The 2016 US Presidential Election

[EdgarusQPFC]

15 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

It was wrong to ask those questions of John McCain.

The slurs on Hillary's health clearly are sexist. That was exactly what Trump was doing when he was calling her physically weak.

No. Calling her Physically weak in the Trump sense of "I am man, I superior" is sexist. But no one except Trump supporters has ever denied that Trump is a sexist. But questioning the health of someone who on numerous occasions has shown signs that thier health is at best questionable is far from sexist. That is just the classic SJW style of attacking any form of legitimate question or doubt with a personal attack. It's as lowly as a kid responding to being told they smell by replying "no YOU smell" I'd expect better from you Ad Lib. 

I suppose next you will claim the questions on her integrity after her FBI investigation are also sexist and they are just picking on a defenseless woman? 

[Newbornbairn]

23 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

 

The slurs on Hillary's health clearly are sexist. 

What the f..? Is it "Play the sexist card" Week?

 

It is not sexist to question the health of a Presidential candidate who is clearly having health issues.

[Ad Lib]

37 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

No. Calling her Physically weak in the Trump sense of "I am man, I superior" is sexist. But no one except Trump supporters has ever denied that Trump is a sexist. But questioning the health of someone who on numerous occasions has shown signs that thier health is at best questionable is far from sexist. That is just the classic SJW style of attacking any form of legitimate question or doubt with a personal attack. It's as lowly as a kid responding to being told they smell by replying "no YOU smell" I'd expect better from you Ad Lib. 

I suppose next you will claim the questions on her integrity after her FBI investigation are also sexist and they are just picking on a defenseless woman? 

Her health isn't "questionable". She's got a bout of pneumonia. The vast majority of people with pneumonia make a full recovery within a week to ten days.

She has hyperthyroidism. It sometimes means she feels faint and she takes regular medication. This is a common illness. It has no appreciable impact on the capacity to work or the cognitive capacities of those who suffer from it provided it is treated and closely monitored. Clinton probably has better access to health monitoring and treatment than 99.999% of the people on the planet.

She has allergies. So do billions of other people. She takes medicine for that.

She had an operation to remove a blood clot several years ago. So have literally tens to hundreds of thousands of people over the age of 50. It's not a "rare" problem and it's not affected her ability to do her job. She made a full recovery.

Hillary Clinton isn't on trial at Barcelona, she's not applying to be an airline pilot and she's not training to become a fire-fighter or a policewoman. She's a woman in her 60s seeking election to the Presidency. She does not have to be an optimum specimen of physical health to do that job. She needs to prove basic mental competence, the ability to cope in a stressful work environment and at a push it might be nice to know she isn't terminally ill. Anything else is none of our fucking business.

The fact is the sensationalist reporting of this is deliberately playing-into a deliberately and calculatedly sexist trope from the Trump campaign and its allies that a woman is somehow not physically or mentally "up for it" when it comes to the Presidency. It's dog-whistle stuff. This should not be a story and we should not be entitled to a running commentary of how bad the cough and hydration levels are of someone that's working longer hours and under more stress than the vast majority of people on the planet.

As for the FBI emails I don't really care. She did something stupid there and of questionable legality but there's no obvious evidence of malice there, she's disclosed and as far as we know kept secure the actual database and they're satisfied charges shouldn't be pressed. I think they probably should have been, but not necessarily against or just against her.

[Paco]

I absolutely cannot subscribe to this view that Clinton's health is an issue because she's a woman. If John McCain had collapsed in 2008 they'd have been as well handing Obama they keys to the White House there and then, and McCain is an all-singing, all-dancing American war hero.

He was forced into releasing over 1000 pages of medical records - put into context Clinton has released two pages and if she hadn't collapsed yesterday would not have had to release any more. She might now though, especially with Trump claiming he's going to do so later this week.

Americans care about their President's health. A nominee, the overwhelming favourite in fact, collapsing in public is newsworthy.

[EdgarusQPFC]

31 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Her health isn't "questionable". She's got a bout of pneumonia. The vast majority of people with pneumonia make a full recovery within a week to ten days.

She has hyperthyroidism. It sometimes means she feels faint and she takes regular medication. This is a common illness. It has no appreciable impact on the capacity to work or the cognitive capacities of those who suffer from it provided it is treated and closely monitored. Clinton probably has better access to health monitoring and treatment than 99.999% of the people on the planet.

She has allergies. So do billions of other people. She takes medicine for that.

She had an operation to remove a blood clot several years ago. So have literally tens to hundreds of thousands of people over the age of 50. It's not a "rare" problem and it's not affected her ability to do her job. She made a full recovery.

