Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Tijuana]

Literally not one single example of any kind of "collusion" that would be of any concern to anyone who wasn't absolutely desperate to slander Clinton with anything they can make stick.

That's just regular business contacts, people having personal opinions, and interactions between the campaign and journalists looking for access. None of that is "collusion".

Correct. They don't need to collude and coordinate their efforts to mis-characterize the Republican candidate; they have been on the same page for that for decades.

[Slybak]

The truth is that we don't know how far it was arranged in advance and we don't know when the donation was accepted.

We also don't know if Clinton is a disguised lizard alien from a planet orbiting Formalhaut, come to Earth to teach humans the benefits of wearing pantsuits, but its not an idea anyone seriously entertains because there is no evidence for it besides her fondness for pantsuits (which has more reasonable explanations than "lizard alien"). There are more reasonable explanations, given the time frame and wording of the e-mail, than the one you are offering.

Do you have any evidence that the concern about her attendance was actually from scheduling conflicts? If not, then that's speculation that should be avoided, because it would invite further speculation, just like there's no evidence to assume what Huma meant by "our office."

"Your reasonable speculation, given common behavior of presidential candidates, is interfering with my baseless speculation about Clinton's venality. So stop speculating."

[AndaliteBandit]

We also don't know if Clinton is a disguised lizard alien from a planet orbiting Formalhaut, come to Earth to teach humans the benefits of wearing pantsuits

Or do we?

[Fahrenheit]

May as well rename the thread to "President Clinton Megathread".

[Cthulhu 2020]

Haha now you people notice how nonsense the "no politics" rule is for churches.

Well of course, churches being in politics is bad NOW THAT HILLARY IS DOING IT.

It's just really funny coming from the same people who but a decade ago were declaring Democrats were declaring war on religion for wanting it out of classrooms.

[Lenonis]

I have no idea why Republicans think going after churches for political activity is going to end up even remotely in their favor.

[cubby]

So I haven't actually read this thread in quite some time.

Out of all the emails coming out, has anyone here who is Democrat actually said "Thats fucked up" to any of them? Even one? Or are every last one of them explainable without reasonable doubt?

Which ones would you be referring to?

[GennGreymane]

May as well rename the thread to "President Clinton Megathread".

No need to trigger anyone yet

[cubby]

I have no idea why Republicans think going after churches for political activity is going to end up even remotely in their favor.

Um, yeah. Gerry Falwell ran under the GOP ticket.

[Belize]

No need to trigger anyone yet

IDK about you, but I'm always triggered in this election cycle.

Like, I wake up, turn on any of the news channel and BOOM. Triggered for the rest of the day.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No need to trigger anyone yet

Trump (and by extension, all of his loyal little Trumples) is already in melt down mode. Every day you get to watch him flail his arms and hit anyone who remotely comes into range of his ranting.

He knows he's going to lose, and rather than do it with some grace, it appears he's going to dig his own grave and pull the GOP down with him in a blaze of... well, a blaze.

Are we sure Trump isn't a Democrat plant? He's lost this election so thoroughly, so completely, and is now dragging anyone close to him through the mud, leaving behind any shred of dignity they may have retained were Trump not going through melt down mode.

[Belize]

Are we sure Trump isn't a Democrat plant?

IDK, let's check Hillary's emails :P

[TITAN308]

Which ones would you be referring to?

Any of them.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Any of them.

"The Clinton campaign placed an ad on TV to get her elected."

HOW SCANDALOUS, SMH @ CLINTON

Clearly we need someone of upstanding and flawless moral character like Donald "The Virtuous" Trump.

[TITAN308]

"The Clinton campaign placed an ad on TV to get her elected."

HOW SCANDALOUS, SMH @ CLINTON

Clearly we need someone of upstanding and flawless moral character like Donald "The Virtuous" Trump.

lol wat /confused

Are you stating that any number of the emails that raise objectionable content, but because the other guy does the same (or is worse) it is acceptable? I mean I don't like either of them. I'm just trying to gauge and ask if any of the supposed revelations in these leaks have merit or not. I'm not asking if a majority, or a minority, half, or a quarter. I am asking if ANY. Even one?

We already know Trump is a basket case. I'm just trying to figure out if there any Democrat voters in this thread are grounded in reality at all.

[ringpriest]

No need to trigger anyone yet

Oh, come on - it'll make a nice metric to gauge how much popcorn we're going to need (I'm not 100% certain she has it in the bag, but I'm at least 95% certain that she does).

