quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
If the trend continues, Obama may decide against blocking an indictment.

I think that is Obama's plan. Insert Biden.

I've thought for a while that they were waiting to bring charges against her until Bernie dropped out so Biden could come in to save the day. Bernie did not get the memo and is doing better than they ever thought he would and they never had a plan B.

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
If the trend continues, Obama may decide against blocking an indictment.

I think that is Obama's plan. Insert Biden.

Perhaps, but they couldn't do it without Hills tanking.

If Hills get's the boot, by any means, I predict a Dem attempt to prop up Biden would lead to a bunnie sanduss third-party run.

quote:

I've thought for a while that they were waiting to bring charges against her until Bernie dropped out so Biden could come in to save the day. Bernie did not get the memo and is doing better than they ever thought he would and they never had a plan B.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

quote:

Was Carlos Hathcock Hispanic because of his name?

Carlos Hathcock was a Marine. Marines are all green.

quote:

Originally posted by sse:

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
If the trend continues, Obama may decide against blocking an indictment.

I think that is Obama's plan. Insert Biden.

Perhaps, but they couldn't do it without Hills tanking.

If Hills get's the boot, by any means, I predict a Dem attempt to prop up Biden would lead to a bunnie sanduss third-party run.

With regard to the Democrats and their convention and their chances, I believe the term is "schlonged".

quote:

With regard to the Democrats and their convention and their chances, I believe the term is "schlonged".

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
If the trend continues, Obama may decide against blocking an indictment.

I think that is Obama's plan. Insert Biden.

Perhaps, but they couldn't do it without Hills tanking.

If Hills get's the boot, by any means, I predict a Dem attempt to prop up Biden would lead to a bunnie sanduss third-party run.

With regard to the Democrats and their convention and their chances, I believe the term is "schlonged".

Sure is looking that way.

WARNING: Continuous stream of non-consciousness

She's fighting for us and if she has to lie through her boopsie to get there...so be it.

http://personalliberty.com/nyt...hillary-treat-women/

NYT spends six weeks investigating how Trump treats women. Where was its investigation into how Bill and Hillary treat women?
Posted on May 17, 2016 by Bob Livingston Views: 7,227
5.3K Shares
flowers, lewinski, jones, willey
With its hit piece on Donald Trump Sunday, The New York Times could not have done more to reinforce its stereotype among conservative voters as a biased mouthpiece for the establishment and Democrat propaganda rag had that been its goal.

The story’s credibility was quickly called into question. The woman who was the story’s main focus, former Trump girlfriend Rowanne Brewer Lane, claims the Times reporters misrepresented their purpose, took her words out of context and distorted her comments.

The two Times reporters ostensibly spent six weeks interviewing 50 women from Trump’s past. They claim they found Trump engaged in “unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary on the female form, a shrewd reliance on ambitious women, and unsettling workplace conduct.” They reported that he stole a kiss from one contestant and made the women in his Miss USA beauty pageant wear their opening number costumes to rehearsal.

They determined, according to the article, that he was sometimes boorish and lecherous. Or, as the “independent media analyst” from The Washington Post put it, “By any standard of decency toward women, the act of ogling a 20-something model, inviting her to change into a bikini and then proclaiming her a ‘Trump girl’ when paraded around the pool is piggish.”

Perhaps so. But not so “piggish” as sexual assault and rape – charges that followed Bill Clinton from his time at Oxford in 1969 until today.

There’s Eileen Wellstone, who claimed in 1969 that Clinton raped her when she was 19 after they met at a pub. There’s the unnamed then 22-year-old woman who claimed in 1972 that Clinton sexually assaulted her. There’s the Arkansas University student who complained Clinton – who was her law school instructor – in 1974 tried to prevent her from leaving his office and groped her and put his hand inside her blouse.

There’s Juanita Broaddrick who claims Clinton raped her in 1978. There’s Carolyn Moffet who in 1979 met Clinton at a fundraiser and was later invited to meet him in a hotel room where he greeted her wearing only a shirt and tried to make her perform oral sex on him. There’s at least seven more women identified by Arkansas State Troopers on Clinton’s security detail who claimed Clinton either forced or attempted to force himself on sexually.

