• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

the one who gave expensive speeches to wall street

Ahh, the old moron's chestnut. How dare someone be paid for speaking. That's never before happened in all of human history! To be paid for a service provided? Blasphemy.

I happened to catch an old clip of Barney Frank, co-author of the Dodd-Frank amendment. He essentially said, Yes, I spoke to Wall Street like Hillary. "They think I'm interesting." I guess the co-author of Dodd-Frank was in Wall Streets pocket too. Ironic.

Yea, I've never understood why attacking HRC for making speeches to bankers was such a big deal. She represented them for years in the senate. Sure bankers tend to be more fiscally conservative than the average democrat. But most (in NY) are socially liberal and favor the progressive tax system and a bigger safety net. The democrats can't win by excluding urban professionals from the party. If anything, we need to expand the tent - not tear it down.
 
Sorry, but that's not an accurate summation as I quoted previously.

- - - Updated - - -



No kidding. Here's the problem; whiting out "Classified", "Secret" or "Confidential" then faxing it or emailing it doesn't make it unclassified. What do you think of Comey's comment about her handling of classified material?

So we're back to just arguing small details here. I think the larger issue is why do you hate HRC and the democrats? You claim to not like Trump, and yet you hate the one group that has a chance to beat him in an election. You're position makes no sense. Sure, the democrats and HRC take some positions that I hate. Because the system is unfair, the democrats can't win unless they win a very large percentage of the votes, a percentage larger than 50%. So, they have to appeal to many people. They must be a big tent. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I'd really like to know what specific issues advocated by democrats do you hate?

Small details? "Aside from that small detail, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

I don't hate, but thank you for labeling me a hater simply because I think Hillary is corrupt. Obviously all you want to do is argue and label people. I suggest you do it in a mirror.

Oh brother. We're back to the dramatics again! You are probably the most sensitive poster that I've talked to on this forum! I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you. Could we just rationally debate the issue? I'll try again: what is the specific issue that HRC advocates for that you disagree with?
 
Oh brother. We're back to the dramatics again! You are probably the most sensitive poster that I've talked to on this forum! I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you....

Then you should save yourself some stress and ignore me.

Others can read my posts on the specifics of why I dislike Hillary R. Clinton and was happy to see her fall.
 
Oh brother. We're back to the dramatics again! You are probably the most sensitive poster that I've talked to on this forum! I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you....

Then you should save yourself some stress and ignore me.

Others can read my posts on the specifics of why I dislike Hillary R. Clinton and was happy to see her fall.

So you agree with all her issues and policies?
 
I happened to catch an old clip of Barney Frank, co-author of the Dodd-Frank amendment. He essentially said, Yes, I spoke to Wall Street like Hillary. "They think I'm interesting." I guess the co-author of Dodd-Frank was in Wall Streets pocket too. Ironic.

Yea, I've never understood why attacking HRC for making speeches to bankers was such a big deal. She represented them for years in the senate. Sure bankers tend to be more fiscally conservative than the average democrat. But most (in NY) are socially liberal and favor the progressive tax system and a bigger safety net. The democrats can't win by excluding urban professionals from the party. If anything, we need to expand the tent - not tear it down.

Here’s a list of HRC’s speeches and how much she got paid for each. Funny how no one on the right ever mentions the notion of her being in the pocket of The Gap, or the National Multi Housing Council, or Let’s Talk Entertainment, or the American Jewish University, or Global Business Travel Association, or the American Society for Clinical Pathology, or the National Association of Convenience Stores, or the National Association Of Realtors, or the US Green Building Council, or A&E Television Networks, or The Vancouver Board of Trade (CANADIANS!!), etc., etc., etc.

And, of course, it’s ALWAYS an argument from incredulity. The entire argument is, “Come on! Dude! Of COURSE it was pay to play.” Ok, so then it must also have been pay to play for A&E and the Institutue of Scrap Recycling Industries, so what exactly did they buy with their unheard of payment of services fee?

She was no longer in office and could not have done shit for any of these organizations even if she wanted to. She was paid for speaking. Completely benign normal occurrence that thousands of other people do every single day. AND, because she made so much money from speaking (as well as her husband) they were independently wealthy and therefore didn’t need to be “bought,” but of course that only applies to Trump because he wasn’t “establishment.”

