Whats scary is she will receive a ton of votes by our OWN people knowing all this. And some simply WANT to see a woman in the white house if their opinions are based on nothing else
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Hillary
- Thread starter flenser
- Start date
Hillary Cheated
Ted Rall
Friday, July 08, 2016
Who are you going to believe: us, or your lying eyes? That's the good word from Democratic Party powers that be and their transcribers in the corporate media, in response to the "allegations" by Bernie Sanders supporters that the nomination was stolen by Hillary Clinton.
I used scare quotes around the word "allegations" because the truth is plain to see and undeniable by anyone with a microgram of honesty: Hillary Clinton cheated. If the rules had been followed, Bernie Sanders would be the nominee.
As with all things Clinton, of course, definitions matter. It depends on what the meaning of "cheat" is.
To most people, "cheating" means breaking the rules of a contest. By this standard definition, there's no doubt that the Clinton campaign, its political allies and the Democratic National Committee cheated in favor of Clinton and against Sanders. They broke the law. They disenfranchised voters. They broke party rules. And they violated long-standing customs that are so widely accepted that they are essentially de facto rules of the Democratic Party and the American political system.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, ran a clean campaign.
Like many other voters, I subscribe to a somewhat broader definition of cheating in political elections. To me, Richard Nixon-style "dirty tricks" -- the disgusting tactics George W. Bush used against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 -- rise to the level of cheating because they deny voters the facts that they need in order to make an educated decision in the voting booth. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that people are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts, and outright lies about your opponent's -- and your own -- positions and experience not only violate Moynihan's dictum but constitute the essence of cheating in the political arena.
If Hillary Clinton manages to dodge both an Emailgate-related indictment as well as fallout from her husband's corrupt tarmac rendezvous with the now-tainted Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the next few weeks and formerly secure the nomination she's been working on since at least the year 2000, it will be a historic moment for identity politics. But it is absolutely imperative that no one watching the first woman to accept the presidential nomination of a major American political party be fooled into believing that she did it on the up and up.
Hillary Clinton did not run a clean campaign.
She cheated.
If we want to be the kind of country that doesn't care about that sort of thing, if fair play isn't an American value, fine with me. But let's go into this general election campaign with our eyes wide open.
Caucus after caucus, primary after primary, the Clinton team robbed Bernie of votes that were rightfully his.
Here's how. Parties run caucuses. States run primaries. The DNC is controlled by Hillary Clinton allies like chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Democratic governors are behind Clinton; state election officials report to them. These officials decide where to send voting booths, which votes get counted, which do not.
You thought this was a democracy? Ha.
In the first in the nation Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders pulled off a surprising tie where he was expected to lose badly -- Hillary won by just 0.2 percent. However, party officials never bothered to send vote counters to the most rural parts of the state, where Bernie was favored over Hillary. About 5 percent of Iowa caucus votes were never counted. At other caucus sites, Democratic officials loyal to Hillary purposefully undercounted Sanders caucusers. No doubt about it, Bernie should have won that one, as well as votes in other states that would have been affected by a big Sanders upset.
Voters in pro-Sanders precincts in Arizona faced long lines because pro-Hillary elections officials didn't provide enough voting booths. With lines of three hours or more still to go, the media called the state for Hillary.
New York State was arguably the most important contest of the primary season. Had Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in her adopted home state where she had served 1 1/3 terms as senator, he would have dealt her campaign a blow from which she might never have recovered, along with a pile of delegates. Because of her local roots and the fact that New York was a closed primary state in which independence were not allowed to vote, it was a long shot for Bernie. But like the LAPD in the O.J. Simpson case, the Clinton team wasn't taking any chances.
Did they drop a line to Governor Andrew Cuomo, who endorsed Clinton? Or did state elections officials act on their own initiative? Either way, Bernie Sanders stronghold, the borough of Brooklyn where he was born, was targeted for massive voter suppression. At least 125,000 New Yorkers were illegally purged from the rolls, had their votes lost/thrown away, or were not permitted to vote due to broken voting machines -- all in Brooklyn.
Even Mayor Bill de Blasio, who endorsed Clinton, was angry. "It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists," De Blasio said. "The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process and must be fixed."
The skullduggery continued through the last major primary, California. The night before, the Associated Press put its thumb on the scale, declaring Hillary the nominee in an epic act of voter suppression. Who knows how many Sanders voters decided to stay home once they heard it was all over?
Hillary Clinton was declared the winner by a substantial margin, but after it turned out that state election officials, who report to Governor Jerry Brown, who endorsed Clinton, didn't bother to count a whopping 2.5 million provisional ballots. According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, the nation's leading expert on the manipulation of elections, Bernie Sanders actually should have won the state of California along with the majority of its delegates. (Disclosure: I work with Palast as a Fellow of his Investigative Fund.)
