Here's the full video:
Trump won the coin flip and got to choose to go second. Matt Lauer offered a ground rule, that neither candidate should use his/her time to attack the other. Clinton broke the rule in the end, and Lauer called attention to that, both to Hillary and at the beginning of Trump's turn. She was a fool to open the door, and Trump walked right through it.
Lauer was harder on Trump, interrupting and getting harsh with him. But Trump didn't let that faze him, and compared to Hillary, who was ploddingly severe and robotic, he was very good.
८ सप्टेंबर, २०१६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५७ टिप्पण्या:
Wait, what? Doth mine delicate eyes and ears deceive me? Hillary Clinton broke a rule? The Deuce you say! Why, I am told she is the shining exemplar of all womanhood; and even mere thoughts that do not support her coronation is prima facie evidence of sexism and racism and republicanism and other Bad Things™ that a tolerant, liberal society must stamp out with extreme prejudice!
Why, we all know that Hillary Clinton could give lessons to Mother Teresa on charity and to George Washington on honesty!
Just ask any leftist here, like PB&J, about how only despicable people who don't even qualify as human could ever oppose our shining light Hillary!
Hillary breaking a rule? Nonsense! Who are you going to believe, her or your own lying eyes and ears?
--Vance
Althouse, by denying that HRC is George Womanhood you are a despicable person who doesn't even qualify as human.
The Hildebeast continues to reveal herself as a corrupt lawyer using weasel words to justify illegal and/or incompetent acts.
Ann particularly like Trump's position that anytime you put men and women together, rape will occur. "boys will be boys" She also liked Trump's idea of combining his "secret" plan for defeating Isis with his generals plan. And she particularly like the fact that he was not robatic.
"...and getting harsh with him."
I only saw a clip here and there. But, assuming Althouse is truthful by saying he wasn't also harsh to HRC, that's too bad. If he was harsh to both he would have qualified for his own version of the cruel neutrality pledge: harsh neutrality.
"The Hildebeast continues to reveal herself as a corrupt lawyer using weasel words to justify illegal and/or incompetent acts."
The yearning maw of white male anxiety.
"She was a fool to open the door, and Trump walked right through it."
It's cool that Althouse seems to have meant this earnestly.
I wouldn't want to insult Althouse (except jokingly, as I did up thread), but wouldn't the real fool be HRC if she didn't take shots? What sort of fool would follow that rule because they believed doing so would cause DJT to limit himself. Only calling someone a fool in this situation seems too kind.
Duh.
Hillary may be able to lie her way into the job, but what then? Does anyone expect her to accomplish anything when no one trusts a thing she says? She is better off stroking out and letting Kaine takeover. At least it would be a fresh start.
I wonder how many Dumbo Democrats, soccer moms, and assorted low-information independents morons can have their minds changed at this point.
About 45% of the country is "I'd vote for Joe Stalin or Hitler if he had (D) after his name."
That doesn't give Trump much room to work with.
"Gk1 said...
Hillary may be able to lie her way into the job, but what then? Does anyone expect her to accomplish anything when no one trusts a thing she says? She is better off stroking out and letting Kaine takeover. At least it would be a fresh start."
Posts like these make me laugh. Hillary Clinton has one goal, to be the first POTUS with a vagina. Nothing else, including what's best for the country, matter. If she knew the day after the inauguration that she would stroke out, she would still go forward.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"She was a fool to open the door, and Trump walked right through it."
but wouldn't the real fool be HRC if she didn't take shots? What sort of fool would follow that rule because they believed doing so would cause DJT to limit himself.
This is a fair point.
Althouse said: Lauer was harder on Trump, interrupting and getting harsh with him.
Funny, but to listen to cable news throughout the day, the lib press is having hysterics about how mean Lauer was to Hillary and "soft" on Trump. The Professor certainly saw a different forum than the lib media but I'm glad she watched so that I did not need to.
Prof. It is going to be worse if Queen Hillary! is POTUS. There will continue to be questions about her health and her emails. FBI will be in bad shape. If you think Obama was treated bad, just wait for Queen Hillary! But, the Queen will fight by using the "Kiss-the-Pig" approach from Arkansas. They will wine and dine GOP. Some of them will get on Air Force One.
Of course Huma will be WH Special Assistant to POTUS and Deputy COS; Cheryl Mills will be COS or WH Counsel. Jake Sherman, the idiot who has no national security degree/experience, will serve as NS Advisor.
I love the Clinton scandals - think of Beth Doretz, Betty, Vernon, etc. Love the Clintons. The only people that will cash in are the media - more books, more articles, more shows, more everything.
This is the spin of the day: give up trying to make people believe she's honest. Instead demonstrate her corruption and dishonesty are relatively tame relative to what goes on in other countries. Hey, everybody does it!
Hillary is not as corrupt as foreign leaders.
I, too, was baffled that she couldn't keep her yapper shut about Trump. Talk about no discipline. And her cadence and rhythms were positively confusing and disturbing. Just a brick up there. It felt the entire time like her brain had a slow hard drive that couldn't spin up fast enough, read through her massive trove of data bits, assemble them and eject an answer her mouth could release an in a natural speech-y manner. Furthermore, while they both gabbled-gobbled and spewed nonsense, Trump got to sound firm and tough and unexpected on issues. HRC had to babble on defending herself and her behavior. I'm with Scott Adams. He crushed her.
That two brand new Big Lies were launched by Hillary was stunning.
First, we learned that after a year never metioning it, she used her secure server for the Classified messages she sent and received. That personal unsecured one was just for personal things.
Second, we learn that Trump also supported the Iraq War II from a 2002 businessman's maybe so response to a question from his friend Howard Stern made on an entertainment show, and one that he firmly reversed before the War.
Hillary was an empowered Senator voting for it.
Inexplicable.
Maybe hypnosis, or mass hysteria.
"Because Donald Trump won't stop lying, we've updated our 2004 story with an editor's note:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37230/donald-trump-esquire-cover-story-august-2004/"
Senility? Don't want to be ageist, just trying to make sense of this love affair with Trump.
