The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[pelagius]

Meh, HRC is problematic but not in comparison to Trump. 10x better, 10x less dangerous, and 10x less embarrassing.

[Eddie]

Dammit....NOOOOOOOOOOO!

I don't mind. Ignore away, while you look more and more ridiculous. I don't mind at all. I would probably ignore questions that I can't answer too.

I'm guessing that this is all one big communication issue. He isn't really ignoring you.

[Eddie]

Meh, HRC is problematic but not in comparison to Trump. 10x better, 10x less dangerous, and 10x less embarrassing.

Yeah - next to Trump she looks great. Honestly - 8 years ago I preferred her to Obama.

But it bothers me that the lies she is telling aren't campaign promises. And I'm afraid of whatever else it is she's hiding.

But at least her warts are political warts, right? It's not like she's a complete loon.

[byu71]

Clinton is second with $746 million of free media. It is like the networks are picking the candidates.

Yea it does. Like I have said, now watch the hammering Trump will take in the bulk of the media and the light treatment Hillary will get for her faux pas. I don't care about people who watch this stuff all the time. It is the people who turn on the nightly news and that is it. They get the one sided.

What you have pointed out is why the media is in the tank for campaign reform. If you took away super pacs think how dominant the media could become in picking our politicians.

[old_gregg]

hillary is the most qualified candidate in history

[Eddie]

Yea it does. Like I have said, now watch the hammering Trump will take in the bulk of the media and the light treatment Hillary will get for her faux pas. I don't care about people who watch this stuff all the time. It is the people who turn on the nightly news and that is it. They get the one sided.

What you have pointed out is why the media is in the tank for campaign reform. If you took away super pacs think how dominant the media could become in picking our politicians.

Kind of a 2 edged sword, isn't it?

Without the super pacs, they can give attention to who and whatever they want.

But with the super pacs they make billions selling advertising.

[byu71]

Kind of a 2 edged sword, isn't it?

Without the super pacs, they can give attention to who and whatever they want.

But with the super pacs they make billions selling advertising.

Must create a battle between management and the reporters.

[Bo Diddley]

Yeah - next to Trump she looks great. Honestly - 8 years ago I preferred her to Obama.

But it bothers me that the lies she is telling aren't campaign promises. And I'm afraid of whatever else it is she's hiding.

But at least her warts are political warts, right? It's not like she's a complete loon.

I wouldn't use the word great, but I'll say this: if you are a Trump supporter, you're not in a position (on the moral high ground) to make a big deal out of the lies Hillary has told.

[Uncle Ted]

On the subject of Benghazi (note that the "H" is silent for this)...

Leaked emails might show Clinton knew Saudi's funded Benghazi attack
[...]
While there is much to criticize about her time as a Senator and her extremely detrimental interventionist policies as secretary, including the airstrikes on Libya that lead to the fall of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, the hearings failed to turn up significantly incriminating evidence.


But according to Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, when Guccifer’s leaked emails from 2013 are cross-referenced with Clinton emails the State Department released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, there is confirmed evidence “from a trusted Clinton adviser” that “the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except for the Russia Today leak”.

Durden claims this email, while arguably the most incriminating, was overlooked merely because it was sent after Clinton left office and John Kerry took over as secretary of state.


But while the claim that Saudi financed the killing of a U.S. diplomat seems conspiratorial, an email alleging this very thing not only exists on Clinton’s server, but she decided it important enough to forward to advisers and others in the State Department.


This revelation, if true, would be a serious blow to Clinton and her credibility, if not grounds for indictment.
[...]

http://ahtribune.com/us/678-leaked-e...-benghazi.html

Yeah, this link as all the source emails for the curious...

https://medium.com/@williamreynolds/...b2b#.dp1y0ky40



I am guessing we will also be following the Saudi money trail back to Hillary's private jet fund (aka. the Clinton Foundation)...

It will expand its probe by examining possible overlap of the Clinton Foundation charity with State Department business, Fox reported, citing three unidentified intelligence officials.


"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," Fox quoted one of its unidentified sources as saying.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...0UP1XC20160111

[creekster]

Clinton is second with $746 million of free media. It is like the networks are picking the candidates.

It's probably not coincidence that the two frontrunners have the most.

[imanihonjin]

I'm guessing that this is all one big communication issue. He isn't really ignoring you.

Yep, Occam's razor and shit.

[Omaha 680]

All0315_GOP_THIRDPARTY.jpg

[Maximus]

[ATTACH]6765[/ATTACH]

Romney

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm guessing that this is all one big communication issue. He isn't really ignoring you.

Ha. Good one.

Also, it doesn't matter.

[Uncle Ted]

[ATTACH]6765[/ATTACH]

Bernie