• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Crooked hillary

wakephan09 said:
I wonder how many other high ranking politicians and security officials quickly and quietly dismantled their own private server systems after Hillary started getting heat? I highly doubt she was the only one using such a setup.
Click to expand...

That's a very good question. I guess anybody not using a .gov address would be using a private email account or a private server. Most people in the corporate world have a work address and a private address. It's probably the same in government except for a very small number who play by their own set of rules. It seems like more of these cases would be uncovered if they're out there. You're probably right to say Hillary wasn't the only one, but it doesn't appear to be a widespread practice.
 
aocs3281 said:
"When the US was in trade negotiations with Japan, Reagan got paid $2M fo two speeches in the late 80s."

Was Nancy Reagan serving as SOS and engaged in trade negotiations with Japan? How is this even close to the situation involving Hillary?

"not even the appearance of conflict"
Click to expand...

What does Nancy have to do with anything? Nancy wasn't SOS. As ex-POTUS Reagan had more access and input on policy than an ex-SOS.

But you are OK with Trump's 40+ years of discrimination and stealing tens of millions of dollars from contractors and vendors. You are OK with having a campaign manager who made millions working for Putin. His campaign CEO runs a site that is cover for white supremacists and anti-Semites.

Don't kid yourself. There are only two people to vote for - Hillary, who is terribly flawed vs. the worst human being to run seriously for POTUS (yes worse than George Wallace) in a century. It's sad but it's a no contest.

Voting for Gary Johnson is a copout. he has no chance.
 
WakeandBake said:
Go on..
Click to expand...

Go on about what?

I'm not the one bending over backwards to justify political corruption. I didn't do so during W's tenure or during the 08/12 elections, and I'm not going to do it now just because people with D's after their names are doing it. Vote for whoever you want to vote for, but I'm not sure it changes the potential conflicts of interests inherent in both Clinton's conduct and in politics more generally.


If you want to defend that, then that's your prerogative. Defending or criticizing Clinton's conduct isn't going to have any effect on the election outcome.
 
I haven't seen the possible conflicts of interest for Trump having a high ranking Putin employee as his campaign manager for several months? How about the hundreds of millions of dollars he owes to Russian banks? Plus we've actually seen the input this has on his policies like with Crimea or NATO.

How about the millions the Chinese government pays him in rent?

But you don't mention these or having the CEO of a hate driven website as his current campaign CEO.
 
My post applies to Trump, too, but this is the Crooked hillary thread
 
sailordeac said:
https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvote...ton-foundation-mark-the-fall-of-our-republic/
Click to expand...

"We also now know—as the Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel made clear in her recent oped—why Hillary decided to hide all her emails on her "infamous server."

To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done in the history of the United States government. It calls to mind, if anything, the United Nations' scandalous Oil-for-Food program in which millions were siphoned off from a plan to feed Iraq's children during the war."

Opeds aren't "know(n)" facts, emails and servers have been around for about three decades so you might as well just say the history of the universe, and I have no idea how this "calls to mind" the Oil-for-Food program.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
What does Nancy have to do with anything? Nancy wasn't SOS. As ex-POTUS Reagan had more access and input on policy than an ex-SOS.

But you are OK with Trump's 40+ years of discrimination and stealing tens of millions of dollars from contractors and vendors. You are OK with having a campaign manager who made millions working for Putin. His campaign CEO runs a site that is cover for white supremacists and anti-Semites.

Don't kid yourself. There are only two people to vote for - Hillary, who is terribly flawed vs. the worst human being to run seriously for POTUS (yes worse than George Wallace) in a century. It's sad but it's a no contest.

Voting for Gary Johnson is a copout. he has no chance.
Click to expand...

Well I sure as shit ain't voting for Trump or Hillary. Taking experience and character into account, Gary Johnson is the best candidate. Therefore, I'm voting for him.
 