Apparently Clinton's performance was bad enough that they hastily threw together her first (sorta) press conference in 278 days today. There's video of her peculiar exit from a vehicle on the tarmac where she held the presser. Two SS agents are standing by the door as though poised to open it for her (one guy has his hand on the handle), but nothing happens. Then the big black guy who we think is her medical aide gets out and goes around to the other side. There's a bunch of activity back there and finally she emerges from around back of the van with the aide on her heels. She seems okay from there, though. video
"First, we learned that after a year never metioning it, she used her secure server for the Classified messages she sent and received. That personal unsecured one was just for personal things."
Is this a joke? Even if you don't know about the sipper and nipper systems used by the State Department, did you really think HRC sent zero and received a total of three message with any classification markings (and those three were for internal subsections which were marked "C" for the lowest level of classification, i.e. confidential, and State says two of those three were mismarked because they were not classified at all) the whole time she was at State?
And, if DJT was against the war why would he say otherwise to Howard Stern? Also, can you provide a link to something where DJT went on the record as being against the war before it started, as you claim?
While your at it could you explain how DJT was fibbing in the situations listed at the link below?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
I, too, was baffled that she couldn't keep her yapper shut about Trump. Talk about no discipline.
I think she might be going off the rails. I mean, it was one thing to be beaten by the bright, new, shiny object that was Barack Obama, but Donald Trump? Can you imagine how she must feel faced with that possibility?!
The only one Trump crushed was himself. It wasn't odd how he claims he could read the body language of the CIA guys giving him his security briefing? Not odd that he would even speak or lie about what happened in his security briefing? Not a bit odd that he so loves and admires Putin? Not odd that he says the Generals are reduced to rubble? None of anything about Trump odd at all to you folks? How about his face and even eyes being so red that it looked like he could stroke out at any minute? You people are so conditioned to accept everything about him, so odd.
Both candidates acquitted themselves reasonably well. Trump clearly knows a lot less of the details than Clinton, but that is to be expected given her breadth of experience. Her issue is seeing over the details to strategy. She is better than Bush Jr, who didn't have a grasp of either the details or strategy, whether she is better than Trump is a harder call.
Trump has done so many bizarre things on a dail basis by now that nothing he does seems odd to his followers anymore, I've never seen so many people so mesmerized. It is truly amazing.
Living in the bay area I got heavy whiffs of outrage that Lauer didn't go after Trump enough. This morning I was in line getting coffee when i heard "and they brought up those stupid emails again". As if this was some annoyance. For the first time I saw terror in these people that Hillary wasn't a shoe in after all. God knows she can't make the case for electing her, she has to rely on the fact Trump is unacceptable.
Why didn't Lauer bring up the Bondi pay for play scandal?
Unknown,
Don't forget that DJT was impressed by the leadership of the Chinese gov as they crushed protestors.
And, Gorbachev's problem was weakness, unlike Putin.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432036/
What are the odds that the HRC campaign has a scheduled release plan for all this, and more, stuff?
PB&J,
He sure does love himself some despots and dictators, doesn't he? I suppose this isn't odd to his Merry Band of Mesmerized Masses either.
Hi ol' '55!
Woikin on them night moves?
You can sidle up to Mr. Balls soon.
You know... "I'm an asshole and you're an asshole, why can't we work as a team?"
Wendy's shift is about over.
Although tag-teaming with Peanut must be small beer to someone of your stature.
Kudos to Ann for watching this for us. I watched about 2 minutes and gave up when Hillary announced that, to paraphrase, "mistakes were made".
There is just nothing real about Hillary. Every answer has been previewed with a focus group and dutifully memorized (or piped in on an earpiece). She smiles, listens to the question and then launches on her prepared answer.
In contrast, Trump is raw and unfiltered. He is real and often outside the prepared script. His remarks shock us because we are used to politically correct rhetoric. We often reflect later that his views were correct.
"I finally got a chance to watch the whole Commander-in-Chief forum."
Better you than me, ma'am. Better you than me.
September 10, 2016: Do Not Repeat Yourself Day.
Is there anything new to say about Hillary?
Is there anything new to say about Trump?
Is there anything new to say about Obama?
I mean NEW: you haven't written a comment on your idea before.
If you have: pencils down on the Tenth.
Let the Tenth be Fresh Air.
I promise I won't write about peeing on women.
On the Eleventh: Let It Roll.
I am Laslo.
Seeing a little panic again from the Left here. What a difference a couple of weeks makes. And I would happily bet that it will still be six weeks before things solidify. A very different election year. Free Stuff will probably put Hillary over the top but, mein Gott, she's a disaster.
so, your old guys lied us into the war...now your new guy lies about what he said about the war then, and now vigorously argues how absolutely wrong and stupid the old guys were...
and I thought I would miss the quitta from wasilla freak show.
Is Lamar gonna set us straight, Laslo?
"She smiles..."
I thought Reince sent a tweet complaining that she didn't smile enough?
Unknown, if you're smart, you'll take your payment in cash, and get it before the election. Because after you may just learn a very hard lesson about those grifter Clintons.
I watched only a bit of the Trump segment and agree with Ann that Lauer seemed tough on Trump, debating him at length. I think it interesting that Hillary supporters saw it otherwise.
I watched only a few minutes.
I started stockpiling virgin material for the tenth. I think Laslo's going to like it.
OK, I can't wait:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/08/im-a-32-year-old-virgin-and-im-living-the-feminist-dream/
Cracker, I also see a lot of panic on the left lately which is kind of funny as they appear to realize for the first time what a deeply flawed candidate she is. Something which we have seen for years but is now suddenly revealed to them. I am not sure what took them so long. How is she going to defeat the existential threat that Donald represents? She wears diapers and has dizzy spells.
Hillary Clinton embodies the word "Corruption".
She is all corruption. Her every move is a selfish corrupt move and a lie to cover it up.
I don't think April will be able to chime in on the tenth.
Hoping to be surprised, though.
If Assange is to be believed, he's saved the best stuff for last. The previous release caused Debbie B.S. to resign. Kind of intriguing.
"Kind of intriguing."
Yeah, it's pretty cool to see that DJT is getting help from Assange and Putin.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"Kind of intriguing."
Yeah, it's pretty cool to see that DJT is getting help from Assange and Putin.
I've been curious about this for awhile now and haven't gotten any of the Hillary supporters to explain this to me.
What's the evidence Putin or Russia is behind the hacking and leaking of her emails? Instead of say, a pissed off bernie supporter?
eric,
Even the Speaker of the House sais so just today.
OTOH, he's probably a RINO, GOPe traitor to real conservatives (like DJT). We'll need to wait for Info Wars to figure this out before we know the truth.
There's video of her peculiar exit from a vehicle on the tarmac where she held the presser.
Relatively early on in the video, you can see through the windows what looks like Hillary standing outside the van on the other side. Then later you can see her feet on the ground before she walks around the back of the van. So it doesn't seem like it took her all that time to get out of the van, although who knows what they actually were doing back there?
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
eric,
Even the Speaker of the House sais so just today.
OTOH, he's probably a RINO, GOPe traitor to real conservatives (like DJT). We'll need to wait for Info Wars to figure this out before we know the truth.
So, the evidence that she was hacked by the Russians and the emails were leaked by the Russians is because the Paul Ryan says so?
mockturtle said...
Is Lamar gonna set us straight, Laslo?
--
I'm waiting for a pony tail on the treadmill perspective..a vagina on VAGINA! scenario.
Liberals never want to talk about the content of the leaks which was funny when Snowden was leaking things damaging to U.S interests. When it directly effected democrats, debbie wasserman etc. they had gone to far!
So the problem is that Russia hacked the E-mails and not that Hillary Clinton placed E-mails involving state secrets on an unsecured homebrew server?
What the fuck is wrong with the people making that bull shit argument?
eric,
I encourage you to not believe that it was the Russians. You know more about these things then that dope in Congress. What could possibly make him think he knows more than you?
Anywho, your inherent wisdom needs no stinkin' knowledge, that's for rubes. I'm sure that Putin would agree that you, like DJT, are shiny and colorful. Presumably you would then return the compliment by complimenting his leadership and popularity. OTOH, maybe you and DJT may stop returning the perceived compliment if y'all realized what Putin was actually saying, with the correct translation.
Btw, did you see the NRO Corner link I put further up this thread? It's cool how DJT talks about the Chinese oppressing protestors. If HRC wasn't such a dope she'd also share DJT's POV regarding the Chinese oppression.
Birkel said...
So the problem is that Russia hacked the E-mails and not that Hillary Clinton placed E-mails involving state secrets on an unsecured homebrew server?
What the fuck is wrong with the people making that bull shit argument?
-
Hey now..getting very close to "blaming the victim" ;)
Although..if they opened some yoga pics, who the true victim is gets blurry.
"Damn those Russians for exploiting our incompetent Secretary of State and preferred presidential candidate!!"
Great argument. Take that to the public.
Like I wrote earlier- if you want to know who really did better last night, always read the punditry on how the moderator/s did. The loser's acolytes always make a point to complain about the moderation and the unfairness their candidate suffered. Poor babies.
Most of the criticism came from the Left this morning. Matt Lauer probably reading this shit today couldn't believe it himself. He actually treated Clinton nicely by not doing true followup on her bald-faced lying, and mostly, he let her filibuster in that dreadful droning voice.
Trump is different kind of candidate- almost impossible to intimidate in an open forum. I was of the opinion a few weeks ago that he should try to get real input on who the moderators are rather than just letting the debate commission pick left-leaning journalists, but after last night, if Lauer is any indication of the strategy they plan to use, it benefits Trump to have them there. If I were Trump, the only moderator I would fear is Wallace.
Birk.
Check out the reality of what HRC put on her server, as I specified further up this thread.
Also, it's interesting to read the Powell email that just came out it was dated a couple days after HRC started at State. In the email, he tells her how to thread the needle to keep stuff off of the gov systems. It wasn't too long ago he was jabbering about a memo that came long after HRC started at State, so he said he couldn't have had any influence when she started. Maybe he thought the R's in Congress would never allow the D's to release this email. He must have known it existed.
(DWS Twitter silent since 8/30)
You are a liar, PBandJ.
Clinton had highly classified information on her homebrew server. She encouraged her staff to violate the air gap on secured systems. Clinton avoided laws, perjured herself and you are not fooling anybody with your lies.
Lie your fool head off, liar.
And today in PBandJ land, using Email on a private account is the same as setting up a homebrew, easily hacked server....only to complain the Russians hacked the private, unsecured, homebrew server.
"Clinton avoided laws"
What does it mean to avoid a law? Presumably this means breaking a law. Like I sometimes avoid the speed limit because I go faster than the speed limit.
Whatever she did, we know what happened where the rubber meets the road. As Comey made clear, she didn't do anything that justified an indictment.
Bluster as much as you want. Maybe it's cathartic.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
eric,
I encourage you to not believe that it was the Russians. You know more about these things then that dope in Congress. What could possibly make him think he knows more than you?
I was just hoping someone, for once, who made the claim would provide some supporting evidence for their claim.
Ah well.
Birkel,
I don't know what you know about private sector private email vs private server private email. But, I know that thinking a gmail or AOL email account is a wise way to send things that need to be secure is 100% wrong. I've seen this talking point before, and it's really odd. Everybody knows that it's foolish to think AOL, gmail and the like are safe for sensitive information. Don't they?
PBandJ:
Feel free to masturbate furiously that the rule of law is flouted. Nobody here will judge your psycho-sexual attraction to corruption.
Those of us who prefer a country bound by the rule of law understand that you cheer the coming chaos.
"breaking a law. Like I sometimes avoid the speed limit because I go faster than the speed limit."
Or wipe..like with a cloth.
I bet you don't apply the speeding analogy to voter fraud...
"I was just hoping someone, for once, who made the claim would provide some supporting evidence for their claim."
If only someone, say someone right Behind Biden for the POTUS slot, who is a position to know this sort of intelligence could share some insight w/ us normal folks. It'd really be great if this person could also be an R, to take out the question of partisanship. If only.
The reason for the homebrew server is to avoid detection and record retention. Email services would have a record, you irredeemable liar, so Hillary avoided them to avoid subpoenas. There is no other reason yet conceived for her actions, otherwise.
You are trying to argue all sides against the truth. You fail because you are lying, you pissant prevaricator.
"he was very good."
Only if you ignore what he actually said.
She did what her predecessor did, only different. The difference was a private server.
It was the Russians, and not the idiotic, security-free setup.
She broke no laws (for which she will prosecuted) but you may not question why she took the elaborate and unsecured steps, the only logical reason for which she conceived her actions were to commit violations of the law.