It’s all a bunch of obvious bullshit that just keeps getting regurgitated over and over and over again. Never a shred of evidence. And almost always by people who swear they aren’t Republicans or didn’t vote for Trump, which just makes it all the worse, because those are the people who should be able to use their fucking brains properly, but never seem to be able to stop their Hillary Derangement Syndrome long enough to look at any actual facts.

ETA: And, of course, they always ignore the fact that Obama's biggest fundraiser in 2008 was Goldman Sachs, and yet:

When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, no major U.S. corporation did more to finance his campaign than Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

This election, none has done more to help defeat him.

Prompted by what they call regulatory attacks on their business and personal attacks on their character, executives and employees of Goldman Sachs have largely abandoned Mr. Obama and are now the top sources of money to presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.
...
In interviews with more than a dozen past and current Goldman executives, many said they felt betrayed by Democratic lawmakers and the White House, for years considered friendly allies. Several Goldman executives said they didn't want to speak out publicly against the president, and that their donations speak for themselves.

Jim Donovan, a banker formerly in charge of Goldman's relations with Bain Capital, the private-equity firm once run by Mr. Romney, helped draw his colleagues' attention to the GOP candidate. "As a longtime friend to Mitt and Ann, I can attest that his conviction and strength on fixing the U.S. economy is compelling as are his values," said Mr. Donovan, who handles Mr. Romney's personal investments. "That is why there has been such a strong outpouring of support for Mitt from all sectors."

But, but, dude! They paid to play!

How'd that work out for them?
 
Last edited:
What do you think of Comey's comment about her handling of classified material?

That it was his opinion and highly inappropriate, since the Secretary of State outranks him and has full authority to label anything within the State Department to be classified or unclassified by whim alone, if need be.

More importantly, what did you think about his findings that Clinton did nothing illegal and/or the fact that they only found TWO emails--let me put it in terms you'll understand TWO emails--marked "classified" out of tens of thousands?

Once again, I will give you one million dollars if you can accurately recall how many emails you sent or received between 2011 and 2015 with the word "Important" in the subject line. And don't forget, it is YOU who has the ultimate authority to determine--at will, if need be--whether or not something you are sending/receiving/discussing is "Important" or not.

This stupidity really needs to end.

You claim to not be a Republican or a Trumpeteer, yet you keep clinging to non-issues that have been thoroughly and conclusively debunked here and elsewhere from three years ago. Why?

You have zero evidence for your assertions of her "corruption" and keep pointing to this nonsense like it matters, or ever should have mattered, when in fact it never did. Even if any of her emails had been hacked, it STILL would not matter one jot, because if it did, then you'd have to address the fact that nearly every single government computer has been hacked at one time or another.

There is no such thing as a 100% secure computer network. They do not and cannot exist. The State Department system was hacked, the White House system was hacked, the Pentagon was hacked, and for some real fun (emphasis mine), the servers of the Department of Defense (DoD), Pentagon, NASA, NSA, US Military, Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare System Command and other UK/US government websites have all been hacked.

The ONLY relevant question to HRC is whether or not she was trying to sell or reveal government secrets by using her private email. She was not. That--and that alone--would be the only issue of legality.

End of fucking pointlessness.
 
I have an unfounded Clinton conspiracy theory I want to throw out there, The servers at the White House and state department were hacked at the time she was using a private server. It is known that her personal server was not hacked as they were checked when confiscated.

My theory is she likely knew this.
 
No matter how you try to downplay her achievement, she was the objective and clear preference among the largest number of voters.

Against Trump, so was a banana peel.

You sing the same song again, but thank you at least for confirming the exact thoughts of many millions of pro-Hillary voters who evidently took that sophistry to heart and didn't bother to vote. Once again establishing that the preference for the largest percentage of registered voters was for HRC.
 
What do you think of Comey's comment about her handling of classified material?

That it was his opinion and highly inappropriate, since the Secretary of State outranks him and has full authority to label anything within the State Department to be classified or unclassified by whim alone, if need be....
Cite where the SoS has the authority to declassify material such as CIA assessments, military deployments, etc.
 