One of the most disreputable moves of the campaign was the Associated Press poll of party superdelegates, party insiders who are allowed to vote for whoever they want but, because they are party insiders, inevitably support the establishment candidate. Truth is, the superdelegate system itself is official cheating. But the AP survey made a terrible system even more deadly to democracy.
If they cared about free elections, the superdelegates wouldn't have stated their loyalty in public. The DNC ought to have told superdelegates that they would lose their status if they expressed their opinions before the convention. As it was, Bernie Sanders started the race miles behind the finish line.
The only way Bernie could have caught up would have been to have scored one landslide win after another. As it was, he came close to doing that. His surprising early momentum, big rallies and popularity with younger voters might have convinced superdelegates to back him, but after they told the AP they were for Hillary Clinton, it was too late for them to change their minds.
I'm out of space. So I can't get into the DNC's attempts to deny Bernie Sanders airtime in the form of widely seen debates against Hillary Clinton, her ridiculous claim that she supported Bernie's $15-an-hour federal minimum wage at the same time that her website confessed that she didn't, the Nevada Democratic convention in which Sanders supporters were denied seats by Clintonites in charge and then falsely accused of violence, and Clinton's sleazy "I was for the TPP before I was against it, and now that the primaries are over, I'm for it again" gambit.
That stuff isn't the usual hardball.
It's cheating.
Ted Rall
Friday, July 08, 2016
Who are you going to believe: us, or your lying eyes? That's the good word from Democratic Party powers that be and their transcribers in the corporate media, in response to the "allegations" by Bernie Sanders supporters that the nomination was stolen by Hillary Clinton.
I used scare quotes around the word "allegations" because the truth is plain to see and undeniable by anyone with a microgram of honesty: Hillary Clinton cheated. If the rules had been followed, Bernie Sanders would be the nominee.
As with all things Clinton, of course, definitions matter. It depends on what the meaning of "cheat" is.
To most people, "cheating" means breaking the rules of a contest. By this standard definition, there's no doubt that the Clinton campaign, its political allies and the Democratic National Committee cheated in favor of Clinton and against Sanders. They broke the law. They disenfranchised voters. They broke party rules. And they violated long-standing customs that are so widely accepted that they are essentially de facto rules of the Democratic Party and the American political system.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, ran a clean campaign.
Like many other voters, I subscribe to a somewhat broader definition of cheating in political elections. To me, Richard Nixon-style "dirty tricks" -- the disgusting tactics George W. Bush used against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 -- rise to the level of cheating because they deny voters the facts that they need in order to make an educated decision in the voting booth. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that people are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts, and outright lies about your opponent's -- and your own -- positions and experience not only violate Moynihan's dictum but constitute the essence of cheating in the political arena.
If Hillary Clinton manages to dodge both an Emailgate-related indictment as well as fallout from her husband's corrupt tarmac rendezvous with the now-tainted Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the next few weeks and formerly secure the nomination she's been working on since at least the year 2000, it will be a historic moment for identity politics. But it is absolutely imperative that no one watching the first woman to accept the presidential nomination of a major American political party be fooled into believing that she did it on the up and up.
Hillary Clinton did not run a clean campaign.
She cheated.
If we want to be the kind of country that doesn't care about that sort of thing, if fair play isn't an American value, fine with me. But let's go into this general election campaign with our eyes wide open.
Caucus after caucus, primary after primary, the Clinton team robbed Bernie of votes that were rightfully his.
Here's how. Parties run caucuses. States run primaries. The DNC is controlled by Hillary Clinton allies like chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Democratic governors are behind Clinton; state election officials report to them. These officials decide where to send voting booths, which votes get counted, which do not.
You thought this was a democracy? Ha.
In the first in the nation Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders pulled off a surprising tie where he was expected to lose badly -- Hillary won by just 0.2 percent. However, party officials never bothered to send vote counters to the most rural parts of the state, where Bernie was favored over Hillary. About 5 percent of Iowa caucus votes were never counted. At other caucus sites, Democratic officials loyal to Hillary purposefully undercounted Sanders caucusers. No doubt about it, Bernie should have won that one, as well as votes in other states that would have been affected by a big Sanders upset.
Voters in pro-Sanders precincts in Arizona faced long lines because pro-Hillary elections officials didn't provide enough voting booths. With lines of three hours or more still to go, the media called the state for Hillary.
