A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton

[piewarmer]

What shitty choices, welcome to the US version of Australian political world, the least UN-popular candidate wins.

I think Clinton had a hand helping Trump to be her opponent, anyone else would slaughter her come November.

Edited September 1, 2016 by piewarmer

[mesterm]

[Silurian]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Good luck with that.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/644307/colin-powell-says-clinton-using-private-email-server-before-suggested

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/colin-powell-clinton-email-book-227200

 

And the biggest denial:  http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/colin-powell-rejects-clinton-email-defense/

 

Do try to keep up there K. Boom.  There's a good lad! 

 

It is documented that Colin Powell used private (or personal) email by several sources.

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/05/27/reporting-hillary-clinton-media-get-facts-wrong-colin-powells-private-email-use/210613

 

Office Of Inspector General Report: Powell “Did Not Employ A Department Email Account.”

OIG Report: Clinton And Powell Both “Used Non-Department Systems On An Exclusive Basis.”

 

"...previous secretaries of state have used personal email addresses while in office — Colin Powell most notably and extensively."

 

Whether Powell told Hillary it was okay or not seems to be a matter of "he said, she said". Maybe they both remember the exact conversation differently. I don't think I could remember a conversation that far back in time exactly as it happened.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Silurian

[Jingthing]

Yes, Hillary Clinton will win, but I wouldn't bet on only one term.

As so many people do dislike her, her expectation bar is very low.

Very likely she can beat that bar quite well.

Then it depends which right wing Bozo the republicans put up next time.

Under no illusions though.

IF the republicans had nominated someone not insane this time (such as Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Rubio) they would have won THIS time.

[colinneil]

Why do some American people support Hillary????

If she is elected President not only the US but the whole western world will be f.....

[williamgeorgeallen]

i disliked her before it was popular to dislike her. where is the guy with hillaries photo on his profile pic to defender her?

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, colinneil said:

Why do some American people support Hillary????

If she is elected President not only the US but the whole western world will be f.....

Her ideological and policy positions reflect my own quite closely.

Obviously, not 100 percent.

Her temperament appears stable.

She has an earnest Midwestern "let's be fair and make things better in a rational/measured way" quality that is endearing when you have an open mind to it. 

She is one of the most qualified presidential candidates in U.S. history based on her EXPERIENCE in different aspects of government.

She's not my ideal candidate, but compared to trump, no contest. 

[colinneil]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Her ideological and policy positions reflect my own quite closely.

Obviously, not 100 percent.

Her temperament appears stable.

She has an earnest Midwestern "let's be fair and make things better in a rational/measured way" quality that is endearing when you have an open mind to it. 

She is one of the most qualified presidential candidates in U.S. history based on her EXPERIENCE in different aspects of government.

She's not my ideal candidate, but compared to trump, no contest. 

 

  Jingthing please put more soda in your drink next time, the alcohol is affecting your reasoning

[JHolmesJr]

Possibly the most dislikable and distasteful politician ever…that takes some doing.

[Emster23]

Basically two choices: candidate who tells truth 9% of the time, other one who tells truth 41% of the time. One who knows nothing about policy, international situation or how government works & does not take advice vs someone that has those qualities. Your complaints:

1.  Benghazi (How many investigations been? And none came up with any major fault by her.)

2.  Clinton Foundation (yet to see any example of policy being changed. Wolverhampton player didn't get visa, Crown Prince told to use normal diplomatic channels. You folks seem to think if donation went to foundation, then she couldn't see people she normally would anyway in course of job. No squawks about Colin Powells foundation, which got close with Enron... how well they worked out)

3.  Bathroom computer server containing classified material. (whether she hear from Powell or not does not change fact that both Powell and Rice used their own servers....)

4.  Whitewater (Really? Starr got nothing on that, went fishing for something on Bill.... impeach because didn't want to admit to BJ's? Meanwhile normal business of government bit of jumble due to this witch hunt, Republicans hollering over Clinton trying to take out Bin Laden as trying to divert attention...)

5.  Do we need to go on?  (yes, please tell us why Donald won't give up tax returns. Nothing legal stopping him, other than signature swearing return to be true and under penalty of law if false, which means might be something not all invention, distortion, omission etc)

[bassman]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I didn't assert that, tho I think the HRC email thing has been blown waaaaaay out of proportion.  For starters, who's been harmed.  Secondly, Colin Powell did the same while Sec.of State, yet not a peep from Reps about him.  Indeed, he even told HRC that it was ok.

 

The silly doctor letter written by Trump about himself is yet added proof (as if more was needed) what bumbling dunce Trump is. It's even more dunderheaded than Trump's denial of posing as his own PR agent.  He initially admitted it, then still later denied it.   I think Trump suffers from Thaksin's disease:  unable to tell the truth.  It's gotten so bad that, like Thaksin, whenever Trump is adamant about something, you can be pretty sure the opposite is true.  

