Hillary Clinton

I'm not sure how much can come out about Hillary Clinton that her supporters didn't already expect. The Clinton Foundation stuff isn't surprising. We're supposed to believe that donors don't get access? No matter what she has said, I don't believe there wasn't some expectation of access. Unless there's an email with an explicit quid pro quo, this isn't going to sink her campaign. The problem the GOP has is that over the past 25 years they've already thrown the kitchen sink at Hillary Clinton. Unless there is compelling evidence that she's been taking bribes or that she's ordered a hit on someone, I can't see anything being revealed that we don't already know or at least suspect.

Seriously -- unless there is compelling evidence that Hillary Clinton committed a felony, the choice of her over Trump should be overwhelmingly easy.

ml1 said:



Seriously -- unless there is compelling evidence that Hillary Clinton committed a felony, the choice of her over Trump should be overwhelmingly easy.

It's easy for me even if she did commit a felony.

If Trump said about Italian or Irish or Polish immigrants what he said about Mexican immigrants and if he called on a ban on Catholics entering the Country not only would he not be a candidate he would be in a category with David Duke.

I'd vote for her under the assumption that she'd have to resign and Tim Kaine would become president.

LOST said:

ml1 said:



Seriously -- unless there is compelling evidence that Hillary Clinton committed a felony, the choice of her over Trump should be overwhelmingly easy.

It's easy for me even if she did commit a felony.

If Trump said about Italian or Irish or Polish immigrants what he said about Mexican immigrants and if he called on a ban on Catholics entering the Country not only would he not be a candidate he would be in a category with David Duke.

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:


My decision to wait to see what happens doesn't seem so strange now.

True. If only we all possessed such wisdom instead of rushing head first into deciding not to wait to see what happens.

Of course all those talking heads and MOLers who predicted THIS will end Trumps run to the nomination were wrong and had to adjust to a new reality, but that's irrelevant.

I now have you and your friend, with a crystal ball, so I needn't worry, you both will fill me in on what will happen in September. 

So tell me, will Trump still be around - if so what outrageous thing will he say - will Ryan take back his endorsement - will Assange drop another load of e-mails Hillary didn't turn over and will they do her damage -and when you answer those questions I have more to ask. I'm really interested in what will happen in the future and am happy I have you and your friend to tell me.

I can make all the predictions you want. Or not. I don't get paid for making predictions, so if they don't come true, what does it matter? Who are we but anonymous and semi-anonymous chatterers on a message board with opinions of equal value in the end? One machine, one check mark. Anything else is tantamount to vainglory.

it's easy to make predictions if you want to make vacuous statements like "a lot can happen between now and November" or "Trump isn't going anywhere."

Can this happen?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/gordon-humphrey-donald-trump-226848

ml1 said:

it's easy to make predictions if you want to make vacuous statements like "a lot can happen between now and November" or "Trump isn't going anywhere."

Someone saying "a lot can happen between now and November" is not making predictions, he is pointing out that you can't make them without a crystal ball.

Still no problem shredding your remarks.

LOST said:

Can this happen?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/gordon-humphrey-donald-trump-226848

Oh my! something unforeseen. Who would have thought that could happen

ml1 said:

It's a political lifetime from now until November. It's obvious to me that lots of things may or may not happen that will turn out to be relevant or not relevant to the election. I'm keeping my mind open to anything that could turn out to happen or not happen.

Despite your lame effort at sarcasm it's true.

ml1 said:

LOST said:


Who can predict the future?

.

Also true. Yogi is obviously smarter than you are.

That's not an unforeseen event. It's a reaction to things which should have been foreseen. Furthermore certain Republicans have been discussing ways to remove Trump as the Republican candidate since before the Convention.

BCC said:

ml1 said:

LOST said:


Who can predict the future?

.

Also true. Yogi is obviously smarter than you are.

I do not know if that is addressed to me or ml1 but Yogi is dead and predictions about baseball results or election results can be based on statistics. Large sums of money are wagered based on those type of predictions.

ridski said:

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:


My decision to wait to see what happens doesn't seem so strange now.

True. If only we all possessed such wisdom instead of rushing head first into deciding not to wait to see what happens.

Of course all those talking heads and MOLers who predicted THIS will end Trumps run to the nomination were wrong and had to adjust to a new reality, but that's irrelevant.