New York State was arguably the most important contest of the primary season. Had Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in her adopted home state where she had served 1 1/3 terms as senator, he would have dealt her campaign a blow from which she might never have recovered, along with a pile of delegates. Because of her local roots and the fact that New York was a closed primary state in which independence were not allowed to vote, it was a long shot for Bernie. But like the LAPD in the O.J. Simpson case, the Clinton team wasn't taking any chances.
Did they drop a line to Governor Andrew Cuomo, who endorsed Clinton? Or did state elections officials act on their own initiative? Either way, Bernie Sanders stronghold, the borough of Brooklyn where he was born, was targeted for massive voter suppression. At least 125,000 New Yorkers were illegally purged from the rolls, had their votes lost/thrown away, or were not permitted to vote due to broken voting machines -- all in Brooklyn.
Even Mayor Bill de Blasio, who endorsed Clinton, was angry. "It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists," De Blasio said. "The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process and must be fixed."
The skullduggery continued through the last major primary, California. The night before, the Associated Press put its thumb on the scale, declaring Hillary the nominee in an epic act of voter suppression. Who knows how many Sanders voters decided to stay home once they heard it was all over?
Hillary Clinton was declared the winner by a substantial margin, but after it turned out that state election officials, who report to Governor Jerry Brown, who endorsed Clinton, didn't bother to count a whopping 2.5 million provisional ballots. According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, the nation's leading expert on the manipulation of elections, Bernie Sanders actually should have won the state of California along with the majority of its delegates. (Disclosure: I work with Palast as a Fellow of his Investigative Fund.)
One of the most disreputable moves of the campaign was the Associated Press poll of party superdelegates, party insiders who are allowed to vote for whoever they want but, because they are party insiders, inevitably support the establishment candidate. Truth is, the superdelegate system itself is official cheating. But the AP survey made a terrible system even more deadly to democracy.
If they cared about free elections, the superdelegates wouldn't have stated their loyalty in public. The DNC ought to have told superdelegates that they would lose their status if they expressed their opinions before the convention. As it was, Bernie Sanders started the race miles behind the finish line.
The only way Bernie could have caught up would have been to have scored one landslide win after another. As it was, he came close to doing that. His surprising early momentum, big rallies and popularity with younger voters might have convinced superdelegates to back him, but after they told the AP they were for Hillary Clinton, it was too late for them to change their minds.
I'm out of space. So I can't get into the DNC's attempts to deny Bernie Sanders airtime in the form of widely seen debates against Hillary Clinton, her ridiculous claim that she supported Bernie's $15-an-hour federal minimum wage at the same time that her website confessed that she didn't, the Nevada Democratic convention in which Sanders supporters were denied seats by Clintonites in charge and then falsely accused of violence, and Clinton's sleazy "I was for the TPP before I was against it, and now that the primaries are over, I'm for it again" gambit.
That stuff isn't the usual hardball.
It's cheating.
tenpoundsleft
Member
Seems like they've gotten better at it over the years - that "foundation" of theirs, what a scam. Al Capone would blush.
CdnGuy
New Member
Considering the non-stop anti Trump propaganda coming out of the US media, this doesn't surprise me at all.
More Questions Emerge About Skewed Hillary Polls
Tyler Durden
Jul 13, 2016 5:40 PM
One glimpse at the massive variance between the last two days polls in swing states suggests something very odd is going on.
Quinnipac:
[Pennsylvania white voters: Trump, 40% Clinton, 40% Pennsylvania black voters: Trump, 0% Clinton, 91%; Ohio white voters: Trump, 43% Clinton, 33% Ohio black voters: Trump, 0% Clinton, 88% -- WSJ/NBC/Marist poll]
Simply put, as The Daily Bell notes, given the post-Email-gate disapproval ratings...
Pro-Hillary Clinton polls don’t make sense.
In fact, polling with such tiny samples doesn’t make sense anyway, but coming on the heels of other questionable polls favoring Hillary, this widely quoted poll only seems to raise further questions.
The poll, above, has been widely cited as presenting a negative picture of Clinton.
But as it attempted to question “younger” Democratic voters, perhaps the results could have been even worse than they were.
Maybe it is normal to seek out younger age groups, but certainly younger voters may be seen as even more emphatic in their preferences than older ones.
Alternatively, younger voters might have been less apt to pay attention to the questions, or more more malleable and eager to provide answers they felt would be seen as appropriate. In any case, emphasizing one demographic over another may be seen as injecting additional bias into the results.
It’s been pointed out that younger voters are often supportive of Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary, but these questions dealt directly with whether or not Hillary’s behavior changed voting decisions.
The answer was dramatically “no.”
In fact, according to the poll, two-thirds of Democrats approve of the decision not to charge Clinton and think the issue is unrelated to what she would do as president. Only three in 10 Democrats think she should have been charged.
