gary77

iTrader: (1)

They were also able to buy a property costing 1.8 million dollars and put 800k down themselves . But yes lets move on . The next one is much more amusing

hodgy0_2

sure you can have that gary

although she did say a week later

"But she retracted the remarks a week later, telling the Philadelphia Daily News editorial board on March 24, 2008, that she "misspoke," correcting herself to say she had been told there was a threat of sniper fire in the area. The next day she told reporters, "So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

in context Chris Huhne the former Lib Dem, lied under oath regarding a speeding ticket - I would still vote for him over Trump

claim 3 ?

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Imagine forgeting that you werent actually ever shot at by snipers. Brilliant

Their is no need to compare her to anyone else. Just judge her by what she has said and done in the past.

And on the first round i would liken it to someone that tells people they were dead broke and in debt when they lost their job but neglects to take into account the winning lottery ticket they bought with their last couple of quid

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Round 3

Immigrant Grandparents – When discussing immigrant stories, Clinton asserted that “all my grandparents… came over here.” It was another story Politifact said was false, as only one of her grandparents was an immigrant

hodgy0_2

source?

hodgy0_2

sure, but not the devil incarnate either

gary77

iTrader: (1)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...tion-history-/

Just another case of her miss speaking otherwise known as lieing or talking ****e for effect

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Not even im claiming she is that. Im only claiming she is full of ****e

gary77

iTrader: (1)

The sources will always follow . Be patient

hodgy0_2

okay - as a reference point - and to serve as a sort of null hypothesis

can you name a politician who is not "full of sh1te"

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Round 4

Sir Edmund Hillary – Seems Clinton can’t even bring herself to tell the truth about her own name. She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest. One small problem though, the explorer didn’t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...amed-after-si/

Its possible this is an honest mistake

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Sadly i cant . But does that mean that the people shouldnt care ?

gary77

iTrader: (1)

She seems to be the kind of person that will say whatever will benefit her cause . The truth doesnt matter

gary77

iTrader: (1)

She tried to join the marines
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/f...n-the-marines/

Just more bull**** that sounded good at the time

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Benghazi – Clearly the most reprehensible lie of them all – Clinton failed to tell the truth about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi. She claimed for weeks, standing over the flag-draped coffins of murdered Americans, that an insensitive YouTube video had incited the violence that occurred that night. Why? Because a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 – which it was – would have destroyed President Obama’s re-election chances. But hey, at the end of the day it’s worth it to Clinton to tell a politically expedient lie, so long as her party can stay in power

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...-clinton-lies/

Turbohot

Lol this is hilarious, if true. I didn't think Clinton was that immature thus capable of such bull$h7t, man.

This Hilary Clinton-Edmund Hilary claim made me laugh tonight before bed time, and yesterday,when regarding a refurbished MaccyD in a nearby town, someone in real life person from around here told me this....>

http://warpedwales.co.uk/2015/09/04/...esity-crisis/#

....which gave me giggles till the moment I was trying my best to fall asleep. The Coca Cola lorry in Wrexham and the Liverpudlian gym instructor articles in the same publication are equally earth shattering.

hodgy0_2

lol, yes - I would also say that she is used to meeting people from all around the world and having to make small talk with them etc

part of some peoples skill, especially famous and powerful people is making other people seem important and relevant during these brief encounters

again I would not really class this as anything more than tittle tattle

and to support my null hypothesis - if you barred every person on the planet from being a politician for inconsistencies in their personal narrative

then on one would ever qualify

hodgy0_2

okay, these are sort of getting pointless to debunk - a story 40 years ago!!!
about joining the marines - really!!

and actually it is looking like what it is - the republican attack dog machine has been relentlessly obsessing over the Clintons for the last 30 years

they have been subject to more official republican investigations (that ultimately go nowhere) than almost any other US politician

sections of the rabid right media in the US have been pouring over every single public, semi private and private speech & conversation she has made over the last 40 years

and they get this!!! really

you begin to think that if they have to make a big play of this 40 year old tale, they don't really have much do they?

at best still tittle tattle and if it is truly a bar to being a politician, it would most likely exclude every single person on the planet's suitability to holding a public office

and crucially, so far, all seem to have been in a personal capacity

hodgy0_2

yes, this is much more serious - so lets deal with this one before we go any further

gary77

iTrader: (1)