I now have you and your friend, with a crystal ball, so I needn't worry, you both will fill me in on what will happen in September. 

So tell me, will Trump still be around - if so what outrageous thing will he say - will Ryan take back his endorsement - will Assange drop another load of e-mails Hillary didn't turn over and will they do her damage -and when you answer those questions I have more to ask. I'm really interested in what will happen in the future and am happy I have you and your friend to tell me.

I can make all the predictions you want. Or not. I don't get paid for making predictions, so if they don't come true, what does it matter? Who are we but anonymous and semi-anonymous chatterers on a message board with opinions of equal value in the end? One machine, one check mark. Anything else is tantamount to vainglory.

I was responding to your sarcastic BS and the above is no answer to what I wrote.

You seem to enjoy starting a conversation with some sarcastic crap, enlisting the help of some jackass(es) and playing Can You Top This. I don't think you even care what the conversation is about as long as you can show how 'clever' you are. Your comments above, seem to prove that.

bramzzoinks said:

A certain poster and vigorous Springsteen apologist got incensed when I brought up Springsteen's hypocrisy in a "Arts and Entertainment" threat. The poster said such things did not belong there. 

That was your back-and-forth with Sbenois (found it via "the Google"). 

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/76654-Springsteen-to-tour-?page=2#comment-1993909

Two thoughts -

(1) The poster with whom you engaged in said "back-and-forth" may or may not be a "Springsteen apologist", but more to the point,

(2) That was FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO (January 15, 2012, sorry about the all-caps but emphasis seemed to be important).

Let it go.

LOST said:

BCC said:

ml1 said:

LOST said:


Who can predict the future?

.

Also true. Yogi is obviously smarter than you are.

I do not know if that is addressed to me or ml1 but Yogi is dead and predictions about baseball results or election results can be based on statistics. Large sums of money are wagered based on those type of predictions.

Sorry, it was not aimed at you.

And large sums of money are lost on those wagers.

Assange says we're gonna see some murder accusations soon; apparently she bumped off some Bernie aide or something like that.

As Limbaugh says, "How many people do you know who have been murdered? Probably no one. The Clintons are already in double digits."

GL2 said:

Assange says we're gonna see some murder accusations soon; apparently she bumped off some Bernie aide or something like that.

Make jokes but there was a dump a couple of days ago and e-mails were found she had not returned as she had promised. They raise questions about the Foundation. 

nohero said:

bramzzoinks said:

A certain poster and vigorous Springsteen apologist got incensed when I brought up Springsteen's hypocrisy in a "Arts and Entertainment" threat. The poster said such things did not belong there. 

That was your back-and-forth with Sbenois (found it via "the Google"). 

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/76654-Springsteen-to-tour-?page=2#comment-1993909

Two thoughts -

(1) The poster with whom you engaged in said "back-and-forth" may or may not be a "Springsteen apologist", but more to the point,

(2) That was FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO (January 15, 2012, sorry about the all-caps but emphasis seemed to be important).

Let it go.

Actually I am pretty sure there was one with you. Maybe when the new site launches and there are better search capabilities I will look for it. 

BCC said:

ml1 said:

It's a political lifetime from now until November. It's obvious to me that lots of things may or may not happen that will turn out to be relevant or not relevant to the election. I'm keeping my mind open to anything that could turn out to happen or not happen.

Despite your lame effort at sarcasm it's true.

and just because some statements are true, it doesn't make them any less banal.

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:


My decision to wait to see what happens doesn't seem so strange now.

True. If only we all possessed such wisdom instead of rushing head first into deciding not to wait to see what happens.

Of course all those talking heads and MOLers who predicted THIS will end Trumps run to the nomination were wrong and had to adjust to a new reality, but that's irrelevant.

I now have you and your friend, with a crystal ball, so I needn't worry, you both will fill me in on what will happen in September. 

So tell me, will Trump still be around - if so what outrageous thing will he say - will Ryan take back his endorsement - will Assange drop another load of e-mails Hillary didn't turn over and will they do her damage -and when you answer those questions I have more to ask. I'm really interested in what will happen in the future and am happy I have you and your friend to tell me.

I can make all the predictions you want. Or not. I don't get paid for making predictions, so if they don't come true, what does it matter? Who are we but anonymous and semi-anonymous chatterers on a message board with opinions of equal value in the end? One machine, one check mark. Anything else is tantamount to vainglory.