Hillary Clinton isn't on trial at Barcelona, she's not applying to be an airline pilot and she's not training to become a fire-fighter or a policewoman. She's a woman in her 60s seeking election to the Presidency. She does not have to be an optimum specimen of physical health to do that job. She needs to prove basic mental competence, the ability to cope in a stressful work environment and at a push it might be nice to know she isn't terminally ill. Anything else is none of our fucking business.

The fact is the sensationalist reporting of this is deliberately playing-into a deliberately and calculatedly sexist trope from the Trump campaign and its allies that a woman is somehow not physically or mentally "up for it" when it comes to the Presidency. It's dog-whistle stuff. This should not be a story and we should not be entitled to a running commentary of how bad the cough and hydration levels are of someone that's working longer hours and under more stress than the vast majority of people on the planet.

As for the FBI emails I don't really care. She did something stupid there and of questionable legality but there's no obvious evidence of malice there, she's disclosed and as far as we know kept secure the actual database and they're satisfied charges shouldn't be pressed. I think they probably should have been, but not necessarily against or just against her.

Scenes from Ad Lib's PC



You don't care that the person who could likely be in charge of the most powerful nation on earth was carefree and reckless with classified materials because of "Convenience" And that she got off with it scott free because of who she is. 

[Ad Lib]

12 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

Scenes from Ad Lib's PC



You don't care that the person who could likely be in charge of the most powerful nation on earth was carefree and reckless with classified materials because of "Convenience" And that she got off with it scott free because of who she is. 

She wasn't "carefree and reckless". She made an error of judgment. I expect the vast majority of human beings and especially politicians to have made several severe errors of judgment by the time they're in their 60s.

I prefer a politician that accepts responsibility for wrongdoing and learns from it than one who remorselessly presses on. Like when Trump disclosed to a rally (erroneously) the content of information he was shown at a national security briefing.

[EdgarusQPFC]

13 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

She wasn't "carefree and reckless". She made an error of judgment. I expect the vast majority of human beings and especially politicians to have made several severe errors of judgment by the time they're in their 60s.

I prefer a politician that accepts responsibility for wrongdoing and learns from it than one who remorselessly presses on. Like when Trump disclosed to a rally (erroneously) the content of information he was shown at a national security briefing.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

Actually she was.

And accepts responsibility? Really?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-email-truthful-answer-226725

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

Hillary Clinton said that she has told the public a consistent and truthful story about classified material on her emails, and FBI director James Comey backed her up.
 

 In it, Clinton said, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials" (March 10, 2015); "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (July 25, 2015); "I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified" (Aug. 18, 2015).

But Comey reported that, of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 individual emails contained classified information, and three of them bore markings signifying their classification status. (Information can still be classified even if it does not have a label.) Eight email threads contained top-secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.

 

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?"

Comey: "That’s not true."

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.’ Was that true?"

Comey: "There was classified material emailed."

[Ad Lib]

Being careless is not the same as being care free.

And yes, she accepts responsibility for the findings of the FBI. One can disagree with something while also accepting it.

Notice, for example, that several emails were retrospectively classified. Therefore they may not have been classified when she sent or received them. She did not say that her statements were "accurate"; merely that she made statements she believed to be true at the time and that the report does not call into question her honesty in the making of those statements. Which is what happened.

[doulikefish]

Feck me libbys now a master of the american legal system,who would have thunk it

[EdgarusQPFC]

16 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Being careless is not the same as being care free.

And yes, she accepts responsibility for the findings of the FBI. One can disagree with something while also accepting it.

Notice, for example, that several emails were retrospectively classified. Therefore they may not have been classified when she sent or received them. She did not say that her statements were "accurate"; merely that she made statements she believed to be true at the time and that the report does not call into question her honesty in the making of those statements. Which is what happened.

You are completely blind. She is a first rate liar and her go to response to any situation is to lie through her teeth. Or have evidence destroyed to protect herself...

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/doj-gave-immunity-to-person-who-destroyed-clinton-emails/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/from-fbi-fragments-a-question-did-team-clinton-destroy-evidence-under-subpoena/article/2600969
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/09/06/oversight-committee-clinton-obstruction-n2214383
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/jason-chaffetz-clinton-destroy-evidence-227767
http://nypost.com/2016/09/08/how-the-fbi-went-easy-on-hillary-clinton/

"According to the FBI investigation summary, Combetta appears to be the individual who deleted Clinton’s email archives from the PRN systems in late March 2015.  The FBI also uncovered evidence of a work ticket referencing a conference call between PRN and Clinton’s attorneys on March 31, 2015, but Combetta was advised by PRN lawyers not to answer questions about the conference call, citing attorney-client privilege.

During his second interview with the FBI in May 2016, Combetta told investigators that he deleted the emails in late March 2015 after recalling an order from Clinton’s team in December 2014 to delete all of the emails that may still exist.  He referred to this recollection as an “oh shit” moment and decided to delete the emails, all the while knowing the preservation order existed.  Combetta also told investigators he used the BleachBit program tool, ensuring the emails could not be recovered by investigators or anyone else."

