Time to get on the TRUMP train

[gimmick]

UH OH


http://www.nationalreview.com/happen...sociated-press

Clinton State Department Stonewalled AP for Three Years

Today’s blockbuster report from the Associated Press about Hillary Clinton’s meetings with Clinton Foundation donors during her time as Secretary of State contained the following nugget: “The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.”


The long wait was in keeping with a practice of slow-walking such requests for information. In April, the State Department explained the fact that Clinton ignored 237 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by saying that she was sitting Secretary of State at the time the requests were filed.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton received 240 FOIA requests from 2009 to 2013 but only responded to three of them within the legally required timeframe. Among the organizations that filed unanswered requests were the AP, Gawker, Judicial Watch, Citizens United, and Vice News. Some of these groups subsequently sued the State Department for failing to respond to their requests for information from Clinton’s records. The State Department attempted to justify its delays by claiming that the number and complexity of records requests continued to increase until it was impossible to process them. Of course, the effect of the slow processing was to make it impossible for the A.P. to do the report that rocked the political world this afternoon.

Yea about that A.P. report that rocked the political world...

"The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009."

...it really makes it easy to value these pieces when they add these lines to avoid getting sued. It's a convenient way to say they have nothing but it could possibly maybe be something.

[Dan Druff]

This just keeps going on and on and on with Hillary's corruption.

Latest news:

Bill Clinton received tens of millions of dollars from Laureate, a really shady for-profit university company (which operates internationally and in the US), and it's not clear exactly what he did for them or why they paid him that much.

Bill Clinton's association with the university also coincided with Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State.

In case you're not familiar with the for-profit university scam, there are lots of shady universities out there which churn out useless degrees, promising students jobs upon graduation that don't really exist. They mainly target low-income students, and get the government to foot the bill for tuition. This is easy to do, because the low income students typically don't vet the schools very well, figuring that it's free and they have nothing to lose by giving it a shot.

So basically these are predatory companies which screw both the government and low-income students by taking advantage of the lax oversight regarding government aid for college for low-income students. Really, really scummy.

So yeah... the Clintons received tens of millions of dollars from this company for doing..... nobody knows.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/23/news...ity/index.html

Your next President of the United States, everyone.

Hope you enjoy the ride.

Yea that's more than a year old "news".

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...-federal-taxes

"Since 2010, Bill Clinton brought in just short of $16.5 million for his role as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. He left the position earlier this year weeks after his wife launched her campaign."

Compared to Trump University Laureate actually has accredited universities, grants degrees and bothers to grade their students. They don't just use the word University because it sounds fancy.

It's funny how much crap you can find from peoples tax returns and it really is nice that all candidates hand in theirs. That way the balance information isn't skewed in favor of one candidate over the other.

I don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.

I can understand that line of reasoning.

What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.

Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.

"This is old news" (so what?)

"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)

"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)

I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.

That's all I'm looking for here.

If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.

In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.

[ToasterOven]

Yea that's more than a year old "news".

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...-federal-taxes

"Since 2010, Bill Clinton brought in just short of $16.5 million for his role as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. He left the position earlier this year weeks after his wife launched her campaign."

Compared to Trump University Laureate actually has accredited universities, grants degrees and bothers to grade their students. They don't just use the word University because it sounds fancy.

It's funny how much crap you can find from peoples tax returns and it really is nice that all candidates hand in theirs. That way the balance information isn't skewed in favor of one candidate over the other.

I don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.

I can understand that line of reasoning.

What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.

Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.

"This is old news" (so what?)

"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)

"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)

I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.

That's all I'm looking for here.

If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.

In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.

The Clintons feel like the rules don't apply to them. Who doesn't admit that? No one that is voting for her (in this thread) is particularly excited about it.

But you can't expect us to freak out like you guys do, can you? The email stuff, that's awful right? You guys had no issue with email shenanigans 4 years ago, though.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...KYM/story.html

So, sorry if I don't cry myself to sleep. Hillary is a politician, and I apply that term as harshly as possible.



Now, your turn Druff. I'm sure 90% of the Trump supporters in this thread believe that the Clintons have actually murdered people. So, is it really the reluctant Clinton voter that is operating with delusions?

[BiffCo99]

I don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.

I can understand that line of reasoning.

What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.

Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.

"This is old news" (so what?)

"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)

"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)

I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.

That's all I'm looking for here.

If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.

In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.

The Clintons feel like the rules don't apply to them. Who doesn't admit that? No one that is voting for her (in this thread) is particularly excited about it.

But you can't expect us to freak out like you guys do, can you? The email stuff, that's awful right? You guys had no issue with email shenanigans 4 years ago, though.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...KYM/story.html

So, sorry if I don't cry myself to sleep. Hillary is a politician, and I apply that term as harshly as possible.



Now, your turn Druff. I'm sure 90% of the Trump supporters in this thread believe that the Clintons have actually murdered people. So, is it really the reluctant Clinton voter that is operating with delusions?

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly why a guy like Trump is so close to taking the presidency.

[Dan Druff]

I don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.

I can understand that line of reasoning.

What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.

Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.

"This is old news" (so what?)

"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)

"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)

I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.

That's all I'm looking for here.

If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.

In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.

The Clintons feel like the rules don't apply to them. Who doesn't admit that? No one that is voting for her (in this thread) is particularly excited about it.

But you can't expect us to freak out like you guys do, can you? The email stuff, that's awful right? You guys had no issue with email shenanigans 4 years ago, though.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...KYM/story.html

So, sorry if I don't cry myself to sleep. Hillary is a politician, and I apply that term as harshly as possible.



Now, your turn Druff. I'm sure 90% of the Trump supporters in this thread believe that the Clintons have actually murdered people. So, is it really the reluctant Clinton voter that is operating with delusions?

"Feels like the rules don't apply to them", while true, is a nice way of saying that the Clintons repeatedly break laws, including some pretty serious ones. And they don't just break those laws in a well-meaning attempt to get their job done. They seem to do it out of self-interest and personal enrichment, which is especially worrisome.

Never have I seen major US politicians (at least in the modern age) who are embroiled in so much scandal. This goes way beyond standard political maneuvering, where one can just shrug their shoulders and proclaim, "Oh well! That's politics!"

I realize that no major politican has his hands completely clean, but the Clintons' hands are so filthy that you don't even want them touching the handle of the toilet.

I don't understand your comparison to Romney in that link. Yes, it's weird that those e-mails disappeared, but those e-mails were on the state level, not the national level. National security was not at stake, nor were government secrets. Also, Romney is not known for having a long history of shady and lawbreaking behavior. Even during the 2012 election, that accusation was rarely, if ever, levied at him (just as it wasn't levied against Obama).

The Clintons will always have a constant trail of scandal following them, both old and new. This will not change once they enter the White House again, much like one cannot marry an alcoholic and expect him/her to suddenly get sober.

It seems that many on the left are currently dismissing the concerns about Hillary's ethics as "lol every politician is shady", when in reality it should be a major concern. Instead, they are closing their eyes and covering their ears, trying to vote for her in good conscience while repeating to themselves that she's not Trump, and maybe she's actually not all that bad.

[blake]

as a politics nerd, i kind of want trump to win, just for the must watch tv every night for the next 4 years

[MumblesBadly]

as a politics nerd, i kind of want trump to win, just for the must watch tv every night for the next 4 years

I'm guessing you are white and won't be in the crosshairs of Trump's racist supporters.

[ToasterOven]

The Clintons feel like the rules don't apply to them. Who doesn't admit that? No one that is voting for her (in this thread) is particularly excited about it.

But you can't expect us to freak out like you guys do, can you? The email stuff, that's awful right? You guys had no issue with email shenanigans 4 years ago, though.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...KYM/story.html

So, sorry if I don't cry myself to sleep. Hillary is a politician, and I apply that term as harshly as possible.



Now, your turn Druff. I'm sure 90% of the Trump supporters in this thread believe that the Clintons have actually murdered people. So, is it really the reluctant Clinton voter that is operating with delusions?

"Feels like the rules don't apply to them", while true, is a nice way of saying that the Clintons repeatedly break laws, including some pretty serious ones. And they don't just break those laws in a well-meaning attempt to get their job done. They seem to do it out of self-interest and personal enrichment, which is especially worrisome.

Never have I seen major US politicians (at least in the modern age) who are embroiled in so much scandal. This goes way beyond standard political maneuvering, where one can just shrug their shoulders and proclaim, "Oh well! That's politics!"

I realize that no major politican has his hands completely clean, but the Clintons' hands are so filthy that you don't even want them touching the handle of the toilet.

I don't understand your comparison to Romney in that link. Yes, it's weird that those e-mails disappeared, but those e-mails were on the state level, not the national level. National security was not at stake, nor were government secrets. Also, Romney is not known for having a long history of shady and lawbreaking behavior. Even during the 2012 election, that accusation was rarely, if ever, levied at him (just as it wasn't levied against Obama).

The Clintons will always have a constant trail of scandal following them, both old and new. This will not change once they enter the White House again, much like one cannot marry an alcoholic and expect him/her to suddenly get sober.

