like the big boys!93henfan wrote:I realize that. I just found it comical that she's in front of a rabid audience basically saying, "can't handle your debt, that's OK! -- we'll give you a grace period so you can incur more extremely risky debt!!".houndawg wrote:
people default on loans all the time
And the crowd goes wild.
This...and are you really surprised houndie doesn't comprehend that logic fail?93henfan wrote:I realize that. I just found it comical that she's in front of a rabid audience basically saying, "can't handle your debt, that's OK! -- we'll give you a grace period so you can incur more extremely risky debt!!".houndawg wrote:
people default on loans all the time
And the crowd goes wild.
You should try out for the Olympics...some sort of event that involves a lot of twisting and manipulation.JohnStOnge wrote:I do think she did better on that yesterday but I still don't think she's saying it in the best way. She said her testimony to the FBI was truthful and it was consistent with what she's said publicly and to Congress.BDKJMU wrote: -Hillary doubling down with the lie (twice- on Mike Wallace interview last Sunday and speech before black journalists yesterday) that Comey said her answers were truthful (even left leaning WaPo and Politifact are giving her major Pinnochios)...
I agree that even left wingers are reaming her over it; to some extent unfairly. I say that because they start from the premise that what Comey said demonstrates that she lied. It does not. As I wrote before, Comey said the FBI does not think that that she knowingly sent classified information and also does not think that she knowingly sent anything marked classified. If you say you never sent classified information or sent anything marked classified when you did but you don't know that you did, you're not lying. You can be legitimately criticized for not knowing things were classified or marked classified, but you're not lying.
The press seems to have this thing where 1) she said she didn't send any classified material and 2) Comey said she did send classified material therefore 3) she lied when she said she didn't send any classified material. Somehow the fact that Comey also said the FBI assessed that she didn't knowingly send classified material continues to escape media people. The fact that the FBI said she didn't knowingly do those things pretty much DOES support her contention that she was not lying when she said them. If you're relaying what you believe to be true while testifying, you're testifying truthfully even if some things you believe to be true are not true.
And, really, the media people have to be pretty dense not to grasp that.
But what I REALLY don't understand is why Clinton and her campaign don't just spell it out the way I just spelled it out. It's really pretty irrefutable if you do that. I mean, she doesn't have to get as long winded as I did. Just say, "I said what I honestly believed to be true at the time. Later on the FBI determined that some of what was sent was classified. But the FBI also determined that I didn't know that."
Pretty simple.
You may honestly not know, and not be lying, but that's only because you are an idiot.JohnStOnge wrote: And I don't think she'd have to squirm if she'd just handle it by saying she said what she honestly believed at the time to be the truth. I honestly don't know why she's having such a difficult time with this.
Comney also was asked if it was reasonable that the Secretary of State should expect to receive classified e-mails. He responded, "Yes."JohnStOnge wrote:No it's not. At least not according to what I've heard/read about it. If she told anybody she sent classified e mails using that system the FBI didn't find that. If it had she'd have been charged. Comey didn't say she knowingly sent classified e mails. Nobody has said they can show that she did that.DSUrocks07 wrote:[
Its more like if your wife asked if you were cheating on her with the woman up the street and you denied it but the neighbor said you talked to him about it and you told them that you kissed her often over the last few months and fooled around once or twice but he didnt have proof that you had sex with her. THEN you went back to her and claimed that the neighbor said you didnt cheat on your wife.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Wall Street crowds didn't have to go wild. They knew they were covered.SDHornet wrote:This...and are you really surprised houndie doesn't comprehend that logic fail?93henfan wrote:
I realize that. I just found it comical that she's in front of a rabid audience basically saying, "can't handle your debt, that's OK! -- we'll give you a grace period so you can incur more extremely risky debt!!".
And the crowd goes wild.
Hey it was the truth to her at the time with the information she had available, so that makes it okayBDKJMU wrote:Hillary Clinton: Chelsea ‘The First One’ to Say Zika Was Serious Problem
http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-cl ... s-problem/
Yeah, and Al Gore invented the internet...
No logic fail at all my young brown brother - what you've paraphrased is a fair description of the free ride Wall Street and the savage bankers had on our dime.SDHornet wrote:This...and are you really surprised houndie doesn't comprehend that logic fail?93henfan wrote:
I realize that. I just found it comical that she's in front of a rabid audience basically saying, "can't handle your debt, that's OK! -- we'll give you a grace period so you can incur more extremely risky debt!!".
And the crowd goes wild.
You're blathering again John. Real statisticians have already called out the anomalies. The machines are gameable and everybody knows it. Even you know it whether you know it or not.JohnStOnge wrote:On the thing with Trump surrogates saying the polls were wrong during the primaries:
Below is a table of the 32 States for which 538 had enough polling data to make predictions based on polls. Note that the poll-predicted winner of the Republican primaries won in 29 of 32 cases. In two of the 3 cases where the poll favorite didn't win, the confidence level was close to a 50:50 proposition. A coin flip.