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bre...ndroid-samsung

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...or-attack.html

hodgy0_2

Right – so let’s be absolutely clear here

The claim in your linked article is that Clinton / Obama / the state department / pentagon knew that the attacks on the Benghazi diplomatic mission were most likely caused by terrorism – and thus to an extent pre-planned

And not what the administration where saying in the immediate aftermath – which was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video

OK – I needed to state the above in clear language because sometimes the claim is that she knew of the attack, she sacrificed the American diplomats who died, she prevented them from protecting themselves, she was directly responsible for Jedwards success in the X-factor

Ok so you get the picture, people throw all sort of accusations at Hillary– some rubbish, some true, and see what sticks

So firstly let’s remind ourselves that this whole episode deals with national security – unfortunately all governments in all countries of all persuasions, probably for all sorts of good reasons treat stories like this (national security) differently not least because details always seem to be sketchy in the immediate aftermath of events like these – and it is not really surprising to any rational person why this would be so

But yes she looks top have spun it, by initially saying it’s cause was a video – instead of linking it explicitly to terrorism

Wow – politician’s spin stories, politician’s try and manipulate the media, presumably an amazing revelation to you Gary, but not to me I am afraid

And I simply don’t see Hillary Clinton as the devil incarnate that you seem to - she seems to act like most self-aggrandising politicians do

She does seem over secretive, evasive in answering questions and in my personal opinion a bit slippery

(but I actually don’t real know anything about her other than what I read in the press – so I am happy to be proved wrong – in my life I have formed opinions of people only to be shown I was wrong when I actually got to know them)

So all the above – versus Donald “grab them by the *****” Trump

Bonehead

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Clinton-Cas...s=clinton+cash

I've just read this, utterly terrifying if she gets in

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I agree . But you presumed wrongly that it is an amazing revelation to me that politician’s spin stories, politician’s try and manipulate the media.

I dont see her as the devil incarnate just as yet another politician that is over secretive, evasive in answering questions and a bit slippery

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Why do countries give millions of dollars to the clinton foundation ?

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Right, and presumably you'll be reading this next (if you haven't already), and will be even more terrified at the prospect of Trump getting in.

Turbohot

Debate was good. No shake-hands; neither pre nor post. Trump seemed quite p7ssed off at the end.

Hillary's suit was nice and she didn't look ill last night. Bill didn't creep up to his blindly faithful wife to pat her back- like he did; after the second debate. Perhaps after the second debate, upset Hillary told him to stay away from her, for she didn't half take some serious flack from Trump in that debate; for Bill's bad actions. But I'm sure they shared a bottle of wine back home later, and then slept sound in their separate bedrooms as usual. All's well if it ends well.

Turbohot

Like Kierkegaard (in 1840's) said in the context of the tragic heroism: 'Aesthetics required concealment and rewarded it, ethics required revelation and punished concealment”.

All that's polished and glitters isn't necessarily gold.

Yes, all politicians lie, conceal and do wrong things, we know that. We also know that some are worse than others at all these things.

Well it can be argued that many men do this 'locker room' talk, and many politicians have been blamed for harrassing women. And therefore, no big deal. Specially on this male dominant Scoobynet, where many testosterone driven alpha males often refer women in similar ways quite casually, so what's the problem?

The problem with him is that his highly scandalous and common (but very, very wealthy) being in combination with his brainless skull (although good cage rattling skills) make him an accidental and an unfit candidate for the U.S. presidency.

The problem with Clinton is that her scandalous, immoral (ref: trying to cover her dodgy husband's dark deeds by hook or crook) being, along with her 'visible' concealment and bull$hit make her not exactly a 'nation's sweetheart' candidate for the U.S. presidency. Ok, she scores on her office experience, which equips her with knowledge of how things run (Trump doesn't have the faintest idea), and that's what makes her fitter than Trump for the post.

Looking at their track record, I wouldn't vote for either of them; provided I were American. I would have boycotted the election. Whole thing is rigged.

hotsam

My view as an American -

There are two choices:

1. A corrupt liar who is knowledgeable on the issues and well spoken.
2. An insane megalomaniac who shows no desire to learn even basic facts and who can't form a complete sentence.

I voted today and chose option #1.

Matty81

With either of those 2 muppets set to be in charge, America will be in a worser state than the uk

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Whilst that may be true, there's worse and "OMFG, really?"