- - - Updated - - -

Trump (and by extension, all of his loyal little Trumples) is already in melt down mode. Every day you get to watch him flail his arms and hit anyone who remotely comes into range of his ranting.

He knows he's going to lose, and rather than do it with some grace, it appears he's going to dig his own grave and pull the GOP down with him in a blaze of... well, a blaze.

Are we sure Trump isn't a Democrat plant? He's lost this election so thoroughly, so completely, and is now dragging anyone close to him through the mud, leaving behind any shred of dignity they may have retained were Trump not going through melt down mode.

And incidentally, he's also tainting a great many things disliked by that the globalist-corporate branch of the Dems (and Republicans) which Hillary represents.

Among the ideas that are now likely going to be toxic for a good generation or more:

-real immigration reform that addresses America's exploited underclass of "illegal" workers.
-non-politicians running for President.
-reform or rejection of the quasi-legal donor/lobbyist/politican corruption that dominates Washington
-American isolationism and rapprochement with Russia (or challenging the current modus vivendi re: China)
-anti-establishment populism.
-fundamental systemic reform.
-calling the leadership class out on their demonstrated history of poor judgement.
-opposition to extremes of "political correctness"
-questioning whether or not the present system of global trade benefits the citizens of the United States.


Please, note that I'm not judging any of these here and now, just observing that they're all things that Clinton and the political factions backing her would like to see thoroughly discredited... and which are now quite thoroughly discredited via association with Trump.

[cubby]

Any of them.

So you're saying all of them require defending or response? This is why people don't take you seriously.

[TITAN308]

So you're saying all of them require defending or response? This is why people don't take you seriously.

I don't believe I said any such thing.

Why are you so defensive about my question?

[Edge-]

I don't believe I said any such thing.

Why are you so defensive about my question?

I'll answer it (if I've been following the conversation correctly). From the ones I've seen, not really. Some have raised eyebrows, but nothing is out of either the ordinary for folks communicating as part of their job professionally (things like media fact checking with Podesta before posting), outside of normal internal email communication (expressing critical opinions of the people they work for), or outside of what one would reasonably expect a well connected career politician's staff to be doing.

I don't think I've seen a single one that caused me more than momentary pause, though I've only seen a handful of them so far since I'm not interested in digging through someone else's emails.

If you have any that you think are particularly damning though, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[Endus]

And incidentally, he's also tainting a great many things disliked by that the globalist-corporate branch of the Dems (and Republicans) which Hillary represents.

Among the ideas that are now likely going to be toxic for a good generation or more:

-real immigration reform that addresses America's exploited underclass of "illegal" workers.
-non-politicians running for President.
-reform or rejection of the quasi-legal donor/lobbyist/politican corruption that dominates Washington
-American isolationism and rapprochement with Russia (or challenging the current modus vivendi re: China)
-anti-establishment populism.
-fundamental systemic reform.
-calling the leadership class out on their demonstrated history of poor judgement.
-opposition to extremes of "political correctness"
-questioning whether or not the present system of global trade benefits the citizens of the United States.


Please, note that I'm not judging any of these here and now, just observing that they're all things that Clinton and the political factions backing her would like to see thoroughly discredited... and which are now quite thoroughly discredited via association with Trump.

Eh, the three I colored above I think aren't gonna be dead. For the one in green, Saint Reagan will always be the shining example for Republicans that they'll hang on to. For the blue, Bernie stood for a similar bit of rhetoric (albeit with wildly different goals and methods), and got a fair bit of traction, enough to push the Democratic platform further in that direction to assuage those voters. And the red, it's just gonna require that if you do call them out, you A> call them out on things they've actually done, not the worse things you wish they'd been caught doing, and B> have the person calling them out be someone who's never done anything comparable, let alone anything worse.

Neither of the latter, of course, applies to the Trump campaign.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe I said any such thing.

Why are you so defensive about my question?

Because A> it's a silly question, and B> it's been answered multiple times. If there's a particular e-mail you think is actually an issue, bring it up. Nobody's brought any single e-mail up that's been shown to be actually bad in any serious sense.

Here's a breakdown I went through showing how every single e-mail a journalist took issue with in one off the dumps (the 6th?) was basically nothing, just standard normal behaviour. I'm not gonna do that every time. It's just an attempt to basically Gish Gallop the discussion; flood the opposition with so many bullshit claims that they just can't keep up while debunking each in turn, because it takes more time to read your claim, the original email, and write a rational explanation as to why you're wrong, than it does for the original complainer to not actually read the e-mail and just leap to conclusions that don't actually follow from that context.