Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #100146

Re: OT: "Every American"...

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/9/17, 4:09 PM, in article o7isnp$unj$7@dont-email.me, "FPP"
<fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> the fbi is not immune to corruption and comey has also lied under oath.
>>> 
>>> i watched him testify before congress for the apple-doj/fbi and the
>>> clinton debacle. within minutes, he lied in both, under oath and in
>>> front of congress.
>> 
>> Then show where he lied.
> 
> Still waiting...

You keep posting that phrase as you discount ALL the content of Comey's
testimony AND all of the following content about Clinton. Interesting.


Just a small sampling of where Clinton has been deceptive or lied.

* Her emails: she repeatedly claims she merely did what others have done but
has yet to name even one other who had a private email server installed in
their house. NO examples of someone truly doing as she did. She could argue
that this allowed her to make the email more private and try to turn it into
a positive, but her dishonesty on this at least makes it seem she has
something to hide - perhaps emails that should be public that she does not
want others to see. She also committed perjury and said she released all
emails when she had not (and later admitted to) and of the deleted emails
she said many went to her husband who publicly says he does not use email!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/14/state-dept-cites-gaps-hillar
y-clinton-email-record/?page=all
https://youtu.be/T0Xtv1QMzy0
https://youtu.be/jzA-NEmAQaQ?t=8m40s

* Her speeches: She refuses to release them. Why not? She gives the
impression that either the speeches have info in them that she does not want
out or that they are mundane enough to make it so the payments for them were
payoffs. Either way she looks bad. She again refuses to be open. Oh, and she
lies about them time and time again:
https://www.facebook.com/itstheGADFLY/videos/1141125379240531/

* She argues against the fact that she is the establishment candidate. She
is - if there was any question the super delegate (establishment) votes
prove it. Instead of being honest and speaking about how this can be an
advantage she lies and denies. Why not instead speak about how she and
Sanders want many of there same things but as the establishment candidate
she has more connections and more influence and will be able to get more
done. She COULD be (mostly) honest and point out the benefits (showing the
good side is what we all do in an interview... I get that).

* She claims to not want to speak of the 1990s, whining often when Sanders
brings the time up. She, however, repeatedly brings up the 1990s. This
happens time and time again in the debates. More than that, when you run for
president it is completely predictable that your past record will be asked
about... to complain about people doing so is immature and silly. She at
least comes across as having something to hide and deflecting.
 
* She feels the need to repeatedly twist Sanders' record. The Washington
Post goes into some detail here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/5-times-hillary-cl
inton-has-played-fast-and-loose-with-the-facts-on-bernie-sanderss-record.
She makes things up about or twists Sanders' record on immigration, the auto
bailout, the Minutemen, the Koch brothers, his work with bank regulation,
and more. At the very least this indicates she is afraid of his growing
popularity and is playing dirty to try to win the candidacy. She shows she
does not think she can stand on her own record.

* Her answer about fracking was wordy and never really answered the question
(a common theme with her, really). Mother Jones has an article about a
likely reason why: 
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shal
e-state-department-chevron If she thinks fracking should be used why does
she not just say she is for it (and then can add that she wants to make sure
it is well regulated). Why the deception and double talk from her?

* Her comments on immigration were anything but clear, too. More on that
from the New York Post:
http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-i
s-talking-about/ She repeatedly talks in circles and does not give clear
answers.

* Her comments about health care. When Sanders speaks of healthcare for all
she says it would cost too much... but then in the next moment she says she
wants to expand ObamaCare so that it covers healthcare for all (not just
90%). She cannot just give a clear answer.

* Lying about not knowing where Sanders was as she pushed for better health
care. 
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272790-sanders-spokes
person-fires-back-at-clinton-for-healthcare

* On her own voting record she is just as unclear. The Onion had fun with
this fact with this article:
http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-throws-flash-grenade-divert-attentio
n-ques-52499 Clearly that is satire, but the point it makes is serious - she
repeatedly gives non-answers to questions.

* Repeatedly it seems like after breaks she has stronger answers to
questions. I (and others) have hypothesized that she is getting assistance
from her advisers. Now there seems to be direct evidence to back this up:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sanders-campaign-says-this-photo-proves-clinton-b
roke-rules-during-univision-debate/ She at least seems to be unable to play
by the rules.

* She backs supporters of hers even when they act badly - in one example
going so far as to play the sexist card claiming that there is a special
place in hell for women who back Sanders.

* Her husband at the very least skirts campaign laws by even hanging around
polling places and blocking people in strong Sanders areas from voting:
http://mediaite.com/a/vkkzf and
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-laws-massachusetts/

* Her husband also sinks to saying Sanders' supporters, who back his fight
for greater equality, are just as bad as Trump supporters who fight heavily
against equality.

* Lying about the Reagan's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. I will grant and
commend her for retracting this praise... and as such can see it as more of
a mistake than a lie. I leave it on this list because I previously noted the
inaccuracy of her claim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/hillary-clin
ton-apologizes-for-praising-nancy-reagans-response-to-hivaids/

* Lying about where her funding comes from and trying to sounds like she is
similar to Sanders in this.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-claim-small-donors-mostly-false-politifac
t-finds

* Her lie about avoiding a New York debate because of Sanders' tone when
everyone know it is because she fears it will harm her chances of winning
the state. In the past she has directly said "You should be willing to
debate anytime, anywhere.":
https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/1016591345062536/

* She lied when Sanders noted her money from the oil industry. Worse than
that, she lost her temper over it... even though she used the SAME attack
against Obama when she was running against him.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/hillary-clinton-oil-gas-donations-oba
ma/ and her ad against Obama: https://youtu.be/3satJnoBXi8  She refuses to
sign the agreement Sanders did to NOT take oil money, maybe because she has
had massive amounts of oil money flow into the Clinton Foundation:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/09/oil-money-flowed-clinton-turned-
back-rights-abuses-colombia-report

* Her fighting against Sanders for the $15 / hour minimum wage and then in
New York working with the people fighting for it pretending she was backing
it the whole time and is with them on their fight.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clinton-minimum-wage-20160404-s
tory.html



-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:38 -0500
  Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
    Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:38 -0800
      Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 13:46 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 11:54 -0700
          Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 14:18 -0500
            Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 12:54 -0700
              Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:38 -0500
                Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:46 -0700
                Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:37 -0500
                Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-08 19:05 -0800
                Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-08 20:08 -0800
                Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:14 -0700
            Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-09 09:55 +1100
            Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:36 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-08 11:23 -0800
        Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:35 -0500
    Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:35 -0500
      Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:09 -0500
        Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-09 17:09 -0700

csiph-web