We looked up the polling methodology HERE and found this.
Some of those involved with Langer have faced polling questions in the past. HERE from the Huffington Post:
Questions have been raised about ABC and the other big media companies in the past. CBS and NBC have been accused HERE of oversampling Democrats in polls, leading to skewed results.
But ABC has also been criticized as regards polling. An April Newsbusters article revealed ABC news stations featured negative Trump polling but didn’t report polls that showed negative Hillary results. See HERE.
Meanwhile, a Reuters Ipsos poll HERE shows Hillary Clinton extending her lead Donald Trump to 13 percentage points. This is up from 10 points last week.
Given the amount of controversy regarding Clinton, the advances she managed to make are certainly astonishing. Trump actually is seen to have lost ground in the same poll.
Conclusion: It’s been shown that people may change their minds about candidates depending on the messages received from polling, among other ongoing results. And the results of polling can be dramatically influenced based on the demographics involved.
Generally speaking, mainstream polling raises questions regarding a regular, pro-Hillary slant, and that’s not going to change.
More Questions Emerge About Skewed Hillary Polls
Tyler Durden
Jul 13, 2016 5:40 PM
One glimpse at the massive variance between the last two days polls in swing states suggests something very odd is going on.
Quinnipac:
- Pennsylvania Trump +2
- Ohio Tied
- Florida Trump +3
- Iowa Trump +2
- Pennsylvania Clinton +9
- Ohio Tied
- Iowa Clinton +3
[Pennsylvania white voters: Trump, 40% Clinton, 40% Pennsylvania black voters: Trump, 0% Clinton, 91%; Ohio white voters: Trump, 43% Clinton, 33% Ohio black voters: Trump, 0% Clinton, 88% -- WSJ/NBC/Marist poll]
Simply put, as The Daily Bell notes, given the post-Email-gate disapproval ratings...
A majority of Americans disapprove of the FBI’s recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while secretary of state, and a similar number in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say the issue leaves them worried about how she would handle her responsibilities as president if elected.
Most also say the email controversy won’t affect their vote in the presidential election. But 28 percent say it leaves them less likely to support her, versus 10 percent who say it makes them more likely to do so. -ABC Poll
Most also say the email controversy won’t affect their vote in the presidential election. But 28 percent say it leaves them less likely to support her, versus 10 percent who say it makes them more likely to do so. -ABC Poll
Pro-Hillary Clinton polls don’t make sense.
In fact, polling with such tiny samples doesn’t make sense anyway, but coming on the heels of other questionable polls favoring Hillary, this widely quoted poll only seems to raise further questions.
The poll, above, has been widely cited as presenting a negative picture of Clinton.
But as it attempted to question “younger” Democratic voters, perhaps the results could have been even worse than they were.
Maybe it is normal to seek out younger age groups, but certainly younger voters may be seen as even more emphatic in their preferences than older ones.
Alternatively, younger voters might have been less apt to pay attention to the questions, or more more malleable and eager to provide answers they felt would be seen as appropriate. In any case, emphasizing one demographic over another may be seen as injecting additional bias into the results.
It’s been pointed out that younger voters are often supportive of Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary, but these questions dealt directly with whether or not Hillary’s behavior changed voting decisions.
The answer was dramatically “no.”
In fact, according to the poll, two-thirds of Democrats approve of the decision not to charge Clinton and think the issue is unrelated to what she would do as president. Only three in 10 Democrats think she should have been charged.
We looked up the polling methodology HERE and found this.
Within each landline household, interviewers ask to speak with the youngest adult male or female at home; if no person of that gender is at home, interviewers ask to speak with the youngest adult of the other gender. Cell phone interviews are conducted with the adult answering the phone.
Some of those involved with Langer have faced polling questions in the past. HERE from the Huffington Post:
Emmy-Winning Iraq Polls May Have Been Tainted By Fabrication, Researchers Say
The Huffington Post Public opinion polls in Iraq since 2003 have been crucial to understanding the war-torn country. ABC News relied on polls for reporting that was awarded two Emmys — the first to mention public opinion polling.
But two researchers looking at Iraq polling data in 2011 found alarming patterns that they said suggested some results may have been fabricated by people in Iraq.
They wrote a paper describing their findings and sent it to the U.S. company in charge of the data collection, D3 Systems …
Representatives of Langer Research Associates, the company later formed that includes the pollsters who worked for ABC, and Lev & Berlin didn’t immediately respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment after business hours on Friday.
The Huffington Post Public opinion polls in Iraq since 2003 have been crucial to understanding the war-torn country. ABC News relied on polls for reporting that was awarded two Emmys — the first to mention public opinion polling.
