criticism against her every week, over things that really aren't that, against a man, wouldn't be brought up like that."

. . . .

He said presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump's "judgment" is far more problematic than Clinton's, especially because he refuses to admit his mistakes.

"Compare it to Donald Trump where he changes what he says every single day, he never says he's made a mistake," he said. "Whose judgment do you want to rely on?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hickenlooper-hillary-clinton-would-be-treated-differently-if-she-were-a-man/
 
Colo. gov: Clinton would be treated differently if she were a man

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper suggested Sunday that Hillary Clinton's email scandal would be treated differently if she were a man.

"Some people say, and you'd have to look at it, if she was a man all this stuff wouldn't be at the same level," the Democratic governor said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "There's an awful lot of criticism--literally millions of dollars of criticism against her every week, over things that really aren't that, against a man, wouldn't be brought up like that."

. . . .

He said presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump's "judgment" is far more problematic than Clinton's, especially because he refuses to admit his mistakes.

"Compare it to Donald Trump where he changes what he says every single day, he never says he's made a mistake," he said. "Whose judgment do you want to rely on?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hickenlooper-hillary-clinton-would-be-treated-differently-if-she-were-a-man/

Have you ever heard or read Hilly admitting to making a mistake? I despise both candidates, but consider Sanders to be a lunatic.
 
The chosen one is done

No question that Hillary is facing legal questions. But Trump's are worse. Why do I get the feeling that this might be the first election where both major nominees are hoping to win just to avoid prosecution for at least four years, and that the authorities might be waiting for the loser with a nice pair of steel bracelets come Election Night?
 
No question that Hillary is facing legal questions. But Trump's are worse. Why do I get the feeling that this might be the first election where both major nominees are hoping to win just to avoid prosecution for at least four years, and that the authorities might be waiting for the loser with a nice pair of steel bracelets come Election Night?

Colin Powell apparently did the same thing as Hillary......yet nobody seems to care, hmmmmm
 
Colin Powell apparently did the same thing as Hillary......yet nobody seems to care, hmmmmm

Sec States have done it since there have been e-mails. They all have recognized that the State Department's communications systems are hopelessly compromised. That said, Hillary would have likely done it anyway. Lack of trust and the demand for secrecy are Achilles heels for her.
 
Sec States have done it since there have been e-mails. They all have recognized that the State Department's communications systems are hopelessly compromised. That said, Hillary would have likely done it anyway. Lack of trust and the demand for secrecy are Achilles heels for her.

Or just the fact she is evil and unlikeable? ELO has allowed her to use "Evil Woman" to woo voters.
 
Colin Powell apparently did the same thing as Hillary......yet nobody seems to care, hmmmmm
It's a very minor, petty offense, compared to the stuff she did as Secretary of State that is right out in the open, like Libya.
 
The problem for some, yes, is that if Hillary Clinton gets indicted on the e-mail issue (and she might be), they'll have to go back and indict Rice and Powell too, as they did the same thing. All Sec States since the advent of e-mail have done it. It was more an issue of naivete about the Internet than anything purposeful (other than that Clinton is especially secretive--and probably so would be anyone else who has been Swiftboated as long as she has). Chances are very good that the private e-mail services of Clinton and the other Sec States were much more secure than the State Department's communications are--they are a joke in terms of protecting communications and there have been two cases of discovering that State's commo has been hacked since the e-mail issue started.
 
The problem for some, yes, is that if Hillary Clinton gets indicted on the e-mail issue (and she might be), they'll have to go back and indict Rice and Powell too, as they did the same thing.

Really?

Rice and Powell had thousands of classified Emails on unauthorized servers/computers?
 
Really?

Rice and Powell had thousands of classified Emails on unauthorized servers/computers?

Enough. You don't need to have thousands. And, oh by the way, how many of the thousands you are talking about were classified before they were put on the server and how many were one's she sent rather than one's someone else sent to her? Citations, please.

But, enough of this. If the witch hunt manages to finger Clinton, it's going to look very closely at the two Sec States before her too (any farther back predates e-mailing). Powell not only used personal e-mails, he routinely used them to contact foreign officials and he didn't make hard copies of them, which, by law, he was supposed to do. I'm not saying any of them will be taken down by it; I'm saying that, as usual, the Republican jackals are being purposely myopic on the issue.
 
Enough. You don't need to have thousands. And, oh by the way, how many of the thousands you are talking about were classified before they were put on the server and how many were one's she sent rather than one's someone else sent to her?

Clinton's defense of "They did it too!!!" isn't exactly true from what I've heard.

And isn't SoS supposed to know/recognize what's classified marked or not?

Citations, please.

Coming from someone who can't be bothered to ever cite his own shit?

You can go fuck yourself with a cactus first, then I'll consider fetching some citation for you. ;)

But, enough of this. If the witch hunt manages to finger Clinton, it's going to look very closely at the two Sec States before her too (any farther back predates e-mailing).

Yea but they aren't after Powel, they are after that elitist scum bag that hates working class American citizens more than ANYONE who's ever run for POTUS Clinton. They need to fuck her as hard as they would a GS1/E1 that broke their nondisclosure agreements.

She needs to go to Leavenworth for the rest of her life and the (D)'s such as yourself who hate working class, need to find some other Saudi oil/Wall St. banker whore to fuck the USA over from the WH. :D
 
Last edited:
The problem for some, yes, is that if Hillary Clinton gets indicted on the e-mail issue (and she might be), they'll have to go back and indict Rice and Powell too, as they did the same thing. All Sec States since the advent of e-mail have done it. It was more an issue of naivete about the Internet than anything purposeful (other than that Clinton is especially secretive--and probably so would be anyone else who has been Swiftboated as long as she has). Chances are very good that the private e-mail services of Clinton and the other Sec States were much more secure than the State Department's communications are--they are a joke in terms of protecting communications and there have been two cases of discovering that State's commo has been hacked since the e-mail issue started.


That's just a flat out lie.
 
Hillary Clinton is a mass murderer.

Voting for her legitimises mass murder
 
Ignored by all is one simple fact: Obama launched the criminal investigation. The DOJ and FBI and STATE work for Obama.
 
Back
Top