• 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!

Democratic Candidates for POTUS, 2016 edition

giphy.gif
 
Hillary needs to reign in her temper, but Bernie giving her shit in the debates has helped her prepare for Trump. Trump never figured out how to deal with Fiorina and giving HRC non stop shit won't help him. Christie managed to keep his temper in check during the campaign and Hillary needs to do the same.
 
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...edly-releases-new-clinton-benghazi-documents/

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it has obtained new documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 11, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.” The documents include previously unreleased telephone transcripts with world leaders about the Benghazi attack.

Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22, but court filings in Judicial Watch litigation show that the record was only produced after two federal court judges ordered the State Department to produce more Benghazi-related records to Judicial Watch. Similarly, Judicial Watch litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier.

Pretty disgusting she would lie to the parents of the slain and the world for that matter. I know I know defend away....
 
jhmd2000 said:
Direct evidence she lied is "NO NEW INFORAMTION!"?

What a sad, miserable existence it must be to have to shill for her.
Click to expand...

What a sad, miserable existence to pretend not to understand what new information is: "Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22"

What's the lie, specifically?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/09/what-did-hillary-clinton-tell-families-people-who-/

"For the sake of argument, let’s say Clinton had told the families something about the video: Would she have been telling them something she knew to be false? Not necessarily.

A clear picture of whether there had been protests in Benghazi didn’t come together until Sept. 15, a day after Clinton met with the families, according to multiple Senate investigation reports.

In its same-day report about the ceremony at Andrews, the New York Times wrote that information available to the White House at the time suggested there were protests in Benghazi spurred by those in Cairo, and Islamic extremists took advantage of the situation and began the attack.

Many people say Clinton knew it was a terrorist attack wholly unconnected from protests on the day of the attacks, Sept. 11, 2012. That day, Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaida affiliated group, took responsibility for the attack. Within the next 24 hours, we know Clinton relayed this to Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf and Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. She also emailed her daughter, Chelsea, that night, telling her the attack seemed to have been committed by an al-Qaida-like group.

However, this was all before Ansar al-Sharia retracted their claim of responsibility. So it’s possible Clinton had intelligence about possible protests, rather than an unconnected terrorist attack, in mind when she met with the families. But this is, again, something we likely won’t ever know.

Even absent protests in Benghazi, some intelligence says the video played some motivational role, providing a rallying call for opportunistic attackers, according to congressional investigations. A Libyan terrorist intimately involved in the Benghazi attack, who the United States has since captured, reportedly said at the time that he was partially motivated by the video, for example.

"I believe to this day the video played a role," Clinton said at her congressional testimony Oct. 22, 2015."
 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
What a sad, miserable existence to pretend not to understand what new information is: "Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22"

What's the lie, specifically?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/09/what-did-hillary-clinton-tell-families-people-who-/
Click to expand...

lmao ya no evidence. There is no way we can find out what Clinton told the families. Their word means nothing yet Dorian Johnson word was enough to tear down Ferguson. Pretty sad
 
Shooshmoo said:
What a sad, miserable existence to pretend not to understand what new information is: "Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22"

What's the lie, specifically?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/09/what-did-hillary-clinton-tell-families-people-who-/

"For the sake of argument, let’s say Clinton had told the families something about the video: Would she have been telling them something she knew to be false? Not necessarily.

A clear picture of whether there had been protests in Benghazi didn’t come together until Sept. 15, a day after Clinton met with the families, according to multiple Senate investigation reports.

In its same-day report about the ceremony at Andrews, the New York Times wrote that information available to the White House at the time suggested there were protests in Benghazi spurred by those in Cairo, and Islamic extremists took advantage of the situation and began the attack.

Many people say Clinton knew it was a terrorist attack wholly unconnected from protests on the day of the attacks, Sept. 11, 2012. That day, Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaida affiliated group, took responsibility for the attack. Within the next 24 hours, we know Clinton relayed this to Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf and Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. She also emailed her daughter, Chelsea, that night, telling her the attack seemed to have been committed by an al-Qaida-like group.

However, this was all before Ansar al-Sharia retracted their claim of responsibility. So it’s possible Clinton had intelligence about possible protests, rather than an unconnected terrorist attack, in mind when she met with the families. But this is, again, something we likely won’t ever know.

Even absent protests in Benghazi, some intelligence says the video played some motivational role, providing a rallying call for opportunistic attackers, according to congressional investigations. A Libyan terrorist intimately involved in the Benghazi attack, who the United States has since captured, reportedly said at the time that he was partially motivated by the video, for example.

"I believe to this day the video played a role," Clinton said at her congressional testimony Oct. 22, 2015."
Click to expand...