RJKarl said:
I haven't seen the possible conflicts of interest for Trump having a high ranking Putin employee as his campaign manager for several months? How about the hundreds of millions of dollars he owes to Russian banks? Plus we've actually seen the input this has on his policies like with Crimea or NATO.

How about the millions the Chinese government pays him in rent?

But you don't mention these or having the CEO of a hate driven website as his current campaign CEO.
Click to expand...

Why don't you start a thread about Trump's corruption? For some reason, you keep posting about that on this thread.
 
Strickland33 said:
Go on about what?

I'm not the one bending over backwards to justify political corruption. I didn't do so during W's tenure or during the 08/12 elections, and I'm not going to do it now just because people with D's after their names are doing it. Vote for whoever you want to vote for, but I'm not sure it changes the potential conflicts of interests inherent in both Clinton's conduct and in politics more generally.


If you want to defend that, then that's your prerogative. Defending or criticizing Clinton's conduct isn't going to have any effect on the election outcome.
Click to expand...

I wasn't defending it as much as pointing out that flipping out over this but giving the other candidates you mentioned a pass is rich. I think we are saying the same thing
 
RJKarl said:
I haven't seen the possible conflicts of interest for Trump having a high ranking Putin employee as his campaign manager for several months? How about the hundreds of millions of dollars he owes to Russian banks? Plus we've actually seen the input this has on his policies like with Crimea or NATO.

How about the millions the Chinese government pays him in rent?

But you don't mention these or having the CEO of a hate driven website as his current campaign CEO.
Click to expand...

This is the latest dumb talking point-- that Breit Bart is a "hate site". Part of the substantiation for this is their use of the term "Dangerous Faggot", something Milo Yiannopoulos (a gay conservative who works with BB) calls himself.
 
Last edited:
EatLeadCommie said:
This is the latest dumb talking point-- that Breit Bart is a "hate site". Part of the substantiation for this is their use of the term "Dangerous Faggot", something Milo Yiannopoulos (a gay conservative who works with BB) calls himself.
Click to expand...

I had no idea anyone ever said that. It is indisputable that Breitbart supports alt right. Hell, it even calls crazy Bill Kristol a "renegade Jew" and has had many other anti-Semetic stories.

Here are stories about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...-stage-as-donald-trump-embraces-the-alt-right

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/491452721/the-history-of-the-alt-right

"So, they believe saying racist or anti-Semitic things—it's is not an act of hate, but an act of freedom," she said"

"Last week, the GOP presidential nominee announced that Stephen Bannon, chairman of Breitbart News Network, which Bannon has called "the platform for the alt-right," would be his campaign's new chief executive.

Bannon's own words says Breitbart is "the platform for the alt-right. You can't get any more definitive than the CEO saying it. I don't need any other sources.

You couldn't be more wrong.
 
Last edited:
Shorty said:
Well I sure as shit ain't voting for Trump or Hillary. Taking experience and character into account, Gary Johnson is the best candidate. Therefore, I'm voting for him.
Click to expand...

I hear this alot.
What you are really saying is you support Clinton.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
This is the latest dumb talking point-- that Breit Bart is a "hate site". Part of the substantiation for this is their use of the term "Dangerous Faggot", something Milo Yiannopoulos (a gay conservative who works with BB) calls himself.
Click to expand...

You can just ask all the white nationalists who love it whether it is a dumb talking point. Feeling some white (nationalist) guilt?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/alt-right-rejoices-at-trump-s-steve-bannon-hire.html
 
silk said:
I hear this alot.
What you are really saying is you support Clinton.
Click to expand...

Better than Putin's puppet and the mouthpiece of the hate of the alt-right.

Better than a guy who has over forty years of history of discrimination and stealing millions upon millions from honest business people.

Hillary is a terrible candidate and would lose to almost anyone else, but she isn't facing anyone else.
 
One of my friends just posted "Anthony Weiner is living proof that the Clintons don't actually have people murdered."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top