Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Thank you for precise reply ,but in your opinion do you think that the article and interview could well sow the seeds of doubt in many fickle voters minds ? and the way I see it the article and the interview will do her far more harm than good .

That was the obvious intent. It certainly wasn't to spread information.

He admitted as such when he said he had no solid proof , but was just giving his opinion on Clinton which in my opinion could well sway the floating voter away from her , which is all I am really saying .

All though its very early days as yet , Articles like this certainly do not put lustre on Clintons ability to be POTUS State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Just BS and inuendo. You may like to act coy, like you are just suggesting "possibilities" and opinions that could sway the vote. But the fact--as big as the nose on your face--is that when "opinions" are published they could have the added effect of becoming "fact" in the minds of some. Benghazi comes to mind. And that is what the liars on the right are counting on their minions to accomplish. Desperate. Desperate. Desperate.

Just stating my opinion pure and simple ,or is that Strictly Verboten if it differs from yours ?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Just BS and inuendo. You may like to act coy, like you are just suggesting "possibilities" and opinions that could sway the vote. But the fact--as big as the nose on your face--is that when "opinions" are published they could have the added effect of becoming "fact" in the minds of some. Benghazi comes to mind. And that is what the liars on the right are counting on their minions to accomplish. Desperate. Desperate. Desperate.

Just stating my opinion pure and simple ,or is that Strictly Verboten if it differs from yours ?

That's not what I said. I said your post is crap. It is designed to do nothing but keep a lie alive. You're still pretending.

So you think Hillary using an unsecured non government server to transmit emails marked secure to be a non issue. Also it seems you are tying the email issue to the Bengahzi issue, am I interpreting this correctly?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Just BS and inuendo. You may like to act coy, like you are just suggesting "possibilities" and opinions that could sway the vote. But the fact--as big as the nose on your face--is that when "opinions" are published they could have the added effect of becoming "fact" in the minds of some. Benghazi comes to mind. And that is what the liars on the right are counting on their minions to accomplish. Desperate. Desperate. Desperate.

Just stating my opinion pure and simple ,or is that Strictly Verboten if it differs from yours ?

That's not what I said. I said your post is crap. It is designed to do nothing but keep a lie alive. You're still pretending.

That all depends on ones political affiliations , you are obviously a dyed in the wool Dem , whilst a Rep might find it OK , and I have made no claims either way, all I have said is this latest article and video may have some effect on Clintons popularity with the Dem voters , but of course if you have evidence that it will make no difference whatsoever please be my guest and produce it .

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Just BS and inuendo. You may like to act coy, like you are just suggesting "possibilities" and opinions that could sway the vote. But the fact--as big as the nose on your face--is that when "opinions" are published they could have the added effect of becoming "fact" in the minds of some. Benghazi comes to mind. And that is what the liars on the right are counting on their minions to accomplish. Desperate. Desperate. Desperate.

Just stating my opinion pure and simple ,or is that Strictly Verboten if it differs from yours ?

That's not what I said. I said your post is crap. It is designed to do nothing but keep a lie alive. You're still pretending.

That all depends on ones political affiliations , you are obviously a dyed in the wool Dem , whilst a Rep might find it OK , and I have made no claims either way, all I have said is this latest article and video may have some effect on Clintons popularity with the Dem voters , but of course if you have evidence that it will make no difference whatsoever please be my guest and produce it .

I see you mincing around the keyboard like a coy little girl. If only you were as clever as you think you are.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

All though its very early days as yet , Articles like this certainly do not put lustre on Clintons ability to be POTUS State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

If something in them has now been re-classified as top secret then it would NOW be illegal for State to release them you dolt.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Just BS and inuendo. You may like to act coy, like you are just suggesting "possibilities" and opinions that could sway the vote. But the fact--as big as the nose on your face--is that when "opinions" are published they could have the added effect of becoming "fact" in the minds of some. Benghazi comes to mind. And that is what the liars on the right are counting on their minions to accomplish. Desperate. Desperate. Desperate.

Just stating my opinion pure and simple ,or is that Strictly Verboten if it differs from yours ?

That's not what I said. I said your post is crap. It is designed to do nothing but keep a lie alive. You're still pretending.

That all depends on ones political affiliations , you are obviously a dyed in the wool Dem , whilst a Rep might find it OK , and I have made no claims either way, all I have said is this latest article and video may have some effect on Clintons popularity with the Dem voters , but of course if you have evidence that it will make no difference whatsoever please be my guest and produce it .

I see you mincing around the keyboard like a coy little girl. If only you were as clever as you think you are.

So you have no evidence that the article and video will not cost Clinton Votes? ,all I am saying is that it could well do ,which is my opinion ,which you say is crap cos you do not agree with it . Maybe Sanders was right when he told Clinton in no uncertain terms when she attempted to pull him over the coals on his remarks about Obama , that in a democracy one should be allowed an opinion , here on TD that appears to be a pipe dream

Originally Posted by piwanoi

So you have no evidence that the article and video will not cost Clinton Votes?