It seems that many on the left are currently dismissing the concerns about Hillary's ethics as "lol every politician is shady", when in reality it should be a major concern. Instead, they are closing their eyes and covering their ears, trying to vote for her in good conscience while repeating to themselves that she's not Trump, and maybe she's actually not all that bad.

There's always an excuse why the Clintons are worse than other politicians that do the exact same thing.

You've got a mild case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Druff.

[sonatine]

If pretty much any GOP politician had a spotlight on them half as bright as the one the dying, bitter, and borderline irrelevant GOP has had focused on the Clintons since like '91, we would have dead Republicans draped from trees like toilet paper on Halloween.

[gimmick]

I don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.

I can understand that line of reasoning.

What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.

Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.

"This is old news" (so what?)

"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)

"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)

I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.

That's all I'm looking for here.

If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.

In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.

It doesn't matter it's old news unless you say it's the latest news. (is that somehow not clear?)

I haven't even mentioned she hasn't been convicted. (maybe i should, so you wouldn't have to rely on cheap straw men)

Do you understand how comparing 2 candidates work?

Crying wolf every time wind moves the leaves isn't really helpful. It's good for writing propaganda but that's about it. Taking any stance when there are too many unknowns is just retarded. It's slightly better, if you're baited in to it, but not much.

There are going to be a lot of stories about future coin flips in the next 3 months that are used to paint a distorted picture based on guessing and assumptions. I don't really care if you think it's likely to turn up heads based on the previous flips or a collection of possibly maybes that make it likely it's going to turn up heads. To have an actual news story you have to flip the coin first and then report the results.

[sonatine]

"[Hillary Clinton acted] with total premedication. Premeditation. Could be the first one is way better. Premedication. Premedication. I think I like it. Wow. Alright. Premedication. I love that."

Donald "PFA Fly-over State Spirit Animal" Trump

[adamantium]

"[Hillary Clinton acted] with total premedication. Premeditation. Could be the first one is way better. Premedication. Premedication. I think I like it. Wow. Alright. Premedication. I love that."

Donald "PFA Fly-over State Spirit Animal" Trump

Now youre just being disingenuous

[sonatine]

"[Hillary Clinton acted] with total premedication. Premeditation. Could be the first one is way better. Premedication. Premedication. I think I like it. Wow. Alright. Premedication. I love that."

Donald "PFA Fly-over State Spirit Animal" Trump

Now youre just being disingenuous

bro please im the michael angelo of making sence.

[Crowe Diddly]

Now youre just being disingenuous

bro please im the michael angelo of making sence.

that's why we put you on a pedal stool.

[adamantium]

bro please im the michael angelo of making sence.

that's why we put you on a pedal stool.

Im bemused

[BiffCo99]

I don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.

Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.

I can understand that line of reasoning.

What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.

Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.

"This is old news" (so what?)

"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)

"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)

I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.

That's all I'm looking for here.

If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.

In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.

It doesn't matter it's old news unless you say it's the latest news. (is that somehow not clear?)

I haven't even mentioned she hasn't been convicted. (maybe i should, so you wouldn't have to rely on cheap straw men)

Do you understand how comparing 2 candidates work?

Crying wolf every time wind moves the leaves isn't really helpful. It's good for writing propaganda but that's about it. Taking any stance when there are too many unknowns is just retarded. It's slightly better, if you're baited in to it, but not much.

There are going to be a lot of stories about future coin flips in the next 3 months that are used to paint a distorted picture based on guessing and assumptions. I don't really care if you think it's likely to turn up heads based on the previous flips or a collection of possibly maybes that make it likely it's going to turn up heads. To have an actual news story you have to flip the coin first and then report the results.

She hasn't been convicted or even charged because the DOJ is a political arm of the Obama administration. Or maybe Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about Yoga and wedding plans on that tarmac.

But according to you, this shouldn't even be reported on. What the fuck.

You decry propaganda but fail to acknowledge that the entire mainstream media is the Obama-Clinton propaganda machine.

[adamantium]

Full Definition of decry

transitive verb
1: to depreciate (as a coin) officially or publicly
2: to express strong disapproval of <decry the emphasis on sex>
decrier play \-ˈkrī(-ə)r\ noun

[BiffCo99]

Full Definition of decry

transitive verb
1: to depreciate (as a coin) officially or publicly
2: to express strong disapproval of <decry the emphasis on sex>
decrier play \-ˈkrī(-ə)r\ noun

Are you saying I used the word incorrectly?

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

that's why we put you on a pedal stool.

Im bemused

I'm bemused that you have the audacity to show up to formuming today.

[adamantium]

Im bemused

I'm bemused that you have the audacity to show up to formuming today.

Lets see those hands Mary