But two researchers looking at Iraq polling data in 2011 found alarming patterns that they said suggested some results may have been fabricated by people in Iraq.
They wrote a paper describing their findings and sent it to the U.S. company in charge of the data collection, D3 Systems …
Representatives of Langer Research Associates, the company later formed that includes the pollsters who worked for ABC, and Lev & Berlin didn’t immediately respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment after business hours on Friday.
Questions have been raised about ABC and the other big media companies in the past. CBS and NBC have been accused HERE of oversampling Democrats in polls, leading to skewed results.
But ABC has also been criticized as regards polling. An April Newsbusters article revealed ABC news stations featured negative Trump polling but didn’t report polls that showed negative Hillary results. See HERE.
Meanwhile, a Reuters Ipsos poll HERE shows Hillary Clinton extending her lead Donald Trump to 13 percentage points. This is up from 10 points last week.
Given the amount of controversy regarding Clinton, the advances she managed to make are certainly astonishing. Trump actually is seen to have lost ground in the same poll.
Conclusion: It’s been shown that people may change their minds about candidates depending on the messages received from polling, among other ongoing results. And the results of polling can be dramatically influenced based on the demographics involved.
Generally speaking, mainstream polling raises questions regarding a regular, pro-Hillary slant, and that’s not going to change.
CdnGuy
New Member
Question flenser. Do you think Bernie joining the old bag being that extra push to win it ? I was pretty shocked to see that happen.(sellout)Considering the non-stop anti Trump propaganda coming out of the US media, this doesn't surprise me at all.
More Questions Emerge About Skewed Hillary Polls
Tyler Durden
Jul 13, 2016 5:40 PM
One glimpse at the massive variance between the last two days polls in swing states suggests something very odd is going on.
Quinnipac:
Monmouth:
- Pennsylvania Trump +2
- Ohio Tied
- Florida Trump +3
NBC/WSJ:
- Iowa Trump +2
Or graphically...
- Pennsylvania Clinton +9
- Ohio Tied
- Iowa Clinton +3
[Pennsylvania white voters: Trump, 40% Clinton, 40% Pennsylvania black voters: Trump, 0% Clinton, 91%; Ohio white voters: Trump, 43% Clinton, 33% Ohio black voters: Trump, 0% Clinton, 88% -- WSJ/NBC/Marist poll]
Simply put, as The Daily Bell notes, given the post-Email-gate disapproval ratings...
A majority of Americans disapprove of the FBI’s recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while secretary of state, and a similar number in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say the issue leaves them worried about how she would handle her responsibilities as president if elected.
Most also say the email controversy won’t affect their vote in the presidential election. But 28 percent say it leaves them less likely to support her, versus 10 percent who say it makes them more likely to do so. -ABC Poll
Pro-Hillary Clinton polls don’t make sense.
In fact, polling with such tiny samples doesn’t make sense anyway, but coming on the heels of other questionable polls favoring Hillary, this widely quoted poll only seems to raise further questions.
The poll, above, has been widely cited as presenting a negative picture of Clinton.
But as it attempted to question “younger” Democratic voters, perhaps the results could have been even worse than they were.
Maybe it is normal to seek out younger age groups, but certainly younger voters may be seen as even more emphatic in their preferences than older ones.
Alternatively, younger voters might have been less apt to pay attention to the questions, or more more malleable and eager to provide answers they felt would be seen as appropriate. In any case, emphasizing one demographic over another may be seen as injecting additional bias into the results.
It’s been pointed out that younger voters are often supportive of Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary, but these questions dealt directly with whether or not Hillary’s behavior changed voting decisions.
The answer was dramatically “no.”
In fact, according to the poll, two-thirds of Democrats approve of the decision not to charge Clinton and think the issue is unrelated to what she would do as president. Only three in 10 Democrats think she should have been charged.
We looked up the polling methodology HERE and found this.
Within each landline household, interviewers ask to speak with the youngest adult male or female at home; if no person of that gender is at home, interviewers ask to speak with the youngest adult of the other gender. Cell phone interviews are conducted with the adult answering the phone.
Some of those involved with Langer have faced polling questions in the past. HERE from the Huffington Post:
Emmy-Winning Iraq Polls May Have Been Tainted By Fabrication, Researchers Say
The Huffington Post Public opinion polls in Iraq since 2003 have been crucial to understanding the war-torn country. ABC News relied on polls for reporting that was awarded two Emmys — the first to mention public opinion polling.
But two researchers looking at Iraq polling data in 2011 found alarming patterns that they said suggested some results may have been fabricated by people in Iraq.