AND, when the polls were wrong, they predicted that TRUMP would win and he didn't. Yellow highlights show when the polls were wrong. Trump supporters are pretty willfully ignorant. Absolutely NO suggestion that the polls UNDERPREDICTED how well Trump would do. They pretty much slightly OVERPREDICTED that. Actually, I would say this is another case in which they are bullshitting like their candidate does all the time.
Oh, "NA" means there wasn't enough polling data for 538 to give a confidence level but you could still identify a favorite.
Dude, the numbers are right there. They're publicly available. In situations where the polls were sufficient to allow a "call" by 538 the favorite by the polls won 91 percent of the time. And in two of the three cases where that didn't happen the confidence level associated with the favorite wasn't real high. 54% and 58%. Close to coin flip propositions.houndawg wrote:You're blathering again John. Real statisticians have already called out the anomalies. The machines are gameable and everybody knows it. Even you know it whether you know it or not.JohnStOnge wrote:On the thing with Trump surrogates saying the polls were wrong during the primaries:
Below is a table of the 32 States for which 538 had enough polling data to make predictions based on polls. Note that the poll-predicted winner of the Republican primaries won in 29 of 32 cases. In two of the 3 cases where the poll favorite didn't win, the confidence level was close to a 50:50 proposition. A coin flip.
AND, when the polls were wrong, they predicted that TRUMP would win and he didn't. Yellow highlights show when the polls were wrong. Trump supporters are pretty willfully ignorant. Absolutely NO suggestion that the polls UNDERPREDICTED how well Trump would do. They pretty much slightly OVERPREDICTED that. Actually, I would say this is another case in which they are bullshitting like their candidate does all the time.
Oh, "NA" means there wasn't enough polling data for 538 to give a confidence level but you could still identify a favorite.
If they intentionally had him sit behind her....... what's the strategy?BDKJMU wrote: And don't think for a minute that Clinton's extremely tightly controlled campaign (maybe the tightest controlled ever in the history of presidential elections) doesn't know who is sitting/standing behind her. This isn't a guy who would go unrecognized, esp in Florida less than 30 miles from the Pulse nightclub..
And you think that is going to carry over for the common folk? And that hilldog would be the one to look out for the common folk?houndawg wrote:No logic fail at all my young brown brother - what you've paraphrased is a fair description of the free ride Wall Street and the savage bankers had on our dime.SDHornet wrote: This...and are you really surprised houndie doesn't comprehend that logic fail?
Maybe he cut hilldog a check for the seat? We all know hilldog will take money from everybody, just ask Russia, the Saudi's, the....Skjellyfetti wrote:If they intentionally had him sit behind her....... what's the strategy?BDKJMU wrote: And don't think for a minute that Clinton's extremely tightly controlled campaign (maybe the tightest controlled ever in the history of presidential elections) doesn't know who is sitting/standing behind her. This isn't a guy who would go unrecognized, esp in Florida less than 30 miles from the Pulse nightclub..
I don't get it. Seems like massive fuckuo to me. And they should suffer some bad news cycles because of it.
But, just curious what you think the strategy here?
That will make it easier for her to rip them off when she leaves office.CID1990 wrote:Trumps only up by 3 points in SC
you can go ahead and tell the monogrammer to put HRC on the White House napkins and towels
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, Julian Assange says he has an October surprise.CID1990 wrote:Trumps only up by 3 points in SC
you can go ahead and tell the monogrammer to put HRC on the White House napkins and towels
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FIFY.JohnStOnge wrote:Unfortunately, Putin says he has an October surprise.CID1990 wrote:Trumps only up by 3 points in SC
you can go ahead and tell the monogrammer to put HRC on the White House napkins and towels
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right. Her campaign knew that guy was going to be in the background but figured EVERYBODY would love him. They had NO idea that putting someone like that in the background would cause controversy for them. Of COURSE they did it intentionally!And don't think for a minute that Clinton's extremely tightly controlled campaign (maybe the tightest controlled ever in the history of presidential elections) doesn't know who is sitting/standing behind her. This isn't a guy who would go unrecognized, esp in Florida less than 30 miles from the Pulse nightclub..
Democrats are saying they should assassinate him to stop him from releasing more information.JohnStOnge wrote:Unfortunately, Julian Assange says he has an October surprise.CID1990 wrote:Trumps only up by 3 points in SC
you can go ahead and tell the monogrammer to put HRC on the White House napkins and towels
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's probably nothing.JohnStOnge wrote:Unfortunately, Julian Assange says he has an October surprise.CID1990 wrote:Trumps only up by 3 points in SC
you can go ahead and tell the monogrammer to put HRC on the White House napkins and towels
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk