From a friend's FB wall:

Quote :

"I wrote months ago, people haven't been able to see how brilliant the Clintons are at this for a very long time. Hillary couldn't go all out against Obama or Bernie when she ran against them because they were so widely loved. But with Trump, she can go all out, and this Humayun Khan story shows how brilliant the Clintons are at this. How? Here's the behind-the-scenes conversation (courtesy of David Frum) that likely happened at some point in the Clinton camp: --- “Let’s see if we can goad Donald into attacking a war hero’s mother.” “No way, not even Donald Trump would …" “Let’s just see.” --- And it worked. This could've been very different. Trump simply had to say this: "Humayun Khan was a hero and I can't even imagine the sacrifice his incredible parents made. He would still be here if Hillary hadn't voted for the Iraq War. When I'm president, we're not going to get into dumb wars and we'll make sure no parent ever has to go through what these wonderful people did." But he didn't. He instead insulted the mother and talked about all the sacrifices HE made. This political play from the Clintons was brilliant, and largely because HE TOOK THE BAIT. They know his weakness, and they're going to milk it for all its worth. And they're just scratching the surface. They even have Muslims who hated Clinton for supporting the Iraq War now celebrating a young man who fought and died in it. This is a win-win-win. And, as of today, the earliest post-convention polls are coming in, showing a large bounce for Hillary. Never, ever underestimate the Clintons."

It worked... he is being slaughtered left and right (puns intended)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-family-controversy

8/1/2016 9:43:01 PM

No matter, wikileaks is going to continue the slow drip and the release something huge in october

8/1/2016 10:03:07 PM

is it really the clintons or the trillions of dollars backing them?

8/1/2016 10:03:25 PM

^^ cool wet dream.

8/1/2016 10:08:11 PM

It's going to take a non-traditional media source to expose Clinton's lies to the point that the voters will finally realize she is crooked.

Trump himself is going to continue to put his foot in his mouth, and those who weren't keen on him anyway will bail.

Thus, non-binary system is established in the US, and we are all better because of it.

Except Clinton supporters, because if you still believe the crap she is telling you, then you deserve her.

8/1/2016 10:38:40 PM

If forced to pick a funniest part of that post, I have to go with "non-traditional media source"

8/1/2016 10:44:58 PM

wikileaks made the DNC look bad, but they really haven't released anything about clinton

wikileaks also really undermined any credibility and reputation they had

8/2/2016 8:25:57 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if they have some bombshell they are sitting on but then again I wouldn't be surprised if they have nothing either. I don't think much will surprise me this election to be honest.

8/2/2016 8:28:17 AM

^^ they have lost the plot and seemingly became very partisan. Which is a shame because they have done a decent job of exposing bipartisan lack of transparency in the past.

FFS, they released a story that wasn't classified about Paul Manafort in an effort to defend him against claims of Ukraine and Russia ties on the same day that the claim was in the papers.

[Edited on August 2, 2016 at 9:09 AM. Reason : And even Snowden said as much a few days ago]

8/2/2016 9:01:01 AM

Quote :

"Interestingly, the media orgasmed when the Khans spoke at the DNC about what Trump would do, but lambasted the mother of one of them men killed in Benghazi spoke at tge RNC about what Hillary DID. "

Not to mention Clinton voted for the war that killed his son.
Or that the constitution only applies to domestic citizens.
Or that suddenly the democrats care about the constitution.

Identity politics are so stupid. Going through a long line of "victim" puppets to pander for votes . I know the GOP does it too but they don't quite insult the intelligence of the viewer as much. it was hilarious to watch the Berniebots boo Schultz off stage though.

8/2/2016 4:31:11 PM

so do we care if it turns out she was runnin guns out of Benghazi to give to isis and lied to congress about it or no

[Edited on August 3, 2016 at 10:29 AM. Reason : or something ]

8/3/2016 10:28:56 AM

why wouldn't assange just release the emails?

[Edited on August 3, 2016 at 10:37 AM. Reason : instead of doing press]

Quote :

""So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates," Assange told Democracy Now Tuesday. "So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails.There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.""

8/3/2016 10:34:58 AM

2016.

The year Alex Jones and the right officially merged.

Does the US even deny that weapons went into Syria and ended up in what is now ISIS' hands? Like, I thought that was a fact..

[Edited on August 3, 2016 at 10:44 AM. Reason : Question]

8/3/2016 10:37:38 AM

^not sure, i do know she said under oath she didnt know what the CIA was doing in Benghazi

[Edited on August 3, 2016 at 11:00 AM. Reason : which was dumb, should have just said i cant talk about it with cameras on]

8/3/2016 10:54:19 AM

Well there is a distinction between weapons getting in to ISIS hands and Clinton having a hand in running guns out of Benghazi and lying about it.

The US has a long history of arming shitty people with weapons.

Assange also has a long history of exaggerating exactly what he has. We will see..

8/3/2016 11:03:44 AM

Many Republicans have understandably refused to support Trump. Why dont we see the same backlash for the Democrat candidate. She is as much (if not more) of a liar.