I was responding to your sarcastic BS and the above is no answer to what I wrote.

You seem to enjoy starting a conversation with some sarcastic crap, enlisting the help of some jackass(es) and playing Can You Top This. I don't think you even care what the conversation is about as long as you can show how 'clever' you are. Your comments above, seem to prove that.

"The above is no answer to what I wrote." There aren't any question marks to your questions, so I assumed they were rhetorical. But I guess you really wanted me to answer them so you get your list of follow-up questions, so here goes.

Okay, September. I'm going to assume this time in September, so predictions for September 10.

Will Trump still be around - 

Probably. All signs point to yes.

if so what outrageous thing will he say - 

 ON September 10? Okay, here's two things, you can take your pick.

"I am done with fiction. What does a man gain by reading it? Men should study history, warfare, politics, biographies, etc, not fiction. Women make up nearly 80 percent of the readers of fiction. I read a thing that said male brains are wired for dealing with stuff, while female brains are wired for dealing with people. This is why women prefer fiction over non-fiction: their brains are already wired to want to read about “selves in a social world.” Now they say men SHOULD read fiction so it'll help us in social situations, and be more imaginative. I go around and I see nothing but girls and guys reading pure fiction. What are they learning? Now books like the classics, Illiad, odyssey, 1984, animal farm, sure. But men should read nonfiction primarily."

"Many of us are well aware of the problems of our girls and the dangers they present to the survival of our race. A large and scary number of girls are being raised by a single parent. Many of these same girls become women who would consider themselves manly or masculine (aka. "strong" or "independent") without proper feminine traits. Now most of us know the "why" of it, feminism, etc. . . But I hardly ever see or hear any answers to the problem. Now, most of these girls were robbed, literally, of their femininity by a sick society teaching them what they should be contrary to their natural upbringing. With this in mind, I think we should start a new cabinet position to offer help to these girls to reclaim what is rightfully theirs that they have been robbed of. "

will Ryan take back his endorsement - 

Now that he has won his primary, he easily could, but I don't think he will.

will Assange drop another load of e-mails Hillary didn't turn over and will they do her damage -

Well, that's a two-parter. There's no reason for Assange to drop those emails before Sep 10, unless he sees Hillary is riding high and Trump is on the ropes or gone. The media want this to be a close race, so I don't think that eventuality is likely to happen. A more likely scenario is that Clinton is on the ropes by 9/10, there will be some terrorist attack that either involves Americans or happens domestically which Trump can take advantage of. Assange doesn't need to play his hand at that point, so he'll wait for October.

Will they do her damage - Impossible to say. The longer he sits on them, the less effective they might be. If where he got the emails from is questionable in anyway, that will be used to misdirect the narrative. If it's a story daytime Fox can get behind then it might stand a chance, but if it's only running on Hannity and Breitbart, Clinton will kick it into the dust.

I await your further questions.

ridski said:

I await your further questions.

.

BCC said:

LOST said:

BCC said:

ml1 said:

LOST said:


Who can predict the future?

.

Also true. Yogi is obviously smarter than you are.

I do not know if that is addressed to me or ml1 but Yogi is dead and predictions about baseball results or election results can be based on statistics. Large sums of money are wagered based on those type of predictions.

Sorry, it was not aimed at you.

And large sums of money are lost on those wagers.

OK. Thanks.

Large sums are lost but sometimes won.

This thread will be far more interesting if Assange has e-mails between Hillary and Springsteen. 

LOST said:

This thread will be far more interesting if Assange has e-mails between Hillary and Springsteen. 

If this isn't our October Surprise, I'm turning in my Magic 8-Ball.

http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-bruce-springsteen-in-disguise

Assange has shown himself to be a wacko with an agenda http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wikileaks-fuels-conspiracy-theories-about-dnc-staffer-s-death-n627401

If he actually had something damaging I doubt he'd be resorting to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

GL2 said:

As Limbaugh says, "How many people do you know who have been murdered? Probably no one. The Clintons are already in double digits."

Now that's what I call proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

BCC said:

GL2 said:

Assange says we're gonna see some murder accusations soon; apparently she bumped off some Bernie aide or something like that.

Make jokes but there was a dump a couple of days ago and e-mails were found she had not returned as she had promised. They raise questions about the Foundation. 

I'm not joking. Assange is hinting that very thing.