 

Boomer, give it up trying to defend the crooked Demo candidate, looks like your alone today in trying to defend her 35 years of criminal activity.  Just to name some of the silly scandals of the Clinton's would show their sickness to push the envelope between unethical and illegal such as: cleaning out $200,000 of government property when they left the White House; renting the Lincoln bedroom out for donations; and now we know from the latest leaks, that they were selling seats to State Dept. luncheons and dinners, with biggest donors getting the best seating.

 

Go on  and show us all your wisdom.

[bridge2bridge]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The Republican Attack Machine is getting some of their desired results.  If they repeat lies and attacks often and forcefully enough, some of it will stick.

When it comes to Clinton.

They are NOT lies.

If she is elected God help America and the WORLD.

 

[lucky11]

7 hours ago, khwaibah said:

 

Not so. paddy power.. HC 2-7 DT 5-2

 

 Errrr.......if Hillary is 2-7 (on) doesn't that make her a shoe in? You are not a gambler, are you!!

[lucky11]

6 minutes ago, bassman said:

 

Boomer, give it up trying to defend the crooked Demo candidate, looks like your alone today in trying to defend her 35 years of criminal activity.  Just to name some of the silly scandals of the Clinton's would show their sickness to push the envelope between unethical and illegal such as: cleaning out $200,000 of government property when they left the White House; renting the Lincoln bedroom out for donations; and now we know from the latest leaks, that they were selling seats to State Dept. luncheons and dinners, with biggest donors getting the best seating.

 

Go on  and show us all your wisdom.

 

 She has sold her soul to Monsanto and wants to serve them. Democracy, US style!!

 

 Poison the entire population of America for a bit of dosh - but you should vote for me.

[LuckyNo4]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Her ideological and policy positions reflect my own quite closely.

Obviously, not 100 percent.

Her temperament appears stable.

She has an earnest Midwestern "let's be fair and make things better in a rational/measured way" quality that is endearing when you have an open mind to it. 

She is one of the most qualified presidential candidates in U.S. history based on her EXPERIENCE in different aspects of government.

She's not my ideal candidate, but compared to trump, no contest. 

Proof that the human race is truly diverse.  I couldnt think of a single reason why anyone in their right mind would vote for this woman.

 

[bassman]

4 minutes ago, lucky11 said:

 

 She has sold her soul to Monsanto and wants to serve them. Democracy, US style!!

 

 Poison the entire population of America for a bit of dosh - but you should vote for me.

 

Your right, Monsanto a big donator to the foundation, recipient of US funds through the State Dept, and involved with the Clinton Foundation in better farming through gene technology.

 

But mostly their collusion has been international while she was Sec of State

 

[SOTIRIOS]

...the only support she has is from those that control every industry....

 

...0.0025% of the population....

 

...yes the ones that own and control all the media...

 

...and drug companies....etc...

 

....the rest are hired....or duped.....

 

...wake up America....you are being further robbed....

 

 

[rijb]

A crooked, mean and nasty President might be the best way to deal with a crooked, mean and nasty Congress.

[Radar501]

[bassman]

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Her ideological and policy positions reflect my own quite closely.

Obviously, not 100 percent.

Her temperament appears stable.

She has an earnest Midwestern "let's be fair and make things better in a rational/measured way" quality that is endearing when you have an open mind to it. 

She is one of the most qualified presidential candidates in U.S. history based on her EXPERIENCE in different aspects of government.

She's not my ideal candidate, but compared to trump, no contest. 

 

JT,

What are her policies?  Against gay marriage before...not now;  for NAFTA and TPP before...not now;   super predators and bring them to heel before...cops and white America need to listen now.

 

And, if her experiences full of failures are a selling point...PLEASE!  Sec of State when ISIS became a power; responsible for the total anarchy of Libya; negotiated TPP and called it the gold standard; gave the reset button to Russia, while starting a revolution in Ukraine, resulting in their loss forever of the Crimea; started the secret negotiations with Iran that has led to their current humiliation of Obama and sadly to America itself.

 

[Mook23]

Trump.  Clinton.  Same same but different... 

[khwaibah]

29 minutes ago, lucky11 said:

 

 Errrr.......if Hillary is 2-7 (on) doesn't that make her a shoe in? You are not a gambler, are you!!

 

No it doesn't. She is the odds on at the moment but far from a  shoe in. She is down to 4 to 5 % lead where two weeks back she was a solid 12 to 15 %.  You sure don't gamble. 

 

 

[PTC]

38 minutes ago, bassman said:

 

Boomer, give it up trying to defend the crooked Demo candidate, looks like your alone today in trying to defend her 35 years of criminal activity.  Just to name some of the silly scandals of the Clinton's would show their sickness to push the envelope between unethical and illegal such as: cleaning out $200,000 of government property when they left the White House; renting the Lincoln bedroom out for donations; and now we know from the latest leaks, that they were selling seats to State Dept. luncheons and dinners, with biggest donors getting the best seating.

 

Go on  and show us all your wisdom.

 Politifact rates the White House theft accusation as 'Mostly False' http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/

 

If your perverted view of history accepts this slander as true, then what to think of anything that you accuse the Clintons of doing. Pay for Play. A Trumpist slogan. What credibility do you claim on any such issue? Breitbart? The Internet?

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, khwaibah said:

 

No it doesn't. She is the odds on at the moment but far from a  shoe in. She is down to 4 to 5 % lead where two weeks back she was a solid 12 to 15 %.  You sure don't gamble. 

 

 

That's a big lie. Why do you do it?

I've been following Real Clear Politics AVERAGES for many weeks now. She's in a range of 4 to 6 points ahead. Never anywhere near even 10 on RCP. So stop lying.

 

Today she is at 4.6 ahead. 

 

Of course, what really matters are the STATE races. The electoral projections are very strong  for Hillary.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[Boon Mee]

3 minutes ago, PTC said:

 Politifact rates the White House theft accusation as 'Mostly False' http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/

 

If your perverted view of history accepts this slander as true, then what to think of anything that you accuse the Clintons of doing. Pay for Play. A Trumpist slogan. What credibility do you claim on any such issue? Breitbart? The Internet?

Sorry but  Hillary practically promised a pay-to-play State Department. 

http://nypost.com/2016/08/28/hillary-practically-promised-a-pay-to-play-state-department/

Edited September 1, 2016 by Boon Mee

[lucky11]

7 minutes ago, khwaibah said:

 

No it doesn't. She is the odds on at the moment but far from a  shoe in. She is down to 4 to 5 % lead where two weeks back she was a solid 12 to 15 %.  You sure don't gamble. 

 

 

 

 No, I don't gamble - but if a horse is 2 -7 on then it is a (horse) shoe in!!

 

 You can't quote these odds and then come back with (fictitious ratings apparently) and introduce them into the conversation later!!

Edited September 1, 2016 by lucky11

[bassman]

15 minutes ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...the only support she has is from those that control every industry....

 

...0.0025% of the population....

 

...yes the ones that own and control all the media...

 

...and drug companies....etc...

 

....the rest are hired....or duped.....

 

...wake up America....you are being further robbed....

 

 

 

Spot on!  Clinton has been real busy the last couple of weeks, up to the Hamptons, out to Nantucket, over to Hollywood, really shoring up her base...and the money to buy this election in an unprecedented manner, total money spent on her campaign will top $2 billion.  

 

Scary indeed, when you weigh all the favors Hillary owes the world (let alone US corps), either through their donations, or from blackmail because they hold  the linchpin email hacked from her illegal server.

[bassman]

5 minutes ago, PTC said:

 Politifact rates the White House theft accusation as 'Mostly False' http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/

 

If your perverted view of history accepts this slander as true, then what to think of anything that you accuse the Clintons of doing. Pay for Play. A Trumpist slogan. What credibility do you claim on any such issue? Breitbart? The Internet?

 

I love it when you rats eat the cheese...mostly false stealing furnishings from the White House and no comment on the other scandals.  Lets see mostly false stealing from the American people, what was it $110,000,  $80,000 or the $63,000 they paid to the US Treasury and returned other items?  Please get real, the next American President should be beyond the Clinton's neurological problems with public theft.

[PTC]

17 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Sorry but  Hillary practically promised a pay-to-play State Department. 

http://nypost.com/2016/08/28/hillary-practically-promised-a-pay-to-play-state-department/

 

Credible sources only please. Hit pieces need not be posted. Waste of bandwidth.

 

You seem to blame the Clinton's entirely for the culture of influence that pervades the US political system. This system has even been endorsed by the Supreme Court. Don't blame HRC for being more successful at manipulating this system that others.

[PTC]

11 minutes ago, bassman said:

 

I love it when you rats eat the cheese...mostly false stealing furnishings from the White House and no comment on the other scandals.  Lets see mostly false stealing from the American people, what was it $110,000,  $80,000 or the $63,000 they paid to the US Treasury and returned other items?  Please get real, the next American President should be beyond the Clinton's neurological problems with public theft.

 

Your unsolicited insult notwithstanding, my point was quite clear  - to the unbiased of course. If your BS about the White House theft accusation is false according to independent fact checkers, then what can be said about the rest of your nonsense. Your pseudo-psychiatric crap betrays you as an unthinking partisan. No point discussing this with such people. Just highlight their crap and hypocrisy for others to see.