They wrote a paper describing their findings and sent it to the U.S. company in charge of the data collection, D3 Systems …
Representatives of Langer Research Associates, the company later formed that includes the pollsters who worked for ABC, and Lev & Berlin didn’t immediately respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment after business hours on Friday.
Questions have been raised about ABC and the other big media companies in the past. CBS and NBC have been accused HERE of oversampling Democrats in polls, leading to skewed results.
But ABC has also been criticized as regards polling. An April Newsbusters article revealed ABC news stations featured negative Trump polling but didn’t report polls that showed negative Hillary results. See HERE.
Meanwhile, a Reuters Ipsos poll HERE shows Hillary Clinton extending her lead Donald Trump to 13 percentage points. This is up from 10 points last week.
Given the amount of controversy regarding Clinton, the advances she managed to make are certainly astonishing. Trump actually is seen to have lost ground in the same poll.
Conclusion: It’s been shown that people may change their minds about candidates depending on the messages received from polling, among other ongoing results. And the results of polling can be dramatically influenced based on the demographics involved.
Generally speaking, mainstream polling raises questions regarding a regular, pro-Hillary slant, and that’s not going to change.
Honestly, I think it might have cost her votes. They may eventually spin a believable compromise story to sucker Bernie supporters, but in the short term everyone thinks Bernie sold out. It doesn't look good being the buyer.
CdnGuy
New Member
tenpoundsleft
Member
You know my position on Bernie, the guy's positions are so far off reality, and so destructive if implemented that it defies any polite description.
What did impress me about Bernie was his fervent and consistent principled stand - even if advocating lunacy - he seemed to have loads of integrity, albeit in a pointless way.
Bernie endorsing the Hildebeast was appalling, that kind of floored me, I wonder what possessed him to do that. It's like a Baptist preacher backing a local casino and brothel project. WTF?
Will be interesting to see how this affects voter turnout and affiliations among the kooky pinkos in the US.
CdnGuy
New Member
Over my years of travel I have met many different Americans for all walks of life. But one thing they all had in common, is their loyalty and commitment to their political parties! My first thought was Bernie might get clipped out now lol
Heh, tell that to the neocons.
CdnGuy
New Member
Good point man haha never met one . But I get the impression you agree with that view correct?
With the neocons!? No, huh uh. Their fundamental political belief is that they are above the common people, and that the masses must be told a "noble lie" to force them to do what's best for the collective. They came from the extreme left and for the last couple of decades have been dragging the Republican party in that direction. Hillary is a neocon, or at least owned by them.
tenpoundsleft
Member
I was about to say, that sounds exactly like US liberals - or any European political party older than 10 years or so.
Don't know if Hillary is capable of noble lies, just any kind of lies, and lots of them.
I hadn't bothered too much with the definitions of that label - it's fairly expansive:
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a confusing label - if you look at the people associated with it, it becomes a real mess.
Before any of the usual suspects try to tag me with the label, I'm a libertarian, so per definition not part of that bag of ragtag elitist beliefs. Doesn't mean that I don't like the idea of paving the Middle East with black glass.
Eman
Master
...but it is funny, we're talking about Muammar Gaddafi right?? Although I actually don't recall seeing or reading anything about the bayonet. I remember watching the video of him being killed. He was beaten and shot I thought. The man who found him in the drain pipe suffered a much worse death by Libian loyalists.
Anyways, I watched a documentary about Gaddafi long ago that detailed his extracurricular activities. If he did get sodomised by a bayonet... I hope the fucker was dull.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olonel-Gaddafi-raped-girls-boys-young-14.html
More than likely the video you saw was of the Benghazi ambassador being tortured and murdered by the terrorists Hillary armed against Gaddafi. They didn't sodomize him with a bayonet, just used a cattle prod on his genitals. By their standards that was practically an act of mercy.
And by the way, they rape little kids too, and now they have a whole country to plunder all thanks to Hillary. I doubt even Caesar would have boasted of such results, but as the head of the state department of a supposedly democratic free nation Hillary thought it appropriate to quote that conqueror over the brutal murder of the head of a sovereign nation holding signed treaties with the United States.
Was Hillary Clinton’s Email Hacked? The Case
Peter Van Buren, July 14, 2016
If you were Vladimir Putin, or President Xi of China, what would you do if you had the entire archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails, classified and unclassified, “deleted” and not, in your hands? What value to you would that be in your next round of negotiations with the president of the United States?
Unencrypted Email
Hillary Clinton traveled to 19 foreign locations during her first three months in office, including China, South Korea, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, and a meeting in Switzerland with her Russian counterpart. During that period of time her email system was unencrypted. She transmitted data over wireless networks in those countries, networks almost certainly already monitored 24/7 by intelligence and security officials. To say her email was not collected is to say the Russian, Chinese, Israeli and other intelligence services are complete amateurs.