Shoo,

Nobody here will ever convince you that Hillary Clinton was dishonest about what happened at Benghazi. The fact that she was a) woefully unprepared and unresponsive to the deteriorating security situation (that other Western interests recognized and reacted to by withdrawing), b) got caught flat footed, and c) sent a sacrificial lamb onto the morning shows to lie about it, escapes you completely, as I am sure does the irony of her having run the "Who do you want answering the phone at 0300?" ad in 2008. Good for you and most importantly, good for her. She's counting on an army of Shoos this year.
 
Deacs89 said:
lmao ya no evidence. There is no way we can find out what Clinton told the families. Their word means nothing yet Dorian Johnson word was enough to tear down Ferguson. Pretty sad
Click to expand...

Their word means nothing? There's an enormous cult of teabaggers including you and JHMD and everyone who watches Fox News who have been relying on their word, and putting them on tv, for multiple years to try to make a scandal where none exists, and still bringing up old news to this day based on it.
 
deacvision7 said:
Oh, what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

Even this guy gets it.

If you want to believe Hillary Clinton, that's your choice.

eta: I'd much prefer you saying "Look, we all know that she'll say whatever she needs to say to get in and stay in power. But I believe that once she gets in power, she'll do things I agree with, so I will absorb that cost of doing business." That I could appreciate, even if I don't agree with the second part. I'm not sure I can understand taking the position "What lie???" with respect to Hillary Clinton, any more than I could "What weight problem?" as it concerns Chris Christie.
 
Last edited:
Shoo asked a simple question, "what is the lie, specifically?"

This was your response:

Deacs89 said:
lmao ya no evidence....
Click to expand...



jhmd2000 said:
Shoo,

Nobody here will ever convince you that Hillary Clinton was dishonest about what happened at Benghazi. The fact that she was a) woefully unprepared and unresponsive to the deteriorating security situation (that other Western interests recognized and reacted to by withdrawing), b) got caught flat footed, and c) sent a sacrificial lamb onto the morning shows to lie about it,...
Click to expand...

Judging by your response, there is no lie.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Shoo asked a simple question, "what is the lie, specifically?"

This was your response:







Judging by your response, there is no lie.
Click to expand...

I have long since cut bait on the ability of the left to admit that the fact that what Hillary told people when she thought no one was listening was wildly inconsistent with the shovel-ready load she had Susan Rice spew on six different talk shows before all of the facts came in. She doesn't even agree with herself, when you line up the statements she made off the record and the stuff she swore was true in her testimony...that is, her re-scheduled testimony....after she called in concussed. Or something. Shoo is no different, he's just next in line.
 
Last edited:
Did Bernie Sanders pull a Kim Davis on the pope?
 
avalon said:
Did Bernie Sanders pull a Kim Davis on the pope?
Click to expand...

He was invited to speak at the Vatican and got to meet the Pope afterwards- I haven't seen where he hyped it up into something more, but maybe he did. Anyway, good interview with Monica Lewinsky in the Guardian. Seems like a very thoughtful person. Really ended up liking her after reading it. Linda Tripp did her so wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/16/monica-lewinsky-shame-sticks-like-tar-jon-ronson
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
He was invited to speak at the Vatican and got to meet the Pope afterwards- I haven't seen where he hyped it up into something more, but maybe he did.
Click to expand...

Bernie:

Pope Francis and Sen. Bernie Sanders met at the Vatican on Saturday.

“It was a real honor for my wife and I to spend some time with him,” the senator told The Associated Press on Saturday morning during an interview at a hotel rooftop overlooking St. Peter’s Square. “He is one of the extraordinary figures not only in the world today but in modern world history.”

The meeting occurred at Domus Santa Marta, the pope’s residence. The senator and his wife, Jane, were overnight guests there after attending a conference on Friday at the Vatican on economic inequality and climate change.
Click to expand...

The pope:

On the Vermont senator, Francis said he greeted Sanders on Saturday morning as he was leaving the Santa Marta, the hotel within Vatican grounds where the pope lives.

Sanders was staying at the same residence, because that’s where all participants in the Vatican conference he attended on Friday were spending the night. The only exceptions were Presidents Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who stayed at their country’s embassy in Rome.

“This morning as I was leaving, Senator Sanders was there,” Francis said. “He knew I was coming out at that time, and he had the kindness to greet me.”

“When I came down, he introduced himself, I greeted him with a handshake, and nothing more,” the pope added. “It’s common courtesy, this is called common courtesy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he found a way to cross paths with the pope as he was leaving, and spun it as a meeting and a special stay at the pope's home. (Where everyone stayed. Because it's a hotel.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top