I have an unfounded Clinton conspiracy theory I want to throw out there, The servers at the White House and state department were hacked at the time she was using a private server. It is known that her personal server was not hacked as they were checked when confiscated.

My theory is she likely knew this.

Well, here's the long, boring history of it all that I posted earlier: What the FBI Files Reveal About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server. The tl;dr version is that she was your grandmother; not tech savvy, didn't own or know how to use a computer and so other accommodations were made for her. Snippets:

the FBI released the final batch of what amount to nearly 250 pages of interview notes and reports collected during the course of its investigation. Agents interviewed officials ranging from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to CIA officers to the IT staffer who first rented a minivan to drive the server from Washington to the Clintons’ home in New York. The files also include the FBI’s forensic investigative process and never-before-seen details of the staff decisions that led to the server, the mechanics of Clinton’s email system, and the confusing and balky State Department processes that led a technophobic Clinton to embrace her own BlackBerry.
...
The interviews—taken together and reconstructed for this article into the first-ever comprehensive narrative of how her email server scandal unfolded—draw a picture of the controversy quite different from what either side has made it out to be. Together, the documents, technically known as Form 302s, depict less a sinister and carefully calculated effort to avoid transparency than a busy and uninterested executive who shows little comfort with even the basics of technology, working with a small, harried inner circle of aides inside a bureaucracy where the IT and classification systems haven’t caught up with how business is conducted in the digital age.
...
Hillary Clinton, after all, didn’t know how to use a desktop computer. A BlackBerry was her lifeline. As Cheryl Mills told FBI agents later, “Clinton was not computer savvy and thus was not accustomed to using a computer, so efforts were made to try to figure out a system that would allow Clinton to operate as she did before DoS.”
...
Lewis Lukens, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for the Executive Secretariat—the unit that oversaw the logistics for State’s leadership—sent an email asking about the possibility of setting up a “living room” outside the office’s secure area where the new secretary could check her email. There was a model for this; something similar had been done for Colin Powell.

Instead, after much back and forth and various proposals, the solution turned out to be a simple one. During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton—who was known to her security detail by the code name Evergreen—would deposit her BlackBerry into a desk drawer at the Diplomatic Security station outside her office when she arrived on the seventh floor. The practice of leaving the BlackBerry at the guard station, known as Post-1, was technically a security violation—the desk was considered inside the Mahogany Row secure area—but it seemed to those involved an appropriate compromise. To use it, she’d leave her office and wander, often visiting State’s eighth-floor balcony.

In the days after she was sworn in, Hillary Clinton also contacted her predecessor, Colin Powell, to ask how he had managed his information flow as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005. In his early weeks, Powell recalled, he’d “received several security briefings that restricted his ability to communicate.” He’d questioned the NSA and CIA on “why PDAs were anymore of a risk than the television remote controls.” He never got a convincing answer. And so, he advised Hillary Clinton “to resist restrictions that would inhibit her ability to communicate.” But he told her to choose wisely and not to create an unnecessary paper trail. He said if it became “public” that Clinton had a BlackBerry and she used it to “do business,” her emails could become “official record and subject to the law.” As Powell said: “Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”
...
Meanwhile, State Department IT and security teams were busy installing secure rooms in her two homes for reading and receiving material and conducting telephone conversations. Each house had its own SCIF. At Whitehaven—her brick Georgian-style house in northwest Washington—a State Department worker removed one of the regular doors on a third-floor room of the house, replaced it with a metal door secured by a key code lock, and outfitted the room inside with secure communications. A similar room was created at Chappaqua; while she rarely used the secure room at Whitehaven —preferring to just go into the office if she had work to do—she relied heavily on the one in Chappaqua when she was in New York, in part because cellphone coverage in the area was so poor that she needed the use of the SCIF’s phone.
...
By March of 2009, Bryan Pagliano—who ultimately joined the State Department himself, working on IT programs related to mobile computing, teleworking and Bluetooth security vulnerabilities—had assembled all the components for the Clinton email server.
...
Hillary Clinton, for her part, proved remarkably uninterested and unfamiliar with new technology. By time she moved into Foggy Bottom, much of the world had jumped aboard the iPhone bandwagon, but Clinton would cling stubbornly to her BlackBerry, even as the once-ubiquitous Washington icon slid toward tech oblivion.

