Thread: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Hillary Clinton

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

You would like Milo.

Yep a great guy who supports older men sleeping with children.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

You would like Milo.

Yep a great guy who supports older men sleeping with children.

Just more fake news

The cognitive bias is quite pronounced in this one.

Not sure where to put this but here as good as any.

Watching the DNC leadership debate. All but Pete Buttigrieg talking the same old shit that resulted in losing Congress and the Presidency. Buttigrieg realizes Dems must appeal and deliver to the same electorate mix Trump and Republicans did. He's a white male so odds are not favorable he will be elected as DNC. Good luck.

Originally Posted by Humbert

^you belong in a mental institution.

Nah, he's not a threat, just retarded.

Originally Posted by Norton

Not sure where to put this but here as good as any.

Watching the DNC leadership debate. All but Pete Buttigrieg talking the same old shit that resulted in losing Congress and the Presidency. Buttigrieg realizes Dems must appeal and deliver to the same electorate mix Trump and Republicans did. He's a white male so odds are not favorable he will be elected as DNC. Good luck.

Norton, there is a DNC thread here in DC. Thanks for your thoughts and I hope you add to that thread. The DNC vote is happening now.

will the dnc chair be perez or ellison?

DNC Race: Democrats Elect New Leader Saturday - NBC News


ATLANTA — After a polarizing campaign that has frozen efforts to rebuild the party from November's devastating loss, Democrats will elect a new leader Saturday.

Frontrunners Keith Ellison and Tom Perez — a congressman and former Obama cabinet member, respectively — have been locked in a neck-and-neck race for months, representing rival constituencies inside the factionalized party.

The winner of Saturday's vote will become chairman immediately, taking over from Interim Chair Donna Brazile, who stepped into the role after the abrupt resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz last summer.

wow! dershowitz says he'll leave the party if ellison wins:

I will leave the Democrats if Keith Ellison is elected its chairman | TheHill

HRC and the poisonous tentacles of the Clinton Foudation are....were....everywhere.


WikiLeaks Emails Show Colbert Report Gave Clinton Foundation Control Over Production
Jack Burns December 9, 2016 21 Comments

“Money makes the world go around,” the old adage states, but when the worlds of politics and crony capitalism come together, a lot can get done, and as we know, a lot of money changes hands. Thanks to Wikileaks’ release of John Podesta’s emails (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), any average Joe can now peer into the way the world works, focusing on the Clintons’ politics and their strategic media partners, one of which appears to be Stephen Colbert and Comedy Central’s cable network.

Colbert was unabashedly supportive of Clinton for president. He must surely be eating humble pie after confidently declaring in 2015, concerning Donald Trump’s chances at winning the presidency, “You’re not gonna be president, it’s been fun, it’s been great, I love you, but come on, come on, buddy! All let’s say cow poo poo aside, there is zero chance we’ll be seeing you being sworn in on the capitol steps with your hand on a giant golden Bible.”

Frankly, Comedy Central and Stephen Colbert (who currently hosts The Late Show with Stephen Colbert) can make arrangements with charities and advertisers, alike, if they so choose, but the American people are now much more keenly aware of the networks’ business dealings, thanks in part to Wikileaks’ leak of Podesta’s emails.

Craig Minassian, Chief Communications Officer for the Clinton Foundation’s “Clinton Global Initiative”, wrote Podesta a post-production email about a few episodes The Colbert Report did promoting CGI University. Much like “Trump University,” the “CGI University” is no university at all, but rather, “hosts a meeting where students, university representatives, topic experts, and celebrities come together to discuss and develop innovative solutions to pressing global challenges,” according to its website.

But it’s Minassian’s choice of words, in his email to Podesta, which is now raising eyebrows. “John, I hope you got a chance to see The Colbert Report‘s two special episodes I had them do about CGI U that we taped in St. Louis this weekend,” the email reads, implying Minassian has some power and influence over the direction, content, and substance in the production of The Colbert Report. “I had them do,” is what is written. Wait! What?

Minassian’s influence at Comedy Central could have something to do with the fact that he used to work as a consultant and producer at the channel. The email continues, “This is the link to last nights with a sketch about commitments and the monologue and WJC interview aired Monday. Hope you enjoy and looking forward to your feedback.”

Read more at WikiLeaks Emails Show Colbert Report Gave Clinton Foundation Control Over Production

^^ Nope. I posted the Snopes report on another thread. You were constantly posting unverified shit about Hillary which came from FAKE NEWS sources.

Not to worry, the CIA will be watching you through your TV and cellphone. BEWARE!

Originally Posted by misskit

^^ Nope. I posted the Snopes report on another thread. You were constantly posting unverified shit about Hillary which came from FAKE NEWS sources.