There’s Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas and Miss America who claimed she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him in 1982. There’s Connie Hamzy who claims Clinton propositioned her at a Little Rock hotel in 1984.

There’s Paula Corbin Jones, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher and Kathleen Willey who all claimed in the late 1980s and early 1990s to have been on the receiving end of sexual assaults and harassing behavior by Clinton.

There’s Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth (Ward) Gracen, Dolly Kyle Browing, Sally Perdue, Lencola Sullivan, Elizabeth Ward, Susie Whiteacre and Bobbie Ann Williams who engaged in long-term affairs with Clinton.

And of course, there’s Monica Lewinsky, the impressionable young White House intern that Clinton took advantage of, an act that ultimately resulted in his impeachment.

Finally, Clinton’s reputation as a philander continues, and he’s known to have ridden more than once on pedophile Jeffery Epstein’s private jet dubbed “Lolita Express.”

And during that time, Hillary engaged in on-going intimidation and smear campaigns against any “bimbo eruptions” that might pop up. Her tactics included slander by her and her surrogates, and having henchmen murder pets, slash tires, burgle their homes and leave threatening messages in order to keep the women silent.

During a September speech in Cedar Falls, Iowa, the Witch from Chappaqua said:

Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.

That apparently doesn’t apply to any women Bill assaulted. But where’s the Times’ Sunday page 1 exposé on that?

^^^"...the right to be believed...." --What in Hell does that mean? A right to be believed. Amazing little piece of twisted thinking right there.

quote:

And of course, there’s Monica Lewinsky, the impressionable young White House intern that Clinton took advantage of, an act that ultimately resulted in his impeachment.

No. He was impeached for perjury. Got it? Perjury.

Taking Trump seriously: His jump in polls against Hillary changes the media mindset

Suddenly, abruptly, the press is viewing Donald Trump as a potential president.

The business that gave him no chance of winning the nomination, which remained in denial for months as he dispatched his GOP rivals, which has been operated under the assumption that Hillary Clinton will clobber him, is starting to change its tune.

And it’s all because of a couple of polls.

Now as I’ve said from my soapbox many times, journalists are way too addicted to polls, which are fleeting snapshots and sometimes wrong. A June poll in 1992 gave the impression that Ross Perot would win the White House. A June poll in 1988 suggested that Michael Dukakis would be sitting in the Oval Office. So surveys in May of 2016 should be viewed with appropriate caution.

But every once in awhile, a poll or two can change the political conversation. And that’s what is happening with numbers showing Trump essentially running even with Clinton. A Fox News poll gives him a 45-42 percent lead, which is margin-of-error territory.

That means more to the horse-race press than Trump meeting with Henry Kissinger, releasing a list of potential Supreme Court nominees or anything else he’s done since driving Ted Cruz and John Kasich from the race.

Even if the polls are off by a few points, it means that a non-politician, who has been widely derided for being too divisive and inflammatory, is a serious contender against a former first lady, senator and secretary of State.

What does this do to the #NeverTrump crowd?

Most of its members make the argument that Trump’s nomination would be a suicidal move for the GOP. That’s why they’re plotting to try to rewrite the convention rules to derail him, or challenge him with a third-party conservative candidate.

But don’t those talking points crumble if Trump is viewed as having a strong shot at recapturing the White House for the Republicans?

The Fox poll underscores what a crazy campaign this is. The gender gap is large, with Clinton leading among women by 14 points and Trump on top with men by 22 points.

The racial and ethnic gap is huge. Trump has a 24-point edge among white voters. Clinton dominates the black vote by 83 points, and the Hispanic vote by 39 points.

There may be a Trump bump since he effectively clinched the nomination, while Clinton still has to fend off attacks by Bernie Sanders. Trump’s negatives, while still high, have shrunk since March, which shows that even well-known candidates can gradually change the way they’re perceived.

But there is bad news for both candidates: they’re strikingly unpopular. Forty percent of those surveyed said Trump is honest, while 57 percent said he is not. Clinton hit a new low with just 31 percent viewing her as honest, and 66 percent saying she isn’t.

So this could come down to which candidate can make the other seem more unacceptable, a surefire formula for ugliness.

quote:

....former first lady, senator and secretary of State.