Of course there's no "evidence" the the article will not cost Hillary votes. There's no evidence that it does. I'm saying that the article is a suggestion, an innuendo, published to do harm to Hillary , and it's authors rely on coy little things to drop their innuendos like seeds in the well fertilized minds of the right.
Or am I not entitled to my opinion?

Keep skating. You're on thin ice.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by piwanoi

So you have no evidence that the article and video will not cost Clinton Votes?

Of course there's no "evidence" the the article will not cost Hillary votes. There's no evidence that it does. I'm saying that the article is a suggestion, an innuendo, published to do harm to Hillary , and it's authors rely on coy little things to drop their innuendos like seeds in the well fertilized minds of the right.
Or am I not entitled to my opinion?

Keep skating. You're on thin ice.

So you say it was published to do harm to Hilarious ,that is what I have saying all along , that in my opinion the article and video could well cost her votes , now calm down and think of your blood pressure

Any one want a good laugh? Watch this

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you think Hillary using an unsecured non government server to transmit emails marked secure to be a non issue.

Well it seems the "Clinton sending emails marked top secret" lie can go back to bed, so why do you insist on repeating it?

"State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information."

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by piwanoi

All though its very early days as yet , Articles like this certainly do not put lustre on Clintons ability to be POTUS State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

If something in them has now been re-classified as top secret then it would NOW be illegal for State to release them you dolt.

Rather convenient for Hilarious eh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you think Hillary using an unsecured non government server to transmit emails marked secure to be a non issue.

Well it seems the "Clinton sending emails marked top secret" lie can go back to bed, so why do you insist on repeating it?

"State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information."

So Hilarious sent Email's containing sensitive information then?

^ As Bernie has already stated, it is a matter for the courts and should not be politicised.

It may resurface when Clinton is nominated but that will be in a different thread...

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you think Hillary using an unsecured non government server to transmit emails marked secure to be a non issue.

Well it seems the "Clinton sending emails marked top secret" lie can go back to bed, so why do you insist on repeating it?

"State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information."

So Hilarious sent Email's containing sensitive information then?

Obviously wasn't considered sensitive then or it would have been marked classified, no?

You're stating the obvious.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you think Hillary using an unsecured non government server to transmit emails marked secure to be a non issue.

Well it seems the "Clinton sending emails marked top secret" lie can go back to bed, so why do you insist on repeating it?

"State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information."

Because marked secret then or now being the head of the department she should we'll have known the sensitivities involved with the emails. I also find it curious that they stated one of the emails too sensitive for congress to see would not have been classified secret or higher at the time it was sent. You go ahead and live in a fantasy world if you choose, but any right thinking person who has studied the Clinton history should have no problem seeing through the shield that covers the life of lies and corruption they have lived.

Originally Posted by Troy

^ As Bernie has already stated, it is a matter for the courts and should not be politicised.

It may resurface when Clinton is nominated but that will be in a different thread...

Should not be politicized? A would be president being investigated for possible treason should just be brushed under the rug?

Bernie was covering the democrats asses, so when he is not picked Hillary might not have this hanging over her head.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Troy

^ As Bernie has already stated, it is a matter for the courts and should not be politicised.

It may resurface when Clinton is nominated but that will be in a different thread...

Should not be politicized? A would be president being investigated for possible treason should just be brushed under the rug?

Treason?

You've been listening to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones again, haven't you?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you think Hillary using an unsecured non government server to transmit emails marked secure to be a non issue.

Well it seems the "Clinton sending emails marked top secret" lie can go back to bed, so why do you insist on repeating it?

"State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information."

Because marked secret then or now being the head of the department she should we'll have known the sensitivities involved with the emails. I also find it curious that they stated one of the emails too sensitive for congress to see would not have been classified secret or higher at the time it was sent. You go ahead and live in a fantasy world if you choose, but any right thinking person who has studied the Clinton history should have no problem seeing through the shield that covers the life of lies and corruption they have lived.

Now now RP you are way out of line here for having the sheer audacity of having an opinion which differs from Harry's and others ,I mean lets be quite truthful here on TD the first amendment is OK just so long as you or I agree with them

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Troy

^ As Bernie has already stated, it is a matter for the courts and should not be politicised.

It may resurface when Clinton is nominated but that will be in a different thread...

Should not be politicized? A would be president being investigated for possible treason should just be brushed under the rug?

Treason?

You've been listening to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones again, haven't you?

Treason . . . not even piwanoi would suggest that

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you think Hillary using an unsecured non government server to transmit emails marked secure to be a non issue.

Well it seems the "Clinton sending emails marked top secret" lie can go back to bed, so why do you insist on repeating it?

"State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information."

Because marked secret then or now being the head of the department she should we'll have known the sensitivities involved with the emails. I also find it curious that they stated one of the emails too sensitive for congress to see would not have been classified secret or higher at the time it was sent. You go ahead and live in a fantasy world if you choose, but any right thinking person who has studied the Clinton history should have no problem seeing through the shield that covers the life of lies and corruption they have lived.

RP I suggest you watch the video in my post 3963 the women could not tell the truth (like her Hubby) if her life depended on it