“In reviewing those files, the Committee identified a sequence of events that may amount to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence by Secretary Clinton and her employees and contractors, including her attorneys, employees of Platte River Networks, and employees of Clinton Executive Services Corporation," a letter sent Tuesday to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz states. 
“In light of this information, the Department should investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.” 

[pandarilla]

I agree with gd about preferring a barely alive Clinton to trump - but in realistic terms I can't see how her campaign recovers from this (no pun intended).

Ad lib may well be right that it shouldn't matter but a shitload of Americans disagree. She's a goner.

[Ad Lib]

Well this is interesting.

LawNewz is owned by Dan Abrams, who has repeatedly stated in news interviews for ABC that Clinton and her staff did nothing criminal.

The Washington Examiner is owned by, surprise surprise, a prominent Colorado Republican donor. I wonder what possible agenda they could have.

Townhall is a website that is literally owned by Salem Media Group, a prominent Christian conservative organisation. I wonder what possible agenda they could have against Clinton? It used to be run by the Heritage Foundation.

So the sources of informed and impartial news you are using to incriminate Crooked Shillary respectively

1. Exonerate her of criminality

2. Would be like taking the Spectator's word as gospel on grammar schools

3. Would be like going to Conservative Home or the Adam Smith Institute for the TRUTH

 

[pandarilla]

Well this is interesting.

LawNewz is owned by Dan Abrams, who has repeatedly stated in news interviews for ABC that Clinton and her staff did nothing criminal.

The Washington Examiner is owned by, surprise surprise, a prominent Colorado Republican donor. I wonder what possible agenda they could have.

Townhall is a website that is literally owned by Salem Media Group, a prominent Christian conservative organisation. I wonder what possible agenda they could have against Clinton? It used to be run by the Heritage Foundation.

So the sources of informed and impartial news you are using to incriminate Crooked Shillary respectively

1. Exonerate her of criminality

2. Would be like taking the Spectator's word as gospel on grammar schools

3. Would be like going to Conservative Home or the Adam Smith Institute for the TRUTH

 

Do you think she can still win?

And if so, do you think she's still favourite?

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

 

Do you think she can still win?

And if so, do you think she's still favourite?

 

"Yes" and "Yes, just."

[EdgarusQPFC]

9 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Well this is interesting.

LawNewz is owned by Dan Abrams, who has repeatedly stated in news interviews for ABC that Clinton and her staff did nothing criminal.

The Washington Examiner is owned by, surprise surprise, a prominent Colorado Republican donor. I wonder what possible agenda they could have.

Townhall is a website that is literally owned by Salem Media Group, a prominent Christian conservative organisation. I wonder what possible agenda they could have against Clinton? It used to be run by the Heritage Foundation.

So the sources of informed and impartial news you are using to incriminate Crooked Shillary respectively

1. Exonerate her of criminality

2. Would be like taking the Spectator's word as gospel on grammar schools

3. Would be like going to Conservative Home or the Adam Smith Institute for the TRUTH

 

Aye very good, cause truth is what you get from Clinton. The 2016 election is a fucking mess and its so completely fucked that a moron like Trump is the better of 2 awful choices. She is as corrupt as they come

[jmothecat]

Gamechanger as Rees Moog endorses Trump.

I'm mildly surprised any British person would vote for Trump tbh, but I suppose if anyone would then someone on the right of the Tory party would be the one I would expect.

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

Aye very good, cause truth is what you get from Clinton. The 2016 election is a fucking mess and its so completely fucked that a moron like Trump is the better of 2 awful choices. She is as corrupt as they come

Or, you know, you could use reputable internationally renowned sources, like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN etc.

You are a lunatic. America would literally be better off with a cat for President than Donald Trump.

[pandarilla]

Gamechanger as Rees Moog endorses Trump.

I'm mildly surprised any British person would vote for Trump tbh, but I suppose if anyone would then someone on the right of the Tory party would be the one I would expect.

Really? What are his reasons?

I quite like Jacob.

[jmothecat]

Really? What are his reasons?

I quite like Jacob.

As likeable as a person he is his views are very right-wing. I think Rees Mogg is to the Tories what Corbyn is to Labour.

[Zetterlund]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Or, you know, you could use reputable internationally renowned sources, like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN etc.

You are a lunatic. America would literally be better off with a cat for President than Donald Trump.

A cat would probably beat him in an election. The only thing that might not beat him is a Hillary Clinton, which is why America is so fucked. She is also an awful candidate, currently with an equally unfavourable rating to Trump, the difference being he has been at rock bottom from the start while she has been sliding