According to Abedin, “It was not uncommon for Clinton to use a new BlackBerry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar.” She deemed one upgraded BlackBerry “too heavy.” That personal preference proved challenging because she churned through devices at a steady clip—all told, the FBI figured that she’d used around a dozen BlackBerrys during her tenure at the State Department. While she never reported losing a BlackBerry, Clinton replaced one after she spilled coffee on it, another because its trackball started to fail slowly over time, and another when its screen cracked.
...
Her preference for a personal email account was not technically against the rules. At State, FBI agents later found, there was “no restriction on use of personal email accounts for official business,” but employees were cautioned about security and records retention concerns. The State Department told employees that they should forward such emails to their official accounts for recordkeeping purposes. “There were no rules in place that specifically denied Secretary Clinton the use of her private network,” but, according to the State Department IG Steve Linick, private email was “highly discouraged.”

Officially “discouraged,” sure, but according to many that the FBI interviewed, the State Department’s culture uniquely embraced—and its poor information systems actively seemed to encourage—employees turning to private emails to conduct business.
...
As the FBI report concluded, “DoS does not have a restriction on the use of personal email accounts for official business. Personal email accounts are often used by individuals in the field who were not issued an official DoS mobile device, or who do not have the time or means to remotely log into the DoS system. Employees are not required to notify DoS that they are using a personal account for official business and there is no mechanism to track who is using a personal email.”


In regard to the general state of tech for the State Department:

By the time Clinton arrived, the State Department’s technology infrastructure was still outdated and balky. The “fob” system that was supposed to allow access to email outside the building—whereby employees would enter a special key or token to confirm their identity—was slow and prone to shutting down inconveniently. For employees who did use their official accounts, workarounds were common—particularly because many State Department officials and senior leadership, many of whom worked from the field or traveled regularly on missions overseas, didn’t have easy, regular access to the systems designed to transmit classified information securely.

One State employee told the FBI he regularly used nonsecure email and personal email simply because there was no other way to quickly transmit information. The FBI found “many DoS employees used personal email accounts because they were more easily accessible.” Clinton aide Monica Hanley told the FBI that “her state.gov email account was not as easily accessible as her Gmail account and on some occasions she used Gmail when she could not access her State.gov account.” There were particularly problems connecting to State.gov accounts on board the Air Force planes that Clinton used to travel, so staff often would use Gmail or other personal accounts while traveling.

In regard to "classified":

The department’s IT problems— both the culture of personal email and poor information security that it encouraged—were well known among those who worked with the State Department. One CIA official who reviewed a questionable email in the Clinton investigation told the FBI that the email in question technically “should be classified, but that he was not surprised that DOS had sent it on an unclassified channel.”

A potentially unlikely CIA executive echoed those same impressions: that the government’s classification system wasn’t necessarily a bright line; sometimes information was technically classified that a reasonable person could argue wasn’t necessary. Mike Morell—the former deputy director of the CIA who started working with former Clinton aide Philippe Reines’ firm Beacon Global Strategies after he retired in 2015—told the FBI after reviewing one email that “he understood why the email would be considered classified, but he did not believe that the email would jeopardize any sources, methods, or otherwise compromise national security.”

While “classified information” seems like it should be straightforward and binary—it either is or it isn’t—in practice government classification is a tricky and complicated issue. For one thing, different departments can treat the same information differently, as Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy—a career Foreign Service officer who had started in the top position two years before Hillary Clinton came to the department—explained to the FBI. Whereas the intelligence community often “steals” information, leading it to be classified, the State Department may end up gathering that same information from nonsensitive sources and so never consider it classified; conversations with foreign diplomats may be classified or not—or later upgraded to classified if it’s determined that “the disclosure of such information might damage national security or diplomatic relationships.” (This was particularly true as governments and leaders shifted around the world.) Plus, the lines around documents and information could shift—many internal or even interagency drafts would be considered unclassified while they were being written, but would then be routinely classified when they were transmitted formally to the National Security Council.

The clear takeaway is that, laypeople don't know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to any of this and think only in terms of dire consequences,which is, of course, precisely what the Republicans wanted; to take advantage of their ignorance about all such matters and make a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Cite where the SoS has the authority to declassify material such as CIA assessments, military deployments, etc.