Quote :

"Clinton was asked by Chris Wallace, the anchor, about previous statements she’s made when questioned on the email controversy, while he played tapes of her past remarks to the public. “After a long investigation, F.B.I. Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said. Clinton pushed back. “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people: that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails,” she said."

8/3/2016 11:33:10 AM

cool quote from an unknown source

bonus points for the false equivalency

8/3/2016 11:51:08 AM

Quote :

"MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don’t think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c’s on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual? JAMES COMEY: No. MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record Mr. Chairman CHAIRMAN: Without objection so ordered. MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right? JAMES COMEY: Correct. MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace? JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text. MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that? JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference."

Look, every Democrat right now would tell you she needs to come up with a better answer to the email issue. She needs to drop the technical nonsense and just stick to "I fucked up, won't do it again, and will work as President to ensure our flawed electronic security systems and classification guidelines are fixed." However, her "lies" about the email server are not even in the same galaxy as the constant flow of sewage from Trump's mouth.

8/3/2016 11:51:36 AM

^^From NYT. Dont question my sources. The problem is that Trump is such a train wreck of a candidate, he continually takes the spotlight off of Hill's glaring warts.

^It's clear that she is an awful candidate. Anyone supporting her for any reason other than "she's not Trump" deserves to have their integrity questioned. Ask yourself, if these same questions and issues surrounded a Republican nominee, would you allow them as much leniency?

8/3/2016 11:59:23 AM

If the other side was running the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics, yes... I would be willing to let more slide.

8/3/2016 12:03:10 PM

^^ sources without links should always be questioned. that's how these things work.

kind of helps with that whole context thing

8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM

^^Totally agree. Hence:

Quote :

"Anyone supporting her for any reason other than "she's not Trump" "

. I am just preparing for the increasing likeliness that he will drop out and an actuall viable candidate is proposed by the R's.

8/3/2016 12:13:33 PM

Except that Trump isn't the cause of the GOP's lack of appeal to voters, he's a symptom. The only difference between him and the rest of the party is he brought an air horn to a dog whistle party (no, I'm not nearly clever enough to have come up with that myself).

I'm voting for Clinton because her economic, social, and foreign policy proposals are way more in line with not only my views, but the sheer reality of the challenges facing the country today. That won't change if you replace Trump with Kasich, Paul or anyone else with an R next to their name.

8/3/2016 12:19:22 PM

There is also the policy argument.

If you are against hating gays and brown people for sport then you will make allowances. Especially at a time when the Supreme Court is in the balance.

8/3/2016 12:19:48 PM

Pretty entertaining read on where Hill lands as "the most qualified candidate ever".

http://raleighco.com/writing/hillary-qualified/

^^ No one is surprised that you fall into the "Hillary no matter what" group.

[Edited on August 3, 2016 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ^]

8/3/2016 12:29:08 PM

Quote :

"By Jamie Dupree One thing that has been missing from the 2016 campaign over the last eight months is reporters asking questions of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton out on the trail. While she has done individual interviews with news organizations, Clinton has not held a news conference or press availability with reporters since early December of last year. Usually on a campaign for President during the primary phase, reporters get a crack at the candidate – for at least a couple of questions – sometimes once a day, maybe every other day. But that has not happened with Hillary Clinton since after a town hall that she held in Fort Dodge, Iowa on December 4 of last year. The lack of access has not gone unnoticed by Donald Trump. “Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a news conference in I think 242 days,” Trump said during a stop in Virginia earlier this week. “She doesn’t do news conferences, because she can’t,” Trump complained. While Trump routinely denounces the press, and even bars certain news organizations from his events, he sticks up for reporters when it comes to Clinton and her lack of access. “Number one, she’s so dishonest, she doesn’t want people peppering her with questions,” Trump added. “It’s a disgrace,” Trump said. “Maybe we’ll force her to have one.” Major news organizations have also pressed the issue – but it’s gone nowhere. I guess it’s possible Clinton may go the rest of the campaign without holding a news conference. We’ll see over the next three months."

8/4/2016 7:28:17 AM

Now she killed the guy who was suing her for election fraud

The body count is getting insane

8/4/2016 8:42:41 PM

I'd be surprised if beatsunc hasn't posted about that. He has bought into every single Clinton conspiracy, hook, line, and sinker, not matter how foolish, without a single fucking shred of critical thought. OOOH BAD FOR HILLARY I BELIEVE THAT SHIT.

SAD!

8/4/2016 9:22:59 PM

^hah, her admitted record is putrid, dont need infowars links.

8/5/2016 8:26:14 AM

It's not about her record with you though. You don't talk about that. You fall head over heels in love with every single conspiracy theory you hear concerning the Clintons (especially those that concern the "Hildabeast"), and that's what you talk about.

FACT!

8/5/2016 8:33:40 AM

ok fine i will post some FACT! for you:

Quote :

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.."

[Edited on August 5, 2016 at 8:50 AM. Reason : g]

8/5/2016 8:48:09 AM

How hard is it to post links to what you're referencing?

