The General Election

[schriznoeder]

If he was elected, you'll soon be able to add all kinds of foreign leaders. Nightmare.

 

Scary thought indeed.

[TGHusker]

I hope all of your have your VPE on when you vote - Voter Protection Equipment:

[TGHusker]

Another reason to hold our nose: Pay for play. The whole Clinton Foundation (not ignoring any good they might have accomplished along the way) just stinks of corruption.

 

https://world.wng.org/2016/10/king_of_morocco_paid_12_million_for_clinton_visit

[knapplc]

How is this "pay to play?" What did Morocco get in return for this $12 million?

 

From the article:

 

“The mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department which she ran are all intertwined,” Woodward said. “And it’s corrupt. You can’t just say it’s unsavory.”

 

 

This is the most substantive line from this "news source." But it's just an allegation, like most of the allegations from TGHusker's usual parade of conservative outlets, with nothing substantive to back it up.

 

Hillary didn't even speak at this thing that she was "paid" to speak at. Bill did.

[knapplc]

Here's what I'm talking about.

The fake scandal in the Morocco story

One argument emerging from the Morocco story is that it somehow confirms that Clinton traded government favors for her own personal enrichment. That is the impression you would get from an array of sources taking that claim as either a proven fact or a credible allegation:

Let’s be clear: This is laughable and should not be taken seriously.

The most obvious problem with it is that money from the Clinton Foundation never went into Hillary Clinton’s or Bill Clinton’s private bank accounts. As Politifact has pointed out, neither Clinton draws any form of personal financial compensation from their work with the foundation. It’s pretty amazing just how many stories in which Trump has alleged otherwise don’t bother to point out what seems to be this pretty vital fact.

The second big problem with the claim Clinton traded government favors for personal enrichment is that she was not secretary of state at the time of the scheduled gala in Morocco. (The gala was planned for May 2015 — more than two years after Clinton left the State Department.) Trump has alleged a “pay to play scheme” in which Clinton transactionally rewards foundation donors with government favors, but Clinton was not actually in a position of authority at the time of the donation. True, she was widely expected to run for president soon, but it was certainly far from a guarantee that she’d win.

 

[TGHusker]

I didn't know that only liberal sources are allowed on HB. I've not seen you drill other posters who routinely post from Vox, Huffington, Politico etc.

Many of my posts from conservative sights such as Newsmax have links to the original news articles.

 

In that regards, no one would consider Bob Woodward of the liberal Washington Post to be a conservative. He calls it a scandal. Attached is his interview video wt Fox News (oh no conservative so I guess Bob was lying)

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/23/bob_woodward_on_clinton_foundation_it_is_corrupt_she_didnt_answer_the_question.html

 

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward tells the Fox News Sunday panel that the Clinton Foundation is "corrupt" and that Hillary Clinton has not answered for it.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play, which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.

But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When -- when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new -- new revelation about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I -- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.

But the election isn't going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I'm not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that's -- that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they're not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And -- and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what's going to be the aftermath of this campaign.

[Danny Bateman]

TRUMP TV LIVES!

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

One thing you gotta say for Trump, he says exactly what's on his mind.

 

So let's give him the last word on Hillary Clinton:

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WKTIDGMdANI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKTIDGMdANI

[funhusker]

One thing you gotta say for Trump, he says exactly what's on his mind.

 

So let's give him the last word on Hillary Clinton:

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WKTIDGMdANI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKTIDGMdANI

His mind is definitely changing, or fading if you'd like to call it. He hasn't sounded close to that calm or coherent anywhere in the last year and a half. I would be very confident of him winning this election if he had that demeanor, even if his beliefs are the same.

[Danny Bateman]

So, if anyone was familiar with that video that made the rounds this last week that "proved" Democrats were hiring agitators to show up and instigate violence at Trump rallies...

The O'Keefe guy that runs that "Project Veritas"? Turns out he is on the Trump payroll.

 

What's more, from what I've read about the video he released, he cut it up nice and good after essentially coercing the staffers who "admitted" they sent people to Trump rallies to instigate into answering the way he wanted. Not exactly surprising, since he was found to do the same thing in his videos that got ACORN disbanded.

 

Guy's a tape editing propagandist. I'm glad that whomever admitted to anything stepped away, if there was indeed any impropriety. Just goes to show you there's two sides to every story, though.

 

UPDATE:

 

Saw this tonight from Politico. Apparently one of the two guys DNC contractors featured in that Veritas video that "instigated violence" also had previously coordinated with Breitbart earlier on in the Republican primaries. He tipped them off through phone, email, and in person when he was going to show up at a Cruz or a Rubio rally and troll them. I guess he showed up in a robot suit and would just generally try to stir the pot. He'd leak them raw footage, including a physical confrontation he had with the director of Rubio's NH campaign.

 

So... a guy who they wanted to use as proof of the Dems misbehaving was not only paid by Trump, but had an exclusive deal with Breitbart.

 

It all makes sense now. This whole story smelled funny to me at first. Now it just stinks to high heaven.

 

Good lord. Trump's campaign can't even manufacture outrage effectively. This might be the most incompetent bunch of boobs we've ever seen step foot in the political arena.

[knapplc]

I didn't know that only liberal sources are allowed on HB. I've not seen you drill other posters who routinely post from Vox, Huffington, Politico etc.

Many of my posts from conservative sights such as Newsmax have links to the original news articles.

 

In that regards, no one would consider Bob Woodward of the liberal Washington Post to be a conservative. He calls it a scandal. Attached is his interview video wt Fox News (oh no conservative so I guess Bob was lying)

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/23/bob_woodward_on_clinton_foundation_it_is_corrupt_she_didnt_answer_the_question.html

 

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward tells the Fox News Sunday panel that the Clinton Foundation is "corrupt" and that Hillary Clinton has not answered for it.

 

 

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play, which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.

 

But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When -- when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new -- new revelation about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?

 

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I -- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.

 

But the election isn't going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I'm not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that's -- that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they're not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And -- and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what's going to be the aftermath of this campaign.

Vox is a liberal website? I thought it was pretty neutral. When did it get the "liberal" label?

 

Same with Politico. The accusations that it's "liberal" come from the Trump supporters who don't like that it skewers their candidate.

 

 

 

Regarding Woodward & the "scandal," still not convinced. "Access" is only a concern when it gains something for the person paying. Morocco made a $12 million donation and Bill Clinton spoke at their forum. That's an exorbitant speaking fee, but what tangible benefit did they receive from that donation?

 

If all we can find is Bill speaking there, it's not a scandal.

[knapplc]

 

[QMany]

 

[knapplc]

If the pendulum swings too far towards the Democrats in this election I guarantee they'll screw it up and the market will "correct" itself in the mid-terms.

[BigRedBuster]

If the pendulum swings too far towards the Democrats in this election I guarantee they'll screw it up and the market will "correct" itself in the mid-terms.

Oh...I totally agree with this. Both parties have been in this situation before.

 

Actually, the long term hope for the Republicans is not what they wan to hear right now. Hillary has won. It would take an epic crazy thing for her to lose right now and I personally expect them to at least lose the Senate.....if it gets crazy they may lose the House too.

 

The absolute worst case scenario for the long term health of a conservative movement is if Trump and Republicans lose a very close election. That will somehow give them the idea that what has happened in this election is some how acceptable and all they have to do is tweak something here and there and they will be back to winning elections. That is NOT the idea they should have.

 

They need to be totally destroyed in this election so there is absolutely no question in their minds that things need to change in a major way. AND, this change mentality needs to be drilled into the voters in the party.

 

I really don't like the idea of Hillary being President with the Dems controlling congress. But, I think that's a short term view of what needs to happen. Right now, I think conservatives need to examine what they are doing with the long term view.