Politics Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.

So if you vote for Trump you are a con man? If you vote for Johnson you smoke pot and have climbed Everest?

Well, because women don't have balls.

barfo

 

emails also show how the administration lied about Benghazi for weeks afterward (it was an internet video!), and how Hiliar lied as usual.

Diane Reynolds is Chelsea Clinton's pseudonym and email account.

 

Which part of that email did you find 'sickening'?

barfo

 

Really, you can't imagine anything worse than the current state of the nation?

You must think things are pretty bad here. I recommend a trip to, say, Somalia to give you some perspective.

barfo

 

Sounds like he's into that hopey changey thing. For real this time.

 

The part that proved she lied to the widows and orphans of those killed in the Benhazi attack. And they sent out surrogates to propagate the lie.

 

There's a big difference between having hope for a better future and believing that any future different than the present must necessarily be better.

barfo

 

For what purpose, Denny? If she knew the truth and purposely lied (neither of those things has been proven, by the way) what was her motivation?

As far as I can see she'd have nothing whatsoever to gain, so I find the accusation improbable.

barfo

 

To protect Obama during the campaign.

The attack was on 9/11/2012, the election was on 11/6.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/

The Obama administration knew attacks on the consulate were because of terrorism, but they knowingly changed the narrative to blame an “inflammatory” viral video — to escape any culpability of the attacks so close to a November election. In the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly spoke of not only killing Osama bin Laden, but how Al Qaeda had been “decimated” under his watch. Any word Benghazi was actually a terrorist attack would undermine this narrative.

His media PR firm (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC) were all talking about how brilliant Obama's foreign policy was. Allowing an Al Qaeda attack would have made that foreign policy look like it was up in flames. In their typically sycophantic way, the press was having a love fest about Obama's foreign policy part of his acceptance speech.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/09...tually-affect-the-2012-presidential-election/

As Fred Kaplan observed in Slate over the weekend, for the first time in a loooooooong time, the Democrats feel more secure on foreign policy and national security issues than the Republicans. When John Kerry starts making derisive references to Rocky IV, you know something strange is going on. As for Barack Obama, his convention acceptance speech was kind of middlin’ — except when he started talking about foreign policy.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...ign-policy-success-will-win-him-re-election-2

How Obama's Foreign Policy Success Will Win Him Re-election

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/opinion/zelizer-foreign-policy-campaign/

As was evident in their convention, Democrats feel they now have the so-called national security advantage. The successful drone strikes against al-Qaeda, as well as the death of Osama bin Laden, have given the White House a foundation from which to say the president is better prepared to handle these challenges.

As was the case with Eisenhower, foreign policy crises, at least in the short term, can create a rally-around-the-leader effect while raising questions about whether Romney is ready for the White House.

(Obama and Ike, two peas in a pod!)

Plenty more similar links easily found.

 

Sure. Keep on doing the same thing and expect different results. I think that's the definition of "insanity."

The bottom line is if you want actual change, something has to ... you know... actually change.

 

I can easily find links saying Hillary has serious medical problems, too. Doesn't mean she does.

Your theory doesn't actually make much sense, frankly. I don't see how an ambassador getting killed by a mob enraged by a video is any better politically than an ambassador getting killed by terrorists. And I don't see how keeping the terrorist connection 'secret' for a few days two months before the election was expected to have helped Obama.

Finally, the whole idea that terrorist attacks hurt the sitting president politically is quite implausible. Take a look at W's approval ratings after 9/11.

barfo

 

Sure, but who is doing that? I'm certainly not.

Sure, no one disagrees with that. Also, water is wet.

But there are only three reasons to say "I want change, no matter what the change is".

1) The situation is so bad that it literally cannot get any worse. That seemed to be what the other poster was saying, and I strongly disagree we are in that position.

2) You are so angry you can't think rationally.

3) You are an anarchist.

barfo