And she did such a bang-up job in those positions.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h...-clinton-save-party/

Will Obama Indict Clinton to Save his Party?
By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | May 20th, 2016 at 04:00 AM | 25

RESIZE: AAA

Share on Facebook 81 81 SHARES

Obama must be watching the unfolding 2016 election with a growing sense of horror. The Democrats got the greatest gift imaginable when Donald Trump got the Republican nomination, but Hillary Clinton has already all but frittered away the greatest natural advantage any politician could possibly have – being a woman running against Donald Trump. Clinton’s inept, bungling campaign has alienated huge portions of the blue collar Democrat voting base and has made a race that should be a cakewalk into one that is actually competitive.

One thing that Barack Obama has shown during his seven and a half years in office is that he really is an ideologue. Unlike Clinton, he cares deeply about actually advancing progressive causes, and he is nearly obsessed with his legacy – much of which will be built on unilateral action that could easily be undone by a hostile successor (if we suppose that Trump would actually care to undo any of it). On the other hand, if a Democrat succeeds him, he knows that many of these programs will become much more difficult to undo.

His alliance with Clinton has always been one of political convenience rather than one of genuine friendship, if the Democrat insiders who constantly gab to the media are to be believed. I don’t believe for a moment that Obama has any personal investment in Hillary Clinton becoming President – he’d personally be just as happy with Bernie if not more so.


Moreover, his own Justice Department is allegedly threatening open mutiny if action is not taken against Clinton after the probe into her private email server is completed. If Clinton were in a strong position for the general election, no doubt Obama would order Lynch to softpedal any action that lands on Clinton herself, no matter what the facts say. However, Obama can read the polls as well as anyone, and he knows that Sanders would walk all over Donald Trump, whereas Clinton might well find herself in a dogfight.

At this point, an indictment of Clinton might well seem like an escape hatch for President Obama. He won’t order it himself of course, but he might well tell Lynch that if the FBI asks for one against Clinton, she should go ahead and issue the indictment. Then he can go out and sorrowfully tell Clinton that he’s so sorry, the whole thing is out of his hands, she should really consider stepping aside for Bernie before things get out of hand.

Maybe it seems farfetched right now, but Obama still has some time to make this decision. If Clinton continues to run essentially even with Trump in national polls as the convention approaches, or if she falls behind Trump in more than just the occasional problematic poll, this option is going to start looking more and more attractive to him. He knows good and well that Hillary’s delegate lead cannot be overcome without the nearly unanimous reversal of Democrat superdelegates at this point, and maybe not then.

But an indictment from a Democrat administration, at this point of the election, just might send the signal the superdelegates need to abandon Hillary en masse, or for the convention to change the rules regarding a candidate under indictment. Staring down the possibility of a Trump administration, that’s a panic button the Democrats might well push.

The NRA just endorsed Trump.

I told you guys he would have my full support if he won Primary.

The National Rifle Association has endorsed Donald Trump for president at today's convention.

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, made the endorsement immediately before Trump walked on stage.

"Now is the time to unite. If your preferred candidate dropped out of the race, it's time to get over it," Cox said earlier in his remarks.

The news of the endorsement came shortly before Trump addressed the group at their convention in Kentucky.

How Donald Trump's Views on Guns Shifted Over Time
Trump talked about "crooked Hillary" and said that Clinton is "anti-gun," claiming that she plans to take away guns if she is elected. He also spoke about how situations like the mass shooting in San Bernardino could be avoided if more people had guns.

"The Second Amendment is under a threat like never before," Trump said. "Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun... candidate ever to run for office. And as I said before, she wants to abolish the second amendment. She wants to take your guns away. She wants to abolish it," he said.

He also reiterated his policy promise to eliminate gun free zones, which currently exist at certain schools and at military bases.

"We're getting rid of gun free zones, I can tell you," he said today.

Trump has spoken about his support of the Second Amendment regularly on the campaign trail and is a gun owner himself.

LINK

Trump Spent Only $46 Million on Campaign So Far=> Clinton and Sanders Spent Over $150 Million Apiece

Trump can spend less money and still win because people like his ideas more.:

quote:

Originally posted by ersatzknarf:

quote:

With regard to the Democrats and their convention and their chances, I believe the term is "schlonged".

lolol

Well, wearing orange seems to suit her and it is another way of getting "schlonged".