They are not complete amateurs.
A System Wide Open to Monitoring
While FBI director James Comey said his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators, according to the New York Times, “immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.”
Comey described a set of email practices that left Clinton’s systems wide open to monitoring. She had no full-time cyber security professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent… Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact.”
The FBI director was generous in his assessment. See, no hacking was really necessary.
But No Hacking was Really Needed
Online security company https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server has the world’s largest database of digital certificates and associated metadata, allowing it to go back in time and identify how digital certificates were used in the past, a kind of forensics capability for IT security. Here’s what they found on the clintonemail.com server, and it is not good.
Using non-intrusive Internet scanning tests routinely performed throughout by IT security teams (meaning foreign intelligence agencies have them too), Venafi learned the Clinton server was enabled for logging in via web browser, smartphone, Blackberry, and tablet. That automatically makes it vulnerable to interception, as the information Clinton was sending and receiving abroad was traveling via other nations’ web infrastructure and open-air cellular networks.
Clinton’s email log-in page was also on the web, meaning anyone who stumbled on it could try and log in, or employ the standard array of password hacking and brute force attacks against it, much like they did with your Gmail account that was hacked.
The Clinton email setup also was initially running a standalone Microsoft Windows Server, which is very vulnerable to attack, with at least 800 known trojans/spyware in existence that can steal keys and certificates. If the credentials on the server were compromised in those first three months, then the next years of encryption might have meant nothing.
How could someone have gained access to the credentials? Clinton’s most recent digital security certificate was issued by https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server. Her domain’s landing page was at one time hosted by Confluence Networks, a web firm in the British Virgin Islands.
No Smoking Gun?
If anyone had picked up Clinton’s emails from the airwaves or in transit over the Internet (as we know, via Snowden, the NSA does), while they were encrypted, or had acquired the encrypted versions and used the resources of a state security apparatus to decrypt them, there would of course be no forensic evidence to find. Persons working at NSA-like levels actually breaking into systems expend significant energies hiding their intrusions, and such high level “hacks” have been known to stay hidden for years.
Sure, if the standard is a “smoking gun,” there is none. But such proof is rarely available in the world of global espionage, and decisions and conclusions are made accordingly on a daily basis.
Clinton’s email was extremely vulnerable, and her decision to run it off a private server put at significant risk the security of the United States. This is not a partisan attack or a conspiracy; it is technology.
Peter Van Buren, July 14, 2016
If you were Vladimir Putin, or President Xi of China, what would you do if you had the entire archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails, classified and unclassified, “deleted” and not, in your hands? What value to you would that be in your next round of negotiations with the president of the United States?
Unencrypted Email
Hillary Clinton traveled to 19 foreign locations during her first three months in office, including China, South Korea, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, and a meeting in Switzerland with her Russian counterpart. During that period of time her email system was unencrypted. She transmitted data over wireless networks in those countries, networks almost certainly already monitored 24/7 by intelligence and security officials. To say her email was not collected is to say the Russian, Chinese, Israeli and other intelligence services are complete amateurs.
They are not complete amateurs.
A System Wide Open to Monitoring
While FBI director James Comey said his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators, according to the New York Times, “immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.”
Comey described a set of email practices that left Clinton’s systems wide open to monitoring. She had no full-time cyber security professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent… Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact.”
The FBI director was generous in his assessment. See, no hacking was really necessary.
But No Hacking was Really Needed
Online security company https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server has the world’s largest database of digital certificates and associated metadata, allowing it to go back in time and identify how digital certificates were used in the past, a kind of forensics capability for IT security. Here’s what they found on the clintonemail.com server, and it is not good.
Using non-intrusive Internet scanning tests routinely performed throughout by IT security teams (meaning foreign intelligence agencies have them too), Venafi learned the Clinton server was enabled for logging in via web browser, smartphone, Blackberry, and tablet. That automatically makes it vulnerable to interception, as the information Clinton was sending and receiving abroad was traveling via other nations’ web infrastructure and open-air cellular networks.
Clinton’s email log-in page was also on the web, meaning anyone who stumbled on it could try and log in, or employ the standard array of password hacking and brute force attacks against it, much like they did with your Gmail account that was hacked.
The Clinton email setup also was initially running a standalone Microsoft Windows Server, which is very vulnerable to attack, with at least 800 known trojans/spyware in existence that can steal keys and certificates. If the credentials on the server were compromised in those first three months, then the next years of encryption might have meant nothing.