Lie your dumb ass off, PBandJ.
...Will be...
...was to...
Ugh
"Whatever she did, we know what happened where the rubber meets the road. As Comey made clear, she didn't do anything that justified an indictment."
He made it quite clear that what she did was in fact indictable, saying that if anyone other than a massively corrupt Democrat presidential candidate under the protection of a massively corrupt Democrat administration did these things, they would likely be prosecuted.
Your panic is immoderate. Hillary will likely win and do immense damage to the country in the process. The silver lining is that she'll do immense damage to the Democrat Party as well.
"so Hillary avoided them to avoid subpoenas."
I'd love to hear how she used the email server in her basement/bathroom/whoKnowsWhere to plot conspiracies, and who it was that she was email her plot planning to?
I'll start, just to get the juices flowing: Maybe she emailed Goldman Sachs folks to tell them she'll be their servant if the give her hundreds of thousands of dough. This is fun, how about: She emailed Anthony jilted lover comments because she wanted Huma all to herself. How about: she emailed the Saudis to tell them that she's becoming a Muslim, just like BHO. Here's one: she emailed Dupre to setup meetings w/ Bill.
Okay, your turn.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"I was just hoping someone, for once, who made the claim would provide some supporting evidence for their claim."
If only someone, say someone right Behind Biden for the POTUS slot, who is a position to know this sort of intelligence could share some insight w/ us normal folks. It'd really be great if this person could also be an R, to take out the question of partisanship. If only.
Looks like your argument is, "Hey, there is evidence, it's just secret. We have to trust our politicians."
I could actually buy that argument. Is that what Paul Ryan is saying?
Who did he say this to? Do you have a link?
eric,
"Let me say this about Vladimir Putin: Vladimir Putin is an aggressor that does not share our interests," the House speaker said. "Vladimir Putin is violating the sovereignty of neighboring countries."
"It certainly appears that he is conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks on our political system," he continued, referencing recent hacks on the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic organizations in the US. "That is not acting in our interests. That is an adversarial stance, and he is acting like an adversary."
http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-2016-9
Maybe she sent her doctor threatening letters to keep him quiet about her impending death due to massive ill health.
"Maybe she sent her doctor threatening letters to keep him quiet about her impending death due to massive ill health."
Come on Birkel, you should be able to run w/ this. It's fun. Obviously these were what HRC was doing w/ the server in her bathroom (or wherever). It makes so much sense. You broke the code. Pure genius.
I've got one: She used the secret server to email the stand down order to Libya.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
eric,
"Let me say this about Vladimir Putin: Vladimir Putin is an aggressor that does not share our interests," the House speaker said. "Vladimir Putin is violating the sovereignty of neighboring countries."
"It certainly appears that he is conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks on our political system," he continued, referencing recent hacks on the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic organizations in the US. "That is not acting in our interests. That is an adversarial stance, and he is acting like an adversary."
That's disappointing. I actually thought you had something there for a minute. But his statement could mean anything. It could mean, "I've seen secret intelligence which shows Russia is hacking our computers and influencing our election." or it could mean, "I watch the news and believe what they tell say."
Bah.
Guess I'll just have to assume there isn't any evidence.
Eric,
Good call, I'm sure that the dude gets his intel from the news. After all, this is the Trump era, so "the shows" are the go to for...er...intelligence. You, like Birkel, are pure genius.
Maybe she sent poison pen emails to Monica Lewinski.
6:19 "About 45% of the country is "I'd vote for Joe Stalin or Hitler if he had (D) after his name.""
And half of that almost half is saying, "Hillary has a twat. I have a twat. THEREFORE I must vote for Hillary."
Repeal the 119th Amendment!!!
Good call, I'm sure that the dude gets his intel from the news.
Of course not. That's Obama's gig.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Eric,
Good call, I'm sure that the dude gets his intel from the news
I watched the video that comes at the link you gave. He didn't say anything about receiving intelligence. Do you have another link?
You're not giving me much to work with here but assumptions. You're assuming Paul Ryan is speaking from a position of having received intelligence briefings on the subject that we aren't privy to. He didn't get that specific though, and, just some advice, you gotta be careful about assuming with politicians. They are weasels with words.
Is this all you've got as far as evidence that Russia was behind the attacks? An assumption that Paul Ryan has received intelligence briefings on it and you based on this assumption, you trust the conclusion he has reached?
It's fine if that's all you got. I was just hoping for more.
I did not know that the office of the Sec. of State was to be described as "the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic organizations in the US."
Party uber alles for the big [D].
'''"those stupid emails..."
The last people I would expect to remember phrases like "loose lips sink ships" are San Francisco hipsters.
But can't they understand that hacking SecState emails could result in our foreign spies and helpful contacts being uncovered, and perhaps killed?
Don't they remember Penkovsky? Or Philip Agee, a CIA officer who defected to Cuba and wrote a memoir identifying 250 CIA officers, destroying their cover and careers?
Isn't the STINK the left made about non--secret agent Valerie Plame being "outed" versus their insouciance over possible revelation of foreign agents via hacking of emails very.....convenient???
Re: PBandJ:
Also, it's interesting to read the Powell email that just came out it was dated a couple days after HRC started at State.
Could you give a link, please? Thanks.
"It's fine if that's all you got. I was just hoping for more."
That's it. You are very wise to not believe that the Russians are behind this hacking. Pure genius.
"Of course not. That's Obama's gig."
You didn't pick up on my hint. It's actually DJT who has proudly admitted that he learned about foreign policy by watching "the shows." Maybe he slept at a Holiday Inn, too.
Speaking of voters who don't seem to know much: Today, Hot Air showed some polling internals with fav/unfav numbers for Gary in North Carolina. Voters who didn't know him were 37%. Such a high percent, sounds bad, right? Well, then I added the fav and unfav numbers, the total was 30.4%. Can we assume anything other than the missing 32.6% don't know Gary, but don't want to admit it? Unless I'm screwing something up, it looks like almost 70% of the voters don't know who Gary is. What else don't they know?