And so are hate radio personalities.

ridski said:

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:


My decision to wait to see what happens doesn't seem so strange now.

True. If only we all possessed such wisdom instead of rushing head first into deciding not to wait to see what happens.

Of course all those talking heads and MOLers who predicted THIS will end Trumps run to the nomination were wrong and had to adjust to a new reality, but that's irrelevant.

I now have you and your friend, with a crystal ball, so I needn't worry, you both will fill me in on what will happen in September. 

So tell me, will Trump still be around - if so what outrageous thing will he say - will Ryan take back his endorsement - will Assange drop another load of e-mails Hillary didn't turn over and will they do her damage -and when you answer those questions I have more to ask. I'm really interested in what will happen in the future and am happy I have you and your friend to tell me.

I can make all the predictions you want. Or not. I don't get paid for making predictions, so if they don't come true, what does it matter? Who are we but anonymous and semi-anonymous chatterers on a message board with opinions of equal value in the end? One machine, one check mark. Anything else is tantamount to vainglory.

I was responding to your sarcastic BS and the above is no answer to what I wrote.

You seem to enjoy starting a conversation with some sarcastic crap, enlisting the help of some jackass(es) and playing Can You Top This. I don't think you even care what the conversation is about as long as you can show how 'clever' you are. Your comments above, seem to prove that.

"The above is no answer to what I wrote." There aren't any question marks to your questions, so I assumed they were rhetorical. But I guess you really wanted me to answer them so you get your list of follow-up questions, so here goes.

Okay, September. I'm going to assume this time in September, so predictions for September 10.

Will Trump still be around - 

Probably. All signs point to yes.

if so what outrageous thing will he say - 

 ON September 10? Okay, here's two things, you can take your pick.

"I am done with fiction. What does a man gain by reading it? Men should study history, warfare, politics, biographies, etc, not fiction. Women make up nearly 80 percent of the readers of fiction. I read a thing that said male brains are wired for dealing with stuff, while female brains are wired for dealing with people. This is why women prefer fiction over non-fiction: their brains are already wired to want to read about “selves in a social world.” Now they say men SHOULD read fiction so it'll help us in social situations, and be more imaginative. I go around and I see nothing but girls and guys reading pure fiction. What are they learning? Now books like the classics, Illiad, odyssey, 1984, animal farm, sure. But men should read nonfiction primarily."

"Many of us are well aware of the problems of our girls and the dangers they present to the survival of our race. A large and scary number of girls are being raised by a single parent. Many of these same girls become women who would consider themselves manly or masculine (aka. "strong" or "independent") without proper feminine traits. Now most of us know the "why" of it, feminism, etc. . . But I hardly ever see or hear any answers to the problem. Now, most of these girls were robbed, literally, of their femininity by a sick society teaching them what they should be contrary to their natural upbringing. With this in mind, I think we should start a new cabinet position to offer help to these girls to reclaim what is rightfully theirs that they have been robbed of. "

will Ryan take back his endorsement - 

Now that he has won his primary, he easily could, but I don't think he will.

will Assange drop another load of e-mails Hillary didn't turn over and will they do her damage -


Well, that's a two-parter. There's no reason for Assange to drop those emails before Sep 10, unless he sees Hillary is riding high and Trump is on the ropes or gone. The media want this to be a close race, so I don't think that eventuality is likely to happen. A more likely scenario is that Clinton is on the ropes by 9/10, there will be some terrorist attack that either involves Americans or happens domestically which Trump can take advantage of. Assange doesn't need to play his hand at that point, so he'll wait for October.

Will they do her damage - Impossible to say. The longer he sits on them, the less effective they might be. If where he got the emails from is questionable in anyway, that will be used to misdirect the narrative. If it's a story daytime Fox can get behind then it might stand a chance, but if it's only running on Hannity and Breitbart, Clinton will kick it into the dust.

I await your further questions.

'I don't think', 'It's impossible to tell', 'probably',

I was counting on you, but how am I to make up my mind when you can't make up yours.

You asked for further questions – how about this:

It has been agreed some unforeseen event could turn the the election on it's head overnight.

Even with your crystal ball, you can't see it, - because if you can see it, how can it be unforeseen?

Since that's the case how can you help me make up my mind if you can't tell me what that important
unforeseen event will be ?

Further, except for you and one or two others, no one seems to care why I choose to wait to see what happens.Why would they, and why do you?