The End of the World: A Political Thread.

JinCA

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
13,713
5,742
3,830
She said GOP was grooming and it was reported as Russia was grooming her. Sure sounds like a misquote.
She mixes the Russians in even before the part I quote earlier, she was talking about them as a combination and for people to pretend she was only talking about the GOP is sad she NEVER said it was just the GOP. She knows what she did and that's why it took so long to walk it back, if the reaction had been more favorable to her we wouldn't have heard a thing out of her camp. It's also sad that she still blames 3rd party candidates for her loss, it was up to her to convince people to vote for her, she wasn't owed their vote. This entitled attitude of hers is why so many people can't stand her, well that and her inability to take the blame for anything she does wrong.

"The thing we have to do is get enough people to turn out so that they can’t, you know, steal those votes through suppression in Wisconsin, or convince blacks not to vote in Michigan, all the stuff that they did this last time which was very effective and the Russians play a big role in."


Plouffe: "Right, and they’ll double down on this time. Trump had those advantages but he was not an incumbent. So as we know, whether it’s Ronald Regan, your husband, Barack Obama, those first 18 months of the election cycle were as important as the last six months. …


"You know, Donald Trump, as you know better than anyone in the world, only got 46.1% of the vote nationally. You know he got 47.2 in Wisconsin, 47.7 in Michigan, and if you had said those before the election you would have said he's going to lose in a landslide."


Clinton: "Right."


Plouffe: "But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third party vote."


Clinton: "Right."


Plouffe: "And what's clear to me, you mentioned, you know, he's going to just lie. ... He's going to say, whoever our nominee is, ‘will ban hamburgers and steaks and you can't fly and infanticide’ and people believe this. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number. If he has to get 49 or even 49.5 in a bunch of…"


Clinton: "He can't do that."


Plouffe: "...which I don't think he can... So he's going to try and drive the people not to vote for him but just to say, ‘you know, you can't vote for them either.’ And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can define a strategy, their key strategy right now."


Clinton: "Well, I think there's going to be two parts and I think it's going to be the same as 2016: ‘Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me? Don't vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z or the other guy did such terrible things and I'm going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they're on the dark web, and nobody can find them, but you're going to see them and you're going to see that person doing these horrible things.’"


"They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up. Which she might not, 'cause she's also a Russian asset."


Plouffe: (Inaudible)


Clinton: "Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally.


"And so, they know they can't win without a third party candidate and, so, I don't know who it's going to be it but I will guarantee you they'll have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most need it."
 

yankeessuck

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,851
1,531
2,510
She mixes the Russians in even before the part I quote earlier, she was talking about them as a combination and for people to pretend she was only talking about the GOP is sad she NEVER said it was just the GOP. She knows what she did and that's why it took so long to walk it back, if the reaction had been more favorable to her we wouldn't have heard a thing out of her camp. It's also sad that she still blames 3rd party candidates for her loss, it was up to her to convince people to vote for her, she wasn't owed their vote. This entitled attitude of hers is why so many people can't stand her, well that and her inability to take the blame for anything she does wrong.
She is talking about Trump and about how they are going to try to win again. That is exactly why the media is at fault there because yeah if you skim through you don't see Republican and you do see Russians but if you read it she is talking about GOP/Trump.
 

JinCA

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
13,713
5,742
3,830
She is talking about Trump and about how they are going to try to win again. That is exactly why the media is at fault there because yeah if you skim through you don't see Republican and you do see Russians but if you read it she is talking about GOP/Trump.
She has said Trump was working for the Russian's all along, she mentions him and Russia in her statements so it's not much of a leap, especially the last part about Stein also being a Russian asset.
 

yankeessuck

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,851
1,531
2,510
She has said Trump was working for the Russian's all along, she mentions him and Russia in her statements so it's not much of a leap, especially the last part about Stein also being a Russian asset.
Maybe its not a big leap but its still not accurate. The media should be held to a higher standard. If the headline was about the GOP grooming this story would have died fast.

I actually think the Stein comment could be taken as "Jill Stein is a third party candidate in addition to being russian asset" but whatever she is trying to say is not clear and that is a valid criticism. Its still doesn't mean the media got it right because they certainly did not and also asset doesn't mean agent.
 

JinCA

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
13,713
5,742
3,830
Maybe its not a big leap but its still not accurate. The media should be held to a higher standard. If the headline was about the GOP grooming this story would have died fast.

I actually think the Stein comment could be taken as "Jill Stein is a third party candidate in addition to being russian asset" but whatever she is trying to say is not clear and that is a valid criticism. Its still doesn't mean the media got it right because they certainly did not and also asset doesn't mean agent.
If HRC really didn't mean it that way she would have cleared it up that night, it took several days and only after a backlash in the media and other politicians taking Gabbards side did Hillary's camp try to walk it back. There isn't much point in us debating this issue anymore, you have your view and I have mine. I just don't trust Hillary so when it comes to things like this she has to do more to prove it, if she had at least apologized to Tulsi Gabbard for not being clear and telling her she respected her military service and in no way meant to imply she was a Russian asset I would believe it, she did nothing of the sort. The fact is Gabbard has said continuously that she's not running 3rd party and Clinton implied that she would so at the very least she is calling her a liar and coming from HRC that's rich.
 

yankeessuck

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,851
1,531
2,510
If HRC really didn't mean it that way she would have cleared it up that night, it took several days and only after a backlash in the media and other politicians taking Gabbards side did Hillary's camp try to walk it back. There isn't much point in us debating this issue anymore, you have your view and I have mine. I just don't trust Hillary so when it comes to things like this she has to do more to prove it, if she had at least apologized to Tulsi Gabbard for not being clear and telling her she respected her military service and in no way meant to imply she was a Russian asset I would believe it, she did nothing of the sort. The fact is Gabbard has said continuously that she's not running 3rd party and Clinton implied that she would so at the very least she is calling her a liar and coming from HRC that's rich.
Tulsi Gabbard deserves no respect
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Plainview

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,557
2,065
3,620
Buffalo, NY
If HRC really didn't mean it that way she would have cleared it up that night, it took several days and only after a backlash in the media and other politicians taking Gabbards side did Hillary's camp try to walk it back. There isn't much point in us debating this issue anymore, you have your view and I have mine. I just don't trust Hillary so when it comes to things like this she has to do more to prove it, if she had at least apologized to Tulsi Gabbard for not being clear and telling her she respected her military service and in no way meant to imply she was a Russian asset I would believe it, she did nothing of the sort. The fact is Gabbard has said continuously that she's not running 3rd party and Clinton implied that she would so at the very least she is calling her a liar and coming from HRC that's rich.
You're attaching a lot more weight to this than most people gave it. I didn't hear about this "scandal" until it was done. We're talking about a failed candidate who couldn't beat Trump and a 2%er in the primary now. I mean, had Obama called out Bernie or Warren, that would be news. This? It wasn't even on my radar.

My entire problem with this is it is trying to perpetuate the "Clinton foundation" myth that the Clintons run everything in the Democratic party. In reality this is a spat between two people who will never be president.

And yes, Hillary was 100% wrong to take the bait. Unfortunately this is the Democrats biggest weakness, they fail to see the landmines until they already step on them. If the Democrats were smart, they would ignore the Tulsi's of the world and focus on winning votes.
 

JinCA

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
13,713
5,742
3,830
You're attaching a lot more weight to this than most people gave it. I didn't hear about this "scandal" until it was done. We're talking about a failed candidate who couldn't beat Trump and a 2%er in the primary now. I mean, had Obama called out Bernie or Warren, that would be news. This? It wasn't even on my radar.

My entire problem with this is it is trying to perpetuate the "Clinton foundation" myth that the Clintons run everything in the Democratic party. In reality this is a spat between two people who will never be president.

And yes, Hillary was 100% wrong to take the bait. Unfortunately this is the Democrats biggest weakness, they fail to see the landmines until they already step on them. If the Democrats were smart, they would ignore the Tulsi's of the world and focus on winning votes.
The Clintons don't run the party anymore but to pretend they didn't have a huge influence over the past two decades isn't right, the DNC was in the tank for her last time around and the establishment was all for her before Obama pulled ahead of her during that primary as well. That's one reason there is so much push back against them, plus when they get caught doing something shady they always either deflect or just outright blame someone else. They need to go away and enjoy their time walking in the woods.

You may not have heard about all of this but it was all over the place for days before she even decided to try to walk back what she said.
 

Kerosene31

What happened to the American Dream? It came true.
Forum Mod
Supporting Member
Sep 12, 2013
8,557
2,065
3,620
Buffalo, NY
Remember when we pulled out of that Iran deal because it was bad? We were going to negotiate a new deal that was going to be tremendous. Instead all we have is the remnants of the old deal without the US weight behind it.

But hey, as I "libtard" I feel totally owned, so there's that.

 
  • Really?
Reactions: Plainview

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
28,710
10,803
4,279
Important excerpts here and here. One noteworthy item that was previously unreported: Ukraine's minister of foreign affairs warned Yovanovitch about Giuliani's conspiracy with Lutsenko, which has now been revealed to be an exchange of her removal for the announcement of investigations Trump wanted, along with access to lucrative business deals in Ukraine:

Ambassador Yovanovitch stated that Minister Avakov warned her that he was “very concerned” about Mr. Giuliani and “told me I really needed to watch my back.” (Page 41)
Q: Did you ever have any conversations after November, December 2018, with Ukrainian officials about Mr. Giuliani up until the time that you left in May?
A: I think perhaps in the February time period, I did where one of the senior Ukrainian officials was very concerned, and told me I really needed to watch my back.
Q: Describe that conversation.
A: Well, I mean, he basically said, and went into some detail, that there were two individuals from Florida, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, who were working with Mayor Giuliani, and that they had set up the meetings for Mr. Giuliani with Mr. Lutsenko. And that they were interested in having a different ambassador at post, I guess for—because they wanted to have business dealings in Ukraine, or additional business dealings. I didn’t understand that because nobody at the embassy had ever met those two individuals.