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/08/poll-trump-biggest-lead-north-carolina-month/
Bal,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3780595/Colin-Powell-Using-private-email-private-phone-call.html
Trump now giving interviews on Russian owned TV.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/08/trump-attacks-u-s-foreign-policy-political-press-corps-in-state-owned-russian-television-network/
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized U.S. foreign policy and the American political press corps Thursday during an interview on RT America, a state-owned Russian television network.
" It's actually DJT who has proudly admitted that he learned about foreign policy by watching "the shows."
And Hil' obviously watched slack-jawed Bill.
To wit, promising to never put boots on the ground again in Iraq..a la Billy re Bosnia.
Hey..show those cards. Good thinkin'
Trump now giving interviews on Russian owned TV.
This makes it sound like he went to Russia and started giving interviews. Or maybe he went into a Russian owned TV station and gave an interview attacking the United States with the Russians.
Instead, all he did was give an interview to Larry King, a US Citizen, in the United States.
It's the same thing as if Larry King still had his own television show and Russian television aired it.
Of course, it's from the Washington Post, so we can expect misleading headlines and for Clinton followers to be duped.
You didn't pick up on my hint.
I did, and the fact that Trump is so proudly ignorant is worrisome, since he's still the least-bad option in this year's election. But your appropriate mockery of Trump applies equally to Obama, who regularly discovered partisan misbehavior when watching or reading the news.
Blogger Unknown said...
Trump now giving interviews on Russian owned TV.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/08/trump-attacks-u-s-foreign-policy-political-press-corps-in-state-owned-russian-television-network/
By the way, this is a lie. It's not Russian owned TV. It's actually Ora TV, owned by a Mexican named Carlos Slim (What a name!).
RT just purchases the license to replay the show.
Here is a wikipedia article on Ora TV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ora_TV
An interesting tidbit from the article:
On June 30, 2015, Ora TV severed ties with American real estate tycoon Donald Trump. Arturo Elías Ayub, Slim’s son-in-law and chairman of Ora TV, called his remarks about undocumented immigrants racist and an insult.[8]
And yet he's still willing to do interviews with them.
In the future, I wouldn't trust anything you read from the Washington Post. They have it in for Trump and think they are justified in telling outright lies.
Eric,
Trump..the evil capitalist, is also the Red Scare!
Maybe we need a..I don't know..
A "reset"?
Here is Larry King in 2014;
“I don’t work for RT,” said the 81-year-old King, whose podcasts, Larry King Now and Politicking, are licensed for a fee to RT America by New York-based Ora TV, in which King has an equity stake. “It’s a deal made between the companies…They just license our shows.”
Unknown said...Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized U.S. foreign policy and the American political press corps Thursday during an interview...
9/8/16, 11:43 PM
How scandalous! A presidential candidate criticizing the foreign policy of the opposition party in power- That has literally never happened before!! Why can't Trump follow the example of Hillary and Obama and Kerry who held their golden tongues when it came to criticism of George W Bush's foreign policy... And to heap contempt on the American political press corp, AKA the Journolist- And so soon after they so graciously declared that historical journalistic ethics no longer applied to coverage of his candidacy! What kind of monster is this Trump?
Althouse remains my favourite innertubes humor site.
Did Lauer mention the similarities between Obama's cash for hostages deal with Iran and Reagan's arms for hostages deal with Iran?
No?
Do we still have a congress?
In other news, the North Koreans detonated a nuclear device. I love the Age of Obama. It's so peaceful here.
@PB&J - there is a difference between threading around a law, and breaking it. Between tax avasion/avoidance and tax evasion. Crooked Hillary brazenly broke at least two sets of laws with her private email server used for work related emails while she was Sec of State. She broke the Espionage Act while allowing work related emails containing classified information to be received on her private, insecure, server. And, yes, she also sent some of it from her server too. Also, for sending and receiving classified information on her 13 lost Blackberrys (and for losing all of the Blackberrys). It doesn't matter that most of the email containing classified material weren't marked as such, that many of them hadn't been classified yet, or had had the classified markings removed, or that the email didn't have classified markings (her latest modified position). All that means is that her minions also violated the Espionage Act, and that she, as their supervisor, and responsible for all of the classified information in the State Department, didn't have them arrested - which probably constitute additional violations. She signed an NDA upon taking office acknowledging all this, and was supposed to have signed one every year after that. And, she, through her lawyers also probably violated that law by printing out classified documents before turning them over to the govt in response to court orders, by deleting them from her private server, esp the ones containing classified information that were deleted instead of being turned over. And by mailing, and losing, a computer containing her email archive, and for moving her email (again containing classified information) to Google's Gmail when moving from an Apple to a Microsoft Exchange email server.
She also violated the Official Records Act. She violated it by storing work related email on her private server. She also probably violated it when those Blackberrys were lost, as well as the computer containing her email PST file. And when her people deleted all of her emails from her server after some of her work related emails had been printed out by her attorneys. Her excuse that others in the State Dept would have them retained isn't viable, since she had a personal obligation to retain all work related emails herself. Making this worse, she provided email accounts to some of her closest minions, and those communications were not archived by the State Dept, since they never touched State Dept computers. Moreover, as the boss there in the State Dept, some of the emails she received as a BCC (Blank Carbon Copy) recipient. By design, the other recipients of such emails would typically not realize that she had been copied (which is one reason that all copies of emails are typically requested during document production in discovery in court).
Her excuse that Colin Powell told her to do it that way is similarly unavailing. First, he wasn't her lawyer. Indeed, he isn't a lawyer at all, rather she is (or at least was). As a trained lawyer, she had a duty to read and understand the laws and regulations that she would be operating under as Secretary of State. And she acknowledged in that NDA that she did understand at least the Espionage Act aspects. Secondly, Powell was talking about private emails, not work related emails (that are owned by the federal govt). He essentially told her to keep her private emails out of her govt provided email account. He never told her, or even suggested, to keep her work related emails on her private server. After his long military career, much of it dealing with classified information, followed by four years as Sec of State, he was apparently horrified that she would even have considered that he meant storing classified information oh her private server. Oh, and he gave her the advise the year after she set up her private server.
One of the arguments I have seen from Crooked Hillary surrogates and minions is that she was an innocent bystander, and all of her State Dept employees were the criminals by emailing her classified material to her account on her private server. This too doesn't work either. First, and foremost, as the person in charge of all classified information in the State Dept, she probably had a legal obligation to turn them all over to the FBI for investigation for violating the Espionage Act. Her failure to adequately oversee the classified information in her department Is likely a major reason the Dept got so lax in that regard. It is called leading from the top. And, note, the standard under the Espionage Act is gross negligence. Actual specific intent is not required. Her management in this area was arguably grossly negligent.