How could someone have gained access to the credentials? Clinton’s most recent digital security certificate was issued by https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server. Her domain’s landing page was at one time hosted by Confluence Networks, a web firm in the British Virgin Islands.
No Smoking Gun?
If anyone had picked up Clinton’s emails from the airwaves or in transit over the Internet (as we know, via Snowden, the NSA does), while they were encrypted, or had acquired the encrypted versions and used the resources of a state security apparatus to decrypt them, there would of course be no forensic evidence to find. Persons working at NSA-like levels actually breaking into systems expend significant energies hiding their intrusions, and such high level “hacks” have been known to stay hidden for years.
Sure, if the standard is a “smoking gun,” there is none. But such proof is rarely available in the world of global espionage, and decisions and conclusions are made accordingly on a daily basis.
Clinton’s email was extremely vulnerable, and her decision to run it off a private server put at significant risk the security of the United States. This is not a partisan attack or a conspiracy; it is technology.
Eman
Master
No. The video of him being captured is quite clearly not the ambassador of Benghazi. He actually isn't killed in the video though, but captured and thrown into a truck and later killed.
Also, I've heard several versions of the ambassador's death... but actually, the majority of them are completely and totally false... conspiracy theories and propaganda.
Sodomy for the sake of Islam is a thing... and likely why the hoax was started by the jihadists. Several versions of his death were also perpetuated by our own goons with a loudspeaker such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.
The ambassador was treated at a hospital for smoke inhalation but it was way too late. Any other article that wasn't written by a conspiracy theory site, I would be happy to read.
Again, I honestly hear a different version of his death everytime it's told. The truth is that no one actually does know how he was killed. There was a picture circulating of what was supposed to be the Benghazi ambassador being killed in that manner but it was a hoax.
I agree, except that the blame does not completely fall on her shoulders. She makes an excellent scapegoat, and I don't care too much to defend her, but the statement of it all being thanks to Hillary is false.
I do agree that although Gaddafi inherently deserved his demise, by the hand of his own, it destabilized the region. The area may not actually be better without him... damn it.
No. The video of him being captured is quite clearly not the ambassador of Benghazi. He actually isn't killed in the video though, but captured and thrown into a truck and later killed.
Also, I've heard several versions of the ambassador's death... but actually, the majority of them are completely and totally false... conspiracy theories and propaganda.
Sodomy for the sake of Islam is a thing... and likely why the hoax was started by the jihadists. Several versions of his death were also perpetuated by our own goons with a loudspeaker such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.
The ambassador was treated at a hospital for smoke inhalation but it was way too late. Any other article that wasn't written by a conspiracy theory site, I would be happy to read.
Again, I honestly hear a different version of his death everytime it's told. The truth is that no one actually does know how he was killed. There was a picture circulating of what was supposed to be the Benghazi ambassador being killed in that manner but it was a hoax.
I agree, except that the blame does not completely fall on her shoulders. She makes an excellent scapegoat, and I don't care too much to defend her, but the statement of it all being thanks to Hillary is false.
I do agree that although Gaddafi inherently deserved his demise, by the hand of his own, it destabilized the region. The area may not actually be better without him... damn it.
You may be right about the ambassador. I didn't bother to verify what I read at the time as it didn't rate very high on the brutality scale for the given killers. It didn't occur to me the details would be controversial.
Hillary certainly took personal credit for overthrowing Gaddafi, at least until things started to go wrong. And she was definitely the loudest voice in the push for regime change, as well as for arming the terrorists, I mean rebels, with weapons supplied by certain Clinton Foundation donors. You can check out this article and the links he provides. There is more data on her involvement that came out later in leaked emails and such from Snowden and others, as well as from Hillary's "personal" emails. I'm just too lazy to look them up.
Eman
Master
Possibly. But there were plenty of others as well that wanted him out of power. The families of the protesters that were gunned down by him may have been the loudest voices... things like this are what sparked civil war between Gaddafi with the rest of the protesters of his regime aka rebels. Other countries wanted to put a stop to this too, countries much closer to the region.
It's funny, she seemed to be pretty popular at the time when all of this occurred. It wasn't until afterwards when collateral damage occurred that those supporters disagreed with her actions.
I wonder what Trump might do in the same situation...
He's quoted as saying, "we have to be tougher!" Don't know... He's been very critical of that aspect of her career and rightly so, it is the biggest liability she has in her campaign I think. But I don't think he's addressed how he would have handled the same challenges that led up to the issues he criticizesThat's a good article though. I identify as libertarian as does the author however, he's apart of libertarian adjunct of the Republican party lol so there would be some things I would disagree with lol.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic- Latest: Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
-
-
-