This is now a criminal conspiracy under federal indictment in the Southern District of New York in which Donald Trump is personally implicated as a co-conspirator:

• ⁠The SDNY indictment explicitly describes the conspiracy with Lutsenko as a subject of the indictment:

"They sought political influence not only to advance their own financial interests, but to advance the political interests of at least one foreign official ⁠— a Ukrainian government official [Lutsenko] who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine," Geoffrey Berman, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said at a Thursday news conference.

• ⁠In the infamous phone call, Trump specifically berated Zelenskiy for Lutsenko's termination:

“I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Zelensky, in what people familiar with the conversation said was a reference to Mr. Lutsenko.
“A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down,” Mr. Trump said, later adding that Mr. Lutsenko “was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor.”

• ⁠In the same phone call, he also explicitly referenced Yovanovitch's removal and his displeasure with her.

In a telephone conversation that has set off a political crisis for Mr. Trump, he told Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, that she was “bad news.”
“She’s going to go through some things,” he added.

• ⁠As WSJ reported last month, Yovanovitch's removal was personally ordered by Donald Trump.
 

tumorman

Supreme Member
Sep 12, 2013
1,120
432
660
Richmond, VA
In and out of the polls within like 2 minutes this morning. Went at about 6:45 so the lines were nonexistent. Love living like three blocks from the place!

My district's ticket was only Dems, with the exception of one Libertarian running against a very well known and hated Democrat for State Senate. He'll still win by a landslide. Hoping we can somehow flip Virginia blue, but with the massive amounts of R's in the western part of the state, it probably won't happen. Crossing my fingers for results tonight!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hrudey

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
28,710
10,803
4,279
In and out of the polls within like 2 minutes this morning. Went at about 6:45 so the lines were nonexistent. Love living like three blocks from the place!

My district's ticket was only Dems, with the exception of one Libertarian running against a very well known and hated Democrat for State Senate. He'll still win by a landslide. Hoping we can somehow flip Virginia blue, but with the massive amounts of R's in the western part of the state, it probably won't happen. Crossing my fingers for results tonight!
There was ZERO when I went.
 

tumorman

Supreme Member
Sep 12, 2013
1,120
432
660
Richmond, VA
There was ZERO when I went.
Hoping that's not a national trend. The midterms last year had a great turnout, just don't think people realize how important all elections are, especially state and local. Honestly want Virginia to turn blue in the state if only for them to possibly push legalizing weed, so we can get that crazy tax money that Colorado and other states are getting.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Plainview

hrudey

XBox One X: The X Stands for Excellence
Sep 11, 2013
5,441
1,809
2,630
Hoping that's not a national trend. The midterms last year had a great turnout, just don't think people realize how important all elections are, especially state and local. Honestly want Virginia to turn blue in the state if only for them to possibly push legalizing weed, so we can get that crazy tax money that Colorado and other states are getting.
I haven't heard of any lines locally, but traffic was ass this morning. Of course, there's no elections today in my county or state, so I can't blame it on that.
 

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
28,710
10,803
4,279
Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano slammed the idea that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a "conflict of interest" in leading the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump because she wants to become president.

Napolitano said during an appearance on Fox & Friends on Tuesday morning that the possibility of Pelosi somehow ending up in the White House due to impeachment proceedings is "so remote" it's not even worth talking about.

The show's hosts were discussing an op-ed published by The New York Times over the weekend that asserted Pelosi has a path to the presidency if both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are removed from office over the Ukraine scandal.

"This is one of many compelling reasons the speaker of the House, like any member of Congress, should be nowhere near the line of succession to the presidency," the op-ed reads.

But Napolitano pushed back and said that the idea of Pelosi becoming commander-in-chief is such a stretch that it's not even worth talking about. Under federal law, however, Pelosi is technically second-in-line to the presidency behind the vice president.

"In the editorial's opinion it's a conflict of interest, but there's not a real conflict of interest," Napolitano said. "Because the chances of Ms. Pelosi becoming president, even in Donald Trump were impeached ... are so remote it's not worth discussing."

He added: "The only thing they didn't put in this [op-ed] is Nancy Pelosi would get to pick her vice president and she would pick Hillary Clinton. And then she'd resign and Hillary Clinton would become president. I mean it's crazy, it's science fiction."