Not to worry, the CIA will be watching you through your TV and cellphone. BEWARE!

i'm calling you out as a liar. Snopes did not examine the rumours about her colostomy bag.

They did a piece examining one photo where a wet spot was supposed to be shown on her dress, but that was it.

Search results from Snopes putting the search term 'colostomy bag' turn up nothing relevant.

Nor does anything under 'Hillary Clinton'

http://www.snopes.com/?s=hillary+clinton

You searched for colostomy bag | Snopes.com




About the rest:


Yes, not everything was right, but unlike you guys, I can admit when I am wrong.

And given that you and the other loons have been bombarded this thread with ludicrous conspiracy theories about trump and his associates collusion with 'teh russians' you are hardly qualified to denounce what anyone else posts.

^They dealt with all these bulge theories in one debunk. Didn't think it important enough to address your own personal piss fantasy about her.

^^ Posted it in the Clinton in which thread you challenged me on and never went back to.

Here

What’s in Hillary Clinton’s Pants?

Yet another Hillary Clinton health-related conspiracy theory focuses on a metallic object that seemingly fell out of her pants leg as she left a 9/11 memorial due to a medical event.

What's in Hillary Clinton's Pants?

You loonytunes.

Originally Posted by misskit

^^ Posted it in the Clinton in which thread you challenged me on and never went back to.

Here

What’s in Hillary Clinton’s Pants?

Yet another Hillary Clinton health-related conspiracy theory focuses on a metallic object that seemingly fell out of her pants leg as she left a 9/11 memorial due to a medical event.

What's in Hillary Clinton's Pants?

You loonytunes.

You are trying to bs your way through this, the metallic object is not a colostomy bag is it?

The rumours of her havng a colostomy bag did not come from this video did it?

So how is this debunking the photos that show she has a colostomy bag under her pants?

Its clear that you are a liar, and just trying to kid other posters by posting a spurious link.

You my lady are a liar liar pantsuits on fire. (quick use Illary's colostomy bag to douse it out)

Originally Posted by Humbert

^They dealt with all these bulge theories in one debunk. Didn't think it important enough to address your own personal piss fantasy about her.

please go ahead and post the link.

*crickets*

^ Get the fook out of here with that crap. Go post it in the Clinton thread.

Originally Posted by longway

You are trying to bs your way through this, the metallic object is not a colostomy bag is it?

The rumours of her havng a colostomy bag did not come from this video did it?

So how is this debunking the photos that show she has a colostomy bag under her pants?

Its clear that you are a liar, and just trying to kid other posters by posting a spurious link.

You my lady are a liar liar pantsuits on fire. (quick use Illary's colostomy bag to douse it out)

You sir are an idiot. This Snopes outs only ONE of the bullshit claims you made, that a ostomy bag clip fell from Clinton's trousers.

If you are talking about the photo where Clinton's trousers have an odd bulge on the leg and the nutters claimed it was an ostomy bag, then none of you idiots even know what a "colostomy bag" is.

Go to the Clinton thread with this. This is the Trump thread.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by longway

please go ahead and post the link.
*crickets*

I posted it when you made your nutty claims. You ignored it and went on to some other crackpot claim. Why should I waste my time?

You never posted anything to do with the colostomy bags.

Forget what I think, there are other posters reading this thread, why don't you prove me a liar to them.

Again another one of the loons just trying to bs their way through.

There is nothing on snopes dealing with the photos showing shitlery wearing a colostomy bag.

Originally Posted by misskit

Originally Posted by longway

You are trying to bs your way through this, the metallic object is not a colostomy bag is it?

The rumours of her havng a colostomy bag did not come from this video did it?

So how is this debunking the photos that show she has a colostomy bag under her pants?

Its clear that you are a liar, and just trying to kid other posters by posting a spurious link.

You my lady are a liar liar pantsuits on fire. (quick use Illary's colostomy bag to douse it out)

You sir are an idiot. This Snopes outs only ONE of the bullshit claims you made, that a ostomy bag clip fell from Clinton's trousers.

If you are talking about the photo where Clinton's trousers have an odd bulge on the leg and the nutters claimed it was an ostomy bag, then none of you idiots even know what a "colostomy bag" is.

Go to the Clinton thread with this. This is the Trump thread.

You are the one who brought clinton into this not me.

Nothing in the link deals with the source of the rumours of her wearing a piss bag, let alone debunks it.

You, my lady, are a liar.

Originally Posted by longway

You never posted anything to do with the colostomy bags.

I posted it in the Clinton thread. It dealt with the whole subject of mysterious bulges on her clothing attributed to various nutty theories. You ignored it.

Originally Posted by longway

Nothing in the link deals with the source of the rumours of her wearing a piss bag, let alone debunks it.

