He lost because of the Clinton’s what?
Thread in IMHO
Eliminating the apostrophe would improve English
They should be protesting outside Sessions’ office, chanting “DO YOUR JOB! INDICT HILLARY! NO, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FOR, JUST INDICT HER NOW!”
Trump’s “policies” are basically a series of giant pigeon drops.
I’ll take “because they are all full of shit for a hundred”, Alex.
This. Give it a rest.
Nothing. That’s the point. They should see that the guy who could do something about it is still just trying to get them to chant–meaning he has no intention of doing it, and their chants are entirely useless.
Before, they at least might have had some belief that their chant would help get their guy elected so he would then do want they wanted. But that is no longer the case.
And as time goes on without them finding anything to lock her up for, it becomes clearer and clearer that they need to change their minds and not care about her being locked up. And, since she’s not actually influencing anything, locking her up accomplishes nothing.
If the people crying about Bush had kept on trying to get him locked up after it was clear that wasn’t going to happen, I’d also think they were getting stupider, by the same logic in that previous paragraph.
Wait, what?
I was nodding at the rest of your reply. “Wow,” I thought, “I think I get where you’re coming from.” And then, all of a sudden — this?
If I think someone has committed a crime for which they should be locked up, I don’t ask whether that person is ‘actually influencing anything’; I just want them locked up. And if I think someone hasn’t committed a crime for which they should be locked up, I don’t ask whether that person is ‘actually influencing anything’; why would I?
Why the heck would that be relevant? What is that sentence even doing there?
But if they would find something against Hillary, trump won’t get her locked up.
He wants more chanting mobs than her being in jail. Heck, trump rather pardons her.
Hillary re-demonstrates her contempt for middle America and women (the ones who didn’t vote for her because they obviously were under men’s domination), in a speech in Mumbai:
“If you look at the map of the United States, there is all that red in the middle, places where Trump won. What that map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that own two thirds of America’s Gross Domestic product. I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are, whatever that problem is, I am going to solve it…
We do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”
As one commentator noted, Bill Clinton would never have said anything as politically stupid and self-defeating as this.
Was she wrong?
Yeah, that’s a strange thing to say. I’ll be sure to vote against her in the election that she is a candidate in. Oh wait.
No, there was more to it than that. The White House Travel Office isn’t supposed to be a political appointment, and Hillary didn’t fire the staff (and bring some bogus charges against the head of it - he was acquitted, but the legal bills ruined him) because she wanted Democrats - she was handing off a perk to one of her cronies who owned a travel business. It was the sort of petty, semi-legal graft she was accustomed to from Arkansas, as was her lying about knowing anything about it.
It wasn’t “draining the swamp”, it was just a different alligator in charge.
Regards,
Shodan
We should definitely investigate that. Oh wait - we did.
Conclusion: Hillary lied but did nothing indictable, and Independent Counsel investigations were ineffectual partisan exercises.
Ray’s acquittal hardly means the charges were bogus. But of course you know what the charges were and what the evidence was, based on your thorough research, so there’s no need to remind you.
Not saying I like this in politics but was that a new thing Clinton invented? Seems to me throwing juicy jobs to supporters has always been a part of politics. The issue is where the line is drawn. Ambassador to Bermuda…ok (as a gimme to a supporter). Ambassador to Germany, not ok (should go to a career diplomat with decades of experience).
Right if they had only chosen something with little actual power like, say, head of the FAA.
The point is, without any influence, you no longer have the political reason to say this, either. I can’t just cover the “true believers” in why it is (increasingly) stupid. I also have to cover those who would say it for political advantage by pointing out there isn’t any.
If she had influence, then someone could argue these guys really are smart, pretending to care to try and hobble her politically. That is actually the main reason that it wasn’t quite so stupid during the election. It didn’t matter whether you believed it or not.
When you see a Democratic president fail to condemn the Russians for assassinating people on the soil of our staunchest ally, then you might have a leg to stand on.
World Wide Travel was one of the biggest operations in the travel biz, and therefore a good choice to take over the role on nearly no notice once the embezzler who had run it got fired (oh, quit pretending). They were certainly a better choice than two Montana buddies with no actual company were to take on repairing Puerto Rico’s power grid.
Should a qualified firm or person be *barred *from government contracts just because they know somebody?