8/5/2016 8:51:23 AM

sure

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

8/5/2016 8:52:57 AM

Unfortunately it doesn't really matter at this point she is going to be president for the next 4 years. Hopefully, with so many eyes on her, the lies and corruption will have to stop and maybe she can figure out a way to use a lifetime of bullshit and a retarded GOP to do something right for a small portion of her life. That's about as optimistic as I can be I suppose.

8/5/2016 9:19:09 AM

Hillary Clinton has done more good for the average American, progressive ideals and the world at large than any sitting politician. And that's not based on an opinion piece connecting dots with a remarkable lack of evidence, that's an objective and verifiable assessment of her lifelong career of public service.

8/5/2016 9:59:49 AM

We all know she has done good things. The issue with her in the eyes of most people is not her policies. It's the fact that has been demonstrably corrupt and untruthful.

The fact of the matter is that she is far more competent to be president than the alternative and that is why she will likely beat Trump. The other issues are still there and are still a problem.

8/5/2016 10:06:36 AM

I don't understand how anybody could argue the following:

Quote :

"The issue with her in the eyes of most people is not her policies. It's the fact that has been demonstrably corrupt and untruthful."

Or is it just that everyone knows it and are just ignoring it or looking past it?

8/5/2016 10:21:55 AM

Because it's factually untrue? But hey, don't take my word for it, I'm just a Democrat shill. Take the word Republican prosecutor Ken Starr, Republican congressman Trey Gowdy, and Republican FBI Director James Comey, all of whom unambiguously exonerated her of any and all wrongdoing.

8/5/2016 10:28:37 AM

name some good things she has done. from what i've seen she's done bad things and championed them as good things. I'll leave the wars for a later time but The welfare reform bill of 1996 for example, harmed single mothers and their children and put 2.6 million people into poverty. People may say "she was only the first lady" but she is on the record supporting it, bragging about it and saying

"I agreed he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage".

“I didn’t think it was fair that one single mother improvised to find child care and got up early every day to get to work while another stayed home and relied on welfare.”

Most people view Hillary's role with poverty in a positive way because of her associations, with marie edleman wright for example who says “Hillary Clinton’s an old friend, but [the Clintons] are not friends in politics.” in 2007.

How can someone who had a hand in this champion themselves as a person for the economically disadvantage?

Because what you say on the campaign trail is so much more important than what you actually do.

8/5/2016 10:30:35 AM

Quote :

"Now she killed the guy who was suing her for election fraud"

Either you are being sarcastic or you read buzzword headlines too much. The gentleman in question who died of as-of-yet-unconfirmed-circumstances was the one who served the DNC with papers for the lawsuit. In other words, he has absolutely no connection to the actual case other than handing a piece of paper to a representative of the DNC.

8/5/2016 10:43:19 AM

Quote :

" Republican FBI Director James Comey, all of whom unambiguously exonerated her of any and all wrongdoing."

do what? he said she carelessly broke many laws

Quote :

"+ 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time that they were sent + 8 chains of emails that contained information which was considered “Top Secret” + 36 email chains that held information considered “secret” + 8 other email chains that held “confidential” information The investigation also uncovered about 2,000 emails which were related to Clinton’s work as Secretary of State but they had been deleted earlier and not turned over to the State Department by Clinton."

https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc



[Edited on August 5, 2016 at 11:07 AM. Reason : c]

8/5/2016 10:58:08 AM

Quote :

"But hey, don't take my word for it, I'm just a Democrat shill. "

yes

8/5/2016 11:26:00 AM

lol, Comey didn't exonerate Clinton

8/5/2016 3:09:31 PM

today's early poll news:

+10 in PA
+7 in GA

8/8/2016 11:45:42 AM

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_080816/

Holy balls, she's at 50% (+13) in a 4-way poll of likely voters. No wonder donors and PACs are freaking out, this is DEFCON-3 for the GOP. Note that Monmouth is rated as an A+ pollster by 538.

[Edited on August 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2016 1:27:50 PM

Bad optics with the father of the Orlando shooter at her rally regardless of whether or not she invited him.

Too bad Trump buffooned his way in to no one talking about this at all now today..

8/9/2016 3:57:59 PM

Quote :

"regardless of whether or not she invited him."

whether or not? come onnnnnnn buddy.

8/9/2016 3:59:06 PM

Absolutely an unforced error. If he was one of 3000 in the crowd, that'd be one thing and hard to blame on anyone, but the dude was behind the podium in full view of the camera during the entire rally.

8/9/2016 4:36:27 PM

I went to an Obama rally many years ago and they more or less randomly selected people to be in the camera shot. If he lined up in line and made it in the camera, this is just incidental.

I can't imagine they would invite him back there knowing who he was... That would be pretty idiotic if that's what happened.

8/9/2016 4:56:24 PM

Quote :

"I can't imagine they would invite him back there knowing who he was... That would be pretty idiotic if that's what happened."

yeah that's what i'm saying

8/9/2016 4:59:24 PM