She doesn't have to debunk it. You have to offer proof. Something other than deranged bloviating from Infowars. Many nutty ideas were run up the flagpole on his show; defribulators, colostomy bags, urine catheters, hidden microphones etc. All bullshit. The burden of proof lies with you.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by longway

Nothing in the link deals with the source of the rumours of her wearing a piss bag, let alone debunks it.

She doesn't have to debunk it. You have to offer proof. Something other than deranged bloviating from Infowars. Many nutty ideas were run up the flagpole on his show; defribulators, colostomy bags, urine catheters, hidden microphones etc. All bullshit. The burden of proof lies with you.

He read it some shit fake news site, and he's too dumb to realise it's bullshit.

Squabbling over an old woman's colostomy bag.
do you know who the manufacturers are, they could offer her an Advertisement fee for endorsing their product.

Colostomy bag.

Hillary Clinton lost because Obama voters went to Donald Trump | McClatchy Washington Bureau

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost

"A select group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year’s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they’re right. Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton’s defeat: Her base didn’t turn out, Donald Trump’s did and the difference was too much to overcome.

But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.

Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

In recent months, Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings to senators, congressmen, fellow operatives and think tank wonks – all part of an ongoing effort to educate party leaders about what the data says really happened in last year’s election.

“We have to make sure we learn the right lesson from 2016, that we don’t just draw the lesson that makes us feel good at night, make us sleep well at night,” Canter said.

His firm’s conclusion is shared broadly by other Democrats who have examined the data, including senior members of Clinton’s campaign and officials at the Democratic data and analytics firm Catalist. (The New York Times, doing its own analysis, reached a similar conclusion.)

Each group made its assessment by analyzing voter files, reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to pre-existing data about the voters, including demographic information and prior vote history. Using this process, the groups have determined how people voted – in what amounts to the most comprehensive way to analyze the electorate short of a full-blown census.

The findings are significant for a Democratic Party, at a historic low point, that’s trying to figure out how it can win back power. Much of the debate over how to move forward has centered on whether the party should try to win back working-class white voters – who make up the bulk of Obama-Trump voters – or focus instead on mobilizing its base.

Turning out the base, the data suggests, is simply not good enough.

“This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn’t work,” Canter said. “We have to do both.”

Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton’s biggest problem, in such a close election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. She could have won, for instance, if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012 levels.

They also emphasize the need for the party to continue finding ways to stoke its base. Democrats can do both, said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a super PAC that backed Clinton last year and now is trying to help Democrats return to power.

“I really do believe that we should reject this idea that if we just focus on turnout and the Democratic base that that will be enough,” he said. “If that really is our approach, we’re going to lose six or seven Senate seats in this election.”

“But,” Cecil added, “I also believe that just talking about persuasion means we are not capitalizing on an enormous opportunity.”

Priorities USA released a poll last week, conducted in part by Canter’s firm, that found the Democratic base – including voters who usually sit out midterm elections – was unusually motivated to participate in the next election. Officials with the group have preached in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message rooted in economic populism.

Still, the data says turnout was less of a problem for Clinton than defections were. Even the oft-predicted surge of new voters backing Trump was more myth than reality: Global Strategy Group's presentation included a study about Ohio, conducted by Catalist, that found Clinton actually won a majority of new voters in the state.(Global Strategy Group examined North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada as part of its analysis).

Belief that turnout was the main reason Clinton lost, however, remains a prominent theory among Democrats.

“There’s an active conversation within the party about whether persuasion was the problem or turnout,” said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, vice president for social policy and politics at Third Way, a center-left Democratic think tank.

That debate is complicated, she added, because some Democrats think winning over voters is already a lost cause.

“There’s still a real concern that persuasion is harder and costs more than mobilization, so let’s just triple down on getting out the people who already agree with us,” she said. “And I think there’s a lot of worry that we don’t actually know how to persuade anymore, and so maybe we should just go talk to the people we agree with.”

A conversation about where Democrats go next as a party inevitably turns into a discussion about whether it should embrace a form of economic populism similar to one pushed by liberal icon Bernie Sanders or it should tack instead to the political middle.

Canter has his own view of Trump’s success, arguing that the president’s “special sauce” combines his economic populism with a political populism that vilifies both parties.
But he rejects the notion that his firm’s report suggests the party should pursue either direction. Rather, he said he and his partners were simply trying to explain to party leaders exactly why Clinton lost.

Without understanding how the party lost, it’s hard to figure out how it can win again.

“We don’t need to be Republican-lite,” Canter said. “All we’re saying is this is the electoral challenge. In order to win, this is the challenge we have to solve. And there are a lot of good arguments for how we can solve it.”