State Department material, and I already have, but since your googling ability must be impaired, here you go. This is Obama's Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information that was in place during HRC's tenure. It states (in part):

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President...

"Agency heads" such as the Secretary of State. What about declassification?

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification.

(a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority
 
State Department material, and I already have, but since your googling ability must be impaired, here you go. This is Obama's Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information that was in place during HRC's tenure. It states (in part):



"Agency heads" such as the Secretary of State. What about declassification?

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification.

(a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority

Good job on the research and thanks for the link. Here is a fuller quote of 3.1: https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
(2) the originator’s current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.
(c) The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.
(d) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.

While Hillary may have had the authority to classify and declassify her own material 1) she doesn't have the authority to declassify the material from other agencies and 2) as noted by Comey, the material found in her emails was still classified. Even if she had the authority to declassify, there's a process and it doesn't involve Clintonian whims.
 
Good job on the research and thanks for the link. Here is a fuller quote of 3.1: https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
(2) the originator’s current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.
(c) The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.
(d) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.

While Hillary may have had the authority to classify and declassify her own material 1) she doesn't have the authority to declassify the material from other agencies and 2) as noted by Comey, the material found in her emails was still classified. Even if she had the authority to declassify, there's a process and it doesn't involve Clintonian whims.

So, how does any of that bear on how she is any less qualified than Donald Trump, who literally thinks he has the power to use an executive order to repeal the 14th amendment of the constitution. There is an order of magnitude of difference here
 
Good job on the research and thanks for the link. Here is a fuller quote of 3.1: https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
(2) the originator’s current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.
(c) The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.
(d) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.

While Hillary may have had the authority to classify and declassify her own material 1) she doesn't have the authority to declassify the material from other agencies and 2) as noted by Comey, the material found in her emails was still classified. Even if she had the authority to declassify, there's a process and it doesn't involve Clintonian whims.

So, how does any of that bear on how she is any less qualified than Donald Trump, who literally thinks he has the power to use an executive order to repeal the 14th amendment of the constitution. There is an order of magnitude of difference here

Thanks for tacitly admitting I'm correct. She's not less qualified than Trump. On the contrary, she's much more qualified. Trump is a fucking moron. I've already posted this.
 
While Hillary may have had the authority to classify and declassify her own material

She did.

1) she doesn't have the authority to declassify the material from other agencies

Then to make any kind of relevant point, you’d best provide evidence that the two emails that were marked classified were from some other agency.

We’ll wait.
 
While Hillary may have had the authority to classify and declassify her own material

She did.

1) she doesn't have the authority to declassify the material from other agencies

Then to make any kind of relevant point, you’d best provide evidence that the two emails that were marked classified were from some other agency.

We’ll wait.

"We'll wait"? LOL

Try this: Hold your breath until I do. If you can't, let me know. :)

That fact remains Hillary lost and, worse for her and her fans, her grip on the DNC has been crushed. Even the Democrats don't want her back. She's done. She's toast. She should retire gracefully and become an elder statesperson instead of making feeble attempts at a comeback with music videos and sniping from the sidelines.
 
She did.



Then to make any kind of relevant point, you’d best provide evidence that the two emails that were marked classified were from some other agency.

We’ll wait.

"We'll wait"? LOL

Try this: Hold your breath until I do. If you can't, let me know. :)...

In other words, Koy... he can't.

This round to Koy.
 
In other words, Koy... he can't.

This round to Koy.

Since you have the power to edit my posts, I must accept your ruling.

Do you not see your double standard. You hate HRC due to technicities and unfounded republican allegations. And yet trump is one of the biggest con men ever elected to any office in our history?!! It's cool to dislike some of her policies. Many people do. No politician is perfect. But you are so open to allegations that you're the perfect Russian Bot target.
 
In other words, Koy... he can't.

This round to Koy.

Since you have the power to edit my posts, I must accept your ruling.

Do you not see your double standard. You hate HRC due to technicities and unfounded republican allegations. And yet trump is one of the biggest con men ever elected to any office in our history?!! It's cool to dislike some of her policies. Many people do. No politician is perfect. But you are so open to allegations that you're the perfect Russian Bot target.

What makes you think he isn't a Russian troll?
 
Back
Top Bottom