US Presidential Race 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well that was apt timing.

Now we know the FBI says she didn't do anything illegal. Pity they can't charge her for her immoral dealings. Also pity we probably won't know for sure whether or not the investigation was mishandled or not, or she hid evidence of illegalities successfully or not.

To balance my post out: pity Trump is a cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon.
I agree with this. I mean she's only been under investigation for around 30 years and for everything she's ever done. What they really needed was MORE TIME!
 
As much as Trump is a tiny handed cheeto faced ferret wearing shitgibbon, the level of the BBC's bias in reporting this campaign is an absolute fucking disgrace.

They are largely pro Hilary, but there is far more material that Trump has offered up, there is only so many times you can repeat what Clinton has done, when he is the gift that keeps on giving...
 
As much as Trump is a tiny handed cheeto faced ferret wearing shitgibbon, the level of the BBC's bias in reporting this campaign is an absolute fucking disgrace.
It's not bias when one side is running a campaign based on fear and hatred. He's been endorsed by exactly ONE newspaper and that is the KKK's newspaper. He's a horrible, ignorant and dangerous man who has spent his life finger-banging women against their will, cheating on multiple wives, screwing contractors and firing Gary Busey and Dennis Rodman on a reality show. Hillary Clinton has spent her life in public service, worked for women's and children's rights and helps run a foundation that has helped over 400 million people with clean water and AIDS medication.

Is it biased when history books teach that the Nazis were the bad guys and that the Allies won the war and saved the world?
 
Reports nearly all the emails were duplicates of the ones they already looked at. But the question is has the damage already been done?
I thought this was odd, considering the quantities Wikileaks have been releasing since and the timing of the FBI guy's statement with that. Gives the impression there's a bit of political infighting within the FBI. Maybe like @Paul Lake's Left Knee is saying:
You are fast coming around to my thinking mate ;-)

The thing is the head of the FBI is republican, she was grilled about this by republican senators and they havent managed to get anything to stick, she's a slippery fucker or there isnt much on her. The Bush administration deleted 2.2 million emails, nobody said shit about that.
That Trey Gowdy that questioned Clinton - when I've seen him speak, he seemed pretty pissed off about things and trying to get to the root of the problem in the US governmental system that allows for immoral dealings and corruption that harms the interests of the population but which nothing effective has been done about.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was odd, considering the quantities Wikileaks have been releasing since and the timing of the FBI guy's statement with that. Gives the impression there's a bit of political infighting within the FBI. Maybe like @Paul Lake's Left Knee is saying:

That Trey Gowdy that questioned Clinton - when I've seen him speak, he seemed pretty pissed off about things and trying to get to the root of the problem in the US Governmental system that allows for immoral dealings and corruption that harms the interests of the population but which nothing effective has been done about.
There is nothing immoral that Hillary Clinton has done. It was bad judgement to use a private server for emails but her predecessors did the same thing and there was nothing nefarious about it.
 
The second bit about whether the investigation was right or if she hid other stuff,i'm sure they have been through it with a fine toothcomb,as for morals politics is a dirty business,every one of them in the world have done dodgy deals to get something done,if trump got in you will be able to say the exact same thing at the end of 4 years,it's just the business they are in
...or she hid evidence of illegalities successfully or not' includes whether there was any to hide. I absolutely understand hard and morally questionable decisions are a regular thing in political matters, it's necessary for the long-game - those who only make completely moral decisions are at a disadvantage because they're not prepared to do as much to achieve their aims.

The difference is Clinton is aggressive in her foreign policy (she instigates things that prompt these decisions), Trump, whilst he may have to clear up the mess in the middle east (and other dilemmas may arise), gives not only the impression he wouldn't be, but the very important impression of willingness to build relations with countries that may otherwise be threats due to previous poor relations. Also with Trump: he isn't the typical politician, he's a corp in politician's suit (I don't like corps like him, but there are also types of corps with political agendas for the world I hate more, ones that fund Clinton); he is challenging the typical politician publicly, for change (that could be very positive). It's my preference to see that potential for change given a chance instead of the norm from the US, which has only thrown up big problems continually on the international stage.
 
They are largely pro Hilary, but there is far more material that Trump has offered up, there is only so many times you can repeat what Clinton has done, when he is the gift that keeps on giving...
From the BBC (of course, partly state funded), I get the impression we are allied to the type of US politician Clinton is, rather than to the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.