Also, the law tries to make sure that those peripherally involved in a crime are held accountable. There is inevitably accomplice liability for most misdemeanors and felonies. Someone ordering a murder can be tried as if they were the one actually committing it. Implicit in her job function as Sec of State is that her State Dept employees would keep her up to speed on what is going on around the world. Much of that information is classified. In today's 24/7 environment, this means that the Sec of State will get email or faxes from her employees around the clock. She essentially put the employees of her dept in the position of having to violate the Espionage Act in order to perform their job function of keeping her up to date about US foreign relations.
That assumes that they all knew that she was using her illegal, private, insecure email server. But many of them may not have. Instead, all they saw was just her name and/or title on an email. If she is on an email chain, and someone replied to her, or to everyone, they very well might not have known that she wasn't using a secure govt provided email account. Or, if they got her name and address from a centralized address book or database.
Oh, and one of the humorous parts of this whole thing is that the person at the very center of the email scandal, besides Crooked Hillary herself, was her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. The funny part is how this women has been able to jump back and forth between being her chief of staff and her attorney. So, we see the team there using attorney/client privilege to protect their communications when Mills was Clintons's chief of staff. Usually, that would be laughed out of court, but it was with the FBI, so they got away with it.
Re: PBandJ:
Thanks. It's frustrating that they don't provide a copy of the email either, but they're only journalists, I suppose. The excerpt about not passing through State Dept. servers is certainly highly problematic on its face.
Bruce.
Your wasting good thread space.
They're true believers.
Like the,
"If Stalin only knew"
crowd.
Why would anyone vote for Trump?
They say.
Because they like what this country has become.
Well, Comey has a habit of ignoring any problems with Colin Powell.
There is no Powell Family Global Initiative, Inc.
Exactly. There was no where for foreign entities to pay if they wanted Powell to play.
"Your wasting good thread space."
In more ways they the one you're suggesting, i.e. doesn't it seem like he could get to the same place w/o so much verbiage.
Anywho, he may just be cutting and pasting. If so, he'll need to update for the newly revealed Powell email before the next paste job.
P.S. Is a blank carbon copy a special HRC evil version of a blind carbon copy?
P.P.S. If he's updating before the next paste job, maybe the new version could be written w/o all the speculation, i.e. less "probably" and "likely" wiggle words. Just the facts.
I dont think I can vote for what I perceive to be the character, experience and temperament of Donald Trump. He's like a Macy's parade balloon version of himself. I've yet to hear much anything of value when it comes to policy from such a blustery, arrogant, self-promoting man.
Hilary Clinton's true character is there to see: She lies to get ahead, and would probably sell most anything to become more politically powerful, living by different laws and rules than the rest of us. Her experience is in constantly trading-up and her temperament essentially that of a grifter constantly scripting her next position.
I don't know if I can participate in the national election, and will stick with local stuff. Not a great moment for our Republic.
I realize this is a position I've taken, and am tired of people flinging shit my way, busy eating one side of this shit sandwich.
"In more ways they the one you're suggesting, i.e. doesn't it seem like he could get to the same place w/o so much verbiage."
His responses are more subtle and nuanced than yours.
Q-is it the crime or the cover-up that matters most?
A- Neither matters when it's the Clintoness.
Rule of law- so last century!
There was a front page story in our local paper this morning the theme of which was that Hillary is treated unfairly by the press compared to Trump. Freakin-A.
First, we learned that after a year never metioning it, she used her secure server for the Classified messages she sent and received. That personal unsecured one was just for personal things.
She said that?
Makes one wonder why she went through the trouble of setting up a private secured server when the government always had one. She SAID she set it up for convenience and so she only had to use one (or, to be more honest, 13) device.
I'm assuming few in the press are going to ask why she contradicted her entire explanation for her server.
Is this a joke? Even if you don't know about the sipper and nipper systems used by the State Department, did you really think HRC sent zero and received a total of three message with any classification markings (and those three were for internal subsections which were marked "C" for the lowest level of classification, i.e. confidential, and State says two of those three were mismarked because they were not classified at all) the whole time she was at State?
That is what STATE said she did. Nobody here is making an accusation....simply repeating the actual official explanation from the State Dept.
What's the evidence Putin or Russia is behind the hacking and leaking of her emails? Instead of say, a pissed off bernie supporter?
Their evidence is that Hillary's people say so. And lord knows they are paragons of virtue.
So the problem is that Russia hacked the E-mails and not that Hillary Clinton placed E-mails involving state secrets on an unsecured homebrew server?
What the fuck is wrong with the people making that bull shit argument?
I don't get it either. Hackers hacking personal emails is deplorable, but it's not a national security thing. The problem is that SHE had a private email server when she had no business having one.
Check out the reality of what HRC put on her server, as I specified further up this thread.
Her critics cite the FBI report of what she had. Your only evidence of what she had is...her, who has lied about every part of the issue from the moment it started.
I don't know what you know about private sector private email vs private server private email. But, I know that thinking a gmail or AOL email account is a wise way to send things that need to be secure is 100% wrong. I've seen this talking point before, and it's really odd. Everybody knows that it's foolish to think AOL, gmail and the like are safe for sensitive information. Don't they?
You shouldn't be sending classified email in non-government servers period.
But she did so.
So, we now have to deal with the best of bad and illegal options. And an email server where she cannot have her people defy a subpoena and erase evidence is vastly preferable to one where she can have her people defy a subpoena and erase evidence.
Because they did erase email off the server after the subpoena was issued for the information. Once it is issued, you don't get to pick and choose what you submit.
This makes it sound like he went to Russia and started giving interviews. Or maybe he went into a Russian owned TV station and gave an interview attacking the United States with the Russians.
Instead, all he did was give an interview to Larry King, a US Citizen, in the United States.
Eric, it's clear. The Dems need a hero.
They NEED...Joe McCarthy.
By the way, this is a lie. It's not Russian owned TV. It's actually Ora TV, owned by a Mexican named Carlos Slim (What a name!).
Whoa! The guy who is the biggest shareholder of the NYT is in bed with Russia?
OMG!!!!
Well, Comey has a habit of ignoring any problems with Colin Powell.
He tends to give Democrats benefit of the doubt a lot.
Blogger Mutaman said...
"The Hildebeast continues to reveal herself as a corrupt lawyer using weasel words to justify illegal and/or incompetent acts."
The yearning maw of white male anxiety.
You better hope that white men stick to anxiety and do not decide to kick rainbow ass.
Her first answer to the Navy officer, which starts condescendingly with "You know and I know..." implies she and hundreds of others used the classified system for classified emails. That is a lie. She did not have a State.gov email account, so she could not have been on the classified system. That is why her staff had to rip stuff off of it (itself a crime) and put it "unmarked" or "nonpaper" into non-class emails to send to her non-secure home server.
Did she do the removal from classified system? No. Were her staff who were working directly for her doing it with her knowledge? Yes. Is she responsible for their misdeeds? Yes, since her private email setup required it. Will these same staff be able to receive security clearances for their White House jobs? Yes. Would anyone else? No.
Finally, the whole concern about keeping personal email separate is ridiculous. Nobody is looking for Hillary's yoga routines. For Hillary, "personal" emails are Clinton Foundation related.
Many Americans have gotten accustomed to living off the grain in the storehouse. The grain is likely much less at the moment, and the least best among us are predictably scrambling to take charge.
Grain takes seasons, planning, and hard labor.
Finally, the whole concern about keeping personal email separate is ridiculous. Nobody is looking for Hillary's yoga routines. For Hillary, "personal" emails are Clinton Foundation related.
Let's be honest --- Hillary doesn't do yoga or any form of physical exercise whatsoever.
There was a front page story in our local paper this morning the theme of which was that Hillary is treated unfairly by the press compared to Trump
I have seen many statements to the effect that Trump is all over the newspaper -- because he is interesting, out there, in front of cameras, doing things -- but Hillary is not. If this is 'treated unfairly' it's only because Hillary's campaign has made it a reality that she is unavailable unless you are very rich and you live on the east or west coast and have an open checkbook.
"Her critics cite the FBI report of what she had. Your only evidence of what she had is...her, who has lied about every part of the issue from the moment it started."
As in this thread, I'm actually an outlier because I'm literally stating the specific results from the FBI report regarding who sent and received what particular emails. Others, like you, just make vague statements w/o the specific email findings as determined by the FBI investigation. It's not hard to get the actual FBI data, I don't know why folks don't reference it.
Some of y'all have latched on to the number 13, as in the 13 devices that HRC used while she was at State and during the period of time not too far removed from her being at State. Presumably Bruce may speculate that HRC was using these burners to sell out America to evil doers.
"She did not have a State.gov email "
What is wrong w/ you folks? How can y'all who claim to care about secure messages not understand that government doesn't use .gov for classified stuff? That's on the so called sipper and nipper systems.
Sheesh.
PBJ - If you support HIllary you support a liar. A corrupt liar. It's that simple.
How pathetic for you.
Hillary went to a lot of trouble to delete all those yoga routines.
btw- no way HIllary does yoga. She's too fat and uncoordinated.
April,
Thanks for the tip. That insight is a clear winner 364 days a year. But, don't forget that Laslo said we can't use the boiler plate stuff on the tenth. I hopeful you'll be able to come up w/ something new. Hope.
PB& J - the fact that you cheer a criminal and a liar, says a a lot about how pathetic you are.
@ Lori
Her first answer to the Navy officer, which starts condescendingly with "You know and I know..."
She is such a disgusting controlling manipulative sociopath.
I have no illusions about this pathetic race to the bottom. I know Trump is in this thing to hand it to her. Her cheat machine is in full swing, and her corrupt media and leftwing dictator hollywood Soros nexus of ultra-interconnected wealth and insider greed will drag her old liar carcass across the finish line.
Hooray for corruption, PB& J.
Speaking of FLOTUS fitness, is this the Michelle pic on the new InStyle mag big-time photoshoped?
http://www.instyle.com/reviews-coverage/michelle-obama-style-social-media
For an old gal, she seems to be holding it together.
April, your Manichean view of the world - all good on one side all bad on the other - is the product of a sick mind. Seriously, you should seek help.
You don't need proof to know there is a problem, so why do we buy the Clinton campaign's smoking gun standard?
ARM - Wrong. It's Clinton Crime world specific. Try to keep up.
ARM - If that were true, I'd be a Trump cheer leader. Do you see evidence of that?
What I do notice, is that loyal democrats such as yourself, continue to self-delude about her corruption and lies. Why? - Team player.
None of anything about Trump odd at all to you folks?
Well, yes, now you ask. I’ve noticed that, unlike Hillary, Trump does not owe his ass to the highest donor. That’s very odd for a politician. Most of them are in the back pocket of their large donors. How else are they going to get re-elected, eh?
You see, Trump’s wealthy yet never served a day in office. He gained his wealth through a real estate empire, through business. That’s also very odd. Wealthy politicians usually get their wealth through their office. Insider trading is legal for members of Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from laws that put the rest of us in jail. And get wealthy by doing so.
So yes, the above examples are a couple of things about Trump that are very odd.
PB&J,
There is a difference between a private business paying protection money and a government employee extorting it.
For AprilApple's 8:02 : [slow clap]
He chose to go second?
Smart move to let Clinton have the opportunity to not break the rule first.
I know about the systems. You access them with an approved .gov or.mil account. She didn't have access with her hackmyclintonemail.com account.
honesty is a virtue democrats have evolved an ability to live without, both in themselves and their politicians.
"I wouldn't want to insult Althouse (except jokingly, as I did up thread), but wouldn't the real fool be HRC if she didn't take shots?"
-- We actually saw in the Republican primary that Trump tended to focus his fire on people who picked fights with him. So, maybe Trump would have broken the rule too. But, all that matters is that Clinton and he agreed to it, and she broke it first.
Sidenote: This is why Republicans always grumble about "picking a fighter." Republican candidates routinely handicap themselves by sticking to these sorts of agreements that the left breaks routinely.
Take McCain. McCain, despite the Obama campaign insulting him over his physical handicap and welching on their agreement to public financing, stuck to his promise and spent his limited money running an ad to congratulate Obama. McCain was given zero credit for playing nice. Romney, likewise, handicapped himself against Obama by taking certain things off the table, despite Obama's campaign claiming that Romney killed people with cancer.
"What is wrong w/ you folks? How can y'all who claim to care about secure messages not understand that government doesn't use .gov for classified stuff? That's on the so called sipper and nipper systems."
-- They do have separate systems. That's common knowledge.
What's also common knowledge is that moving from SIPR to NIPR is ... well, deliberately moving information from one to another is so bad people have gone to jail for it and lost their jobs. Doing it accidentally is enough to get you to lose your clearance in a lot of places.
Clinton's server is probably the biggest case of secret/classified spillage in decades. That alone should be incredibly worrisome. Especially since they deleted lots of things that State and the FBI never had a chance to check, so we don't even know everything that may have been spilled/hacked.
I heard audio of some of Hillary's speech at Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte yesterday. She seemed coherent and enthusiastic, if not inspiring. With a friendly crowd, I would say she was clearly better than "robotic."
One thing made me check the video. http://abc11.com/politics/clinton-visits-north-carolina-for-rally-fundraiser/1502917/
She's speaking about student aid (partly ideas borrowed from Bernie, but that's life; help for the middle class more than for the poor, but that's modern life). She'll increase student aid, help students pay off debt, "help people like you go to college," and set up a $25b fund specifically for historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).
"We need a lot of opportunity for young people from everywhere. It shouldn't matter what you look like, where you're from, or who you love, you deserve to be in college if that is your choice."
"Who you love"? Where did that come from? It's true she's about to segue into an attack on North Carolina's HB2, the so-called bathroom legislation. Because the bill removes some legal protections from (or fails to provide up-to-date protections to) gays and transgender people, and some institutions will probably have to follow this law, the federal Justice Department has warned that the law may trigger cuts in federal funding, especially for education. But: JCSU is a private school, it can ramp up anti-discrimination measures on campus if it wants to; it is hard to see how it would be affected by funding cuts.
Sounds a bit like Hillary had speaking points ready to cut and paste, and she kept on pasting when she got to "who you love," even though it didn't fit.
Blogger Moneyrunner said...In other news, the North Koreans detonated a nuclear device.
--
No worries. Obama has said that will lead to more pressure and isolation. Take that!
But really, relations with the hair mandate man have gone downhill since ambassador Rodman doesn't hang with him anymore. Send Rodman with pallets of Johnnie Walker and Yves Saint Lawrence cigs. Things will take care of themselves.
Bruce
Your post was informative. You don't have to think just of persuading Dem trolls for their own good but also of refuting them for others.
Laszlo
I like the idea of a Hillary free day. Cold Turkey. One hour at a time. YES WE CAN!!!
PS. Is a day over at midnight or do you mean sunrise to sunset? I mean, you did say Hillary free day, not Hillary-free 24 hours. And then sunrise to sunset in what latitude? at what season?
PPS Why are my hands trembling?
PPS Is speaking of Donald Trump, Hillary-free speaking? e.g. compared to his fat, ugly opponent who is copying his hair, Donald Trump ... etc.
PPPS Is posting random insults on other sites cheating?
PPPPS Have we banned unattractive Hillary stand-ins - Wiener, Huma, Chelsea, Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
PPPPPS How do we draw for the grand prize for chances passed up?
Lauer was harder on Trump, interrupting and getting harsh with him.
Wouldn't you know it. The NYT says the opposite.
You partisans are all the same.
I think Trump nailed that, if you want to know the truth. Granted, he didn't have her voting and cabinet responsibilities to make mistakes requiring an accounting for. But he was strong, prepared, and nimble in his responses. Unfortunately, Clinton just has too much to have to go back and convince voters on lessons learned from - as he said - her "happy trigger." I like the fact that she listened well and accepted the gravity of what she's done and would be asked to do. But accounting for all that within the same 20 minutes in which she was required to also respond forcefully just required more of a candidate than they should have been gone through. Like it or not, a CIC has to seem a bit cocky. The best generals I heard are actually lazy and headstrong. To pull that off, Clinton would have needed some wit, style and panache to go with that grace. But she has too much to think about. Trump is a natural in this setting.
If Hillary had the leeway to have said something like, "Oh yeah?" that might have worked. Trump was like, "Hey, Matt..." It was informal, personal, and let you know he plays it close to the vest in a one-on-one. Hillary's gestures and expressions didn't convey the intimacy and warmth that lets you know you can trust them when it comes to doing violence on your behalf.
Yeah, HIllary messed that one up big time. But I really don't think there was much she could have done. I reiterate my contention that a CIC should seem cocky and intimate enough the be trusted with doing your violence. But there's no way she could pull that off with so much to be defensively called to account for: Iraq and Libya, for starters. That's the balance. Cocky and intimate (if she had the humor for effective sarcasm, that would have worked. But she doesn't) - but those attributes stop working when you know you fucked up. Besides, was she cocky to go into Iraq? No, she was being politically cautious and just going along to get along. And with Libya was she cocky? Hell yes, but in all the wrong ways. As single-minded as she is in her ambition, it seems she just lacks a sense of how to focus when it comes to the military. All over the map, and not in a good way.
Hillary's gestures and expressions didn't convey the intimacy and warmth that lets you know you can trust them when it comes to doing violence on your behalf.
R&B, good post. I don't think Hillary would know 'warmth and intimacy' if she stumbled over them in broad daylight.
IKR? I mean, if we learned anything from The Sopranos it's that we can totally trust a sociopath, as long as he's got a cute and cuddly side. Trump, like Tony, might remorselessly strangle an intruder and we'd totally be ok with it. Hillary would be too busy trying to figure out whom you'd approve of her strangling. And that builds the kind of distrust that makes you want to strangle someone.
Hillary would jump up and down and go, "I strangled someone! I did it!"
Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work. You need guile to lead the military. It's the one job responsibility where we actually prefer a devious killer. And you can't get away with deviously killing unless you can seduce. We need someone who can set a trap, lure the enemy and reel them in before pouncing.
Hillary couldn't seduce a skunk.
Hillary couldn't seduce a skunk.
It appears that she did.
Why is it being called an overdose? They didn't kill themselves. Maybe this was the desired effect?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा