My response to that is it (the reduction in funding) clearly has an effect worldwide but it didn't have an impact on the security in Benghazi. Charlene Lamb testified to that. I could dig it up, but she said something to the effect that if there was need, they (the State Department) would move assets to cover the need.
- - - Updated - - -
I never said that I didn't blame her. I just said that I don't blame her for alot of the things that the GOP led circus has blamed her for. I'm very much not part of the "Hillary lied, people died," crowd.
Here's a post that I made on the same subject
I'll answer any questions that you ask me. I think you'll find that my views on the matter are not that extreme as you maybe think them to be.
Welp, looks like polls are swinging more torwards trump, this could be really bad.
I'm starting to think even if the debate goes super well for clinton, that trump just needs to show up and hell get good media coverage.
I'm starting to genuinely panic. Trump could literally be our next president.
Right now she can win without OH/FL, but we need state polls in CO/NH/VA/PA/MI to know, if she loses any of those it's over unless she wins NV instead of NH.
Right now she can still win 272/266, but really I don't get how we will lose Florida..
I'm curious about this as well. I'd look up specifically what sort of laws regulate the handling of classified information in the state department but I have no idea where to start. What I'm somewhat suspecting is that laws were introduced which were relevant to the State Department while Hillary headed it, and they were not in law while Colin was heading it.
If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.
The problem is, it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with Trump. He never talks on the point: you can say whatever you want to him, but he will just shrug it off and respond with something completely random, having nothing to do with the topic. And people love his populist rhetoric, so, indeed, he just needs to show up on the debate, then his brain can go AFK for the entirety of the debate, and he still will do well.
Good point. Anyone who thinks only American lives matter is worth going on the ignore list.
Oh, and I have to take back what I said about Trump being dignified. That lasted all of..(checks watch)...six hours. He's already taking digs again, despite the fact that she released medical records more detailed than he did.
Also, Obama's doctor was on CNN saying both candidates should get neurological tests done, Clinton because of the concussion and Trump -- I swear this is true -- because of his erratic behavior.
If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.
she's up by 5 points. i think that after the debates we'll have a much more decent image of what would happen. and also, watch a state-by state polls, not the national ones.
and yeah, the thing is that everyone has set the bar for trump so low, that anything could'be considered a success
Last edited by Thepersona; 2016-09-15 at 12:24 AM.
Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker
To go back to the Foundation for a minute:
There's a video on the page of the segment as well. So basically this lady is forced to admit there were 'courtesy appointments' but is bending over backwards to say that just because there was that they had no impact on policy at all, so if we take her at face value we can come to the conclusion that these are fluff appointments which is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money on top of being an overall poor management of a varying level of important positions, or we don't accept her line and we end up back at the original pay for play min/max investment issue that has dogged this Foundation and its' namesakes since forever.http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/cl...ntments-video/
Clinton Foundation President: ‘No Question’ Donors Received ‘Courtesy Appointments’
The president of the Clinton Foundation admitted on Wednesday that there is “no question” that donors to the non-profit are helped out by the powerful former first family through “courtesy appointments.”
“There’s no question there were phone calls made to get appointments for people,” Donna Shalala told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell in an interview.
Shalala was named president of the Clinton Foundation last year. As soon as she took over she was faced with withering criticism that the Clinton family entity was nothing more than a vehicle for the Clintons’ pocketbooks and political ambitions. Donald Trump and other Clinton critics have said that the charity is a “pay to play” scheme.
But Shalala, who was Bill Clinton’s first secretary of Health and Human Services, disputed that claim, saying that access was provided to well-known philanthropists like Bill Gates’ wife, Melinda.
“There were also business people, there’s no question about that,” Shalala acknowledged. “But I don’t see any evidence that there was policy decisions made as a result of that other than courtesy appointments.”
“People in public life are used to doing that kind of, that is making courtesy appointments for people. I certainly did it as secretary,” added Shalala, who was president of the University of Miami before taking over the Clinton Foundation.
“I don’t find it unusual. I do think we have to be careful, we have to be careful that it’s not linked to policy decisions as opposed to simply seeing prominent people that ask for appointments.”
Nice to have confirmation for those that have doubted that donors were slotted into the Machine at key spots depending on how much cash they flung at the Foundation.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
This is why it's pointless to keep beating this dead horse of a conspiracy theory. A group of people who hate the Clintons more than anyone else on the planet used the full power of congress to try and ruin her. And they found nothing. It's time to give it up.republican witch hunt
Conservative conspiracy theorists need to quit with this crazy bullshit and stick to the stuff she's actually done that's wrong and in plain sight.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
You'd have to look at the recorded documentation of each specific appointee to determine that.
You clearly missed the point, or perhaps don't care that the entire pay for play thing against Hillary and her Foundation was outright confirmed then of course hand waved away as not being a big deal because one of the key people responsible for it for a time doesn't believe there's anything wrong with doing it and doesn't think that people in important positions were able to have any influence on State Dept. policy. So again either she's naïve, lying or is a participant in hiring empty suits to fill fluff positions that cost the taxpayers way too much. Any of those is bad enough in principle, but since there's been so much denouncing of the pay for play by Hillary and her cadre of defenders wherever they may be it's hysterical to have this drop on NBC of all places and come from the mouth of the Foundation President.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
What lies? I post for awhile and then when I notice zero responses and go to bed that's that. You're gonna have to be specific instead of chortling about nothing...
...also people tend to ignore posts of mine instead of address them, makes for difficulty to be "caught in a lie" /snicker
- - - Updated - - -
This is the whataboutism that I'm talking about: it doesn't matter what Powell did or didn't do when it comes to discussing Hillary. It is possible to have erred in not investigating Powell. It is also possible it didn't matter for a host of reasons. None of that is relevant since the indictment against Hillary holds water all on its own.
Apparent hypocrisy doesn't actually make you wrong, that's just an informal reworking of the ad hominem fallacy. Even if 10 other Secretaries of State did what Powell and Hillary did and only Hillary was getting the inspection... it still holds water.
Probably when you posted that you thought marriage, not holy matrimony, was a religious institution instead of a contract between 2 people and the government. Or when you thought religious institutions were being forced to perform these marriages, or when you thought that civil unions are the same as marriages and we would need to amend thousands of tax laws just to make a "separate but equal" law that is already unconstitutional? And when you were pointed out on it you were quite clearly defending the bullshit that I just pointed out. That you were wrong.
- - - Updated - - -
It isn't about the "whataboutism" bullshit that you keep saying. It is about the fact that they ONLY targeted Hillary because, and they even admitted this, that it would hurt her poll numbers. They didn't investigate Colin Powell even though he deleted ALL of his emails or Karl Rove that deleted 22 MILLION emails during an ongoing investigation.
They investigated Hillary, and cleared her. They won't investigate those 2 because they bat for the home team.
You mean people like Endus can't understand what a constitutional charge is, that people DID in fact understand my perspective and agreed, and that we all got off topic so the discussion was dropped entirely? I mean putting words in my mouth is nice and all but none of what you said actually happened unless you have literacy issues like those trying to be hyper technical with the counter factual hypothetical instead of working through it logically. Endus missed the point by a mile, as do many of those still trying to chime in on it later... so congratulations on being unable to read at all? /clap
You probably should understand what "whataboutism" actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhataboutismIt isn't about the "whataboutism" bullshit that you keep saying. It is about the fact that they ONLY targeted Hillary because, and they even admitted this, that it would hurt her poll numbers. They didn't investigate Colin Powell even though he deleted ALL of his emails or Karl Rove that deleted 22 MILLION emails during an ongoing investigation.
They investigated Hillary, and cleared her. They won't investigate those 2 because they bat for the home team.
If you're going to attack an action/decision/thought process, referring to OTHER events doesn't actually do jack squat for you. An extreme version is having advocacy for cystic fibrosis be shut down because "what about breast cancer!!" It has no logical value. Attacking Hillary over mishandling of classified materials, even if it serves to reduce her poll numbers, is still legitimate as she mishandled classified materials. I get that you and others have never had to deal with confidential information because had you ever done so, you'd be far less flippant about its misuse. Unless you can bring EVIDENCE to the table that suggests having a private email server that is unsecured filled with classified information isn't a problem (and by evidence I mean find some statutes or common law to support your claim), then despite it being useful to the Republican cause, it is irrelevant that it is and the accusation stands.