Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

holfresh wrote:FBI probing new Hillary Clinton emails...

And the markets tanking... related?

They were down a little already..really didn't have that big of an impact but small...Mexican Peso taking a hit tho...

C'mon fellas, we really going to do the conspiracy thing, just in reverse?

Honest question about the coincidence since I know holfresh watches these things. I don't really understand what spooks the markets... does anyone?

It absolutely had an effect..All these things are related...Clinton is seen a stable, predictable and market friendly...The financial markets are terrified of Trump..Prediction of Trump wins is that the market will be down 10-15%, Oil off 4%, Europe lower as well...Oil is lower by 2% right now...

Republicans are irrationally confident.

Democrats are irrationally nervous.

Same as it always is.

Democrats are going to wring their hands until California, Washington and Oregon are called.

Sixers welcome Sevyn Streeter to sing after protest debate...

Hope she doesn't wear a Nike t-shirt. She may cause a riot.

Some dude in the arena probably made the call on that..The negative exposure they are getting on this far outweigh just letting her sing...

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I disagree. .

So me promising to revisit the topic and then doing exactly that in great details when more, better information was available was distracting and disappointing to you?

Heh, fair enough. What stop putting words in my mouth and assuming. I am getting tired of it.

What's "disappointing" is the clear preference to make this personal. Not personal, truthful.

Irrelevant. I've never dodged a question asked. You misrepresent

What was the purpose of citing the article that you did ? Was it not imply equivalence between the two? or was is simply educational?

Both. Though equivalence is the wrong choice of words.

To raise an issue and assume "equivalence" is the implication is poor form, if we care what equivalent actually means. please explain to me...i cant wait to hear.

Is there any direct link to what is on the Veritas videos to Clinton?Yes, in the 3rd video, Creamer clearly says the Ducks were the candidates idea.

Is there any direct evidence that what was claimed actually occurred? yes, Ducks were there and they admitted to agitators causing violence in Chicago.

I'm sorry, I believe I may misunderstand the issue at hand. Is sending a person in a donald duck costume to rallies considered illegal voter fraud?
No, you keep denying the part when they say that what they do is fraud, by saying its "bragging". I read my words, I did not say Ducks were fraud. You asked for links I provided them, you change the subject AGAIN! And besides, when you say they are "bragging" isn't that your inference? I know Trump used that as an excuse for his video but the folks on the Veritas video have not said they were bragging. That is all you once again, deflecting and hiding behind words that YOU inject into the conversation. I don't believe they were bragging and I never said it. I believe they were 100% truthful.

Again, genuine question.[b] Again, answered, but I am sure you will do your best to pivot and deflect.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792052676406247424

djsunyc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:New emails found after she said that was it? OMG people she is a fcking "traitor" let alone criminally corrupt. So voting for what could amount to a very serious felon(maybe worse) or a guy who bragged he got some pssy 13 years ago?

we got the following reported:

1. not hillary emails
2. not podesta emails
3. nothing to do with wikileaks
4. nothing to do with russia
5. REPUBLICAN house oversigh chair calling it a "re-opening" NOT the FBI

i think you wanted to say vote for hillary or the guy with really small hands.

I have small hands for a big person myself--so I dont want to go there.

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Approval ratings have a lot to do with who you are running against. Right now Trump is making her look like a rock star but if she was going against a more capable opponent like Kasich she may well have been stuck in the low 30s. Things like Approval are largely subjective and much more susceptible to biases. Predicting these based on past data is risky business. I guess we won't really know how she would have fared.

I've never heard that claim and I think it's unlikely it would have a large effect. The presidential race voting obviously reflects who you're up against but there's no obvious connection to the approval ratings. Hillary's approval ratings were higher before running president, which does not suggest she's getting a bounce from running against Trump. I think just running for president will usually lower your approval ratings (due to more scrutiny) regardless of who the opponent is.

I would expect them to go down when you run for president. I have never tried to see if there's a true correlation or not. But from my own POV, I would generally approve of Hillary as a politician. would not and do not approve of her as the POTUS.I think almost everyone would face the same barrier. I do also think that the same reasoning being applied to justify voting for her by thinking about the alternative(Trump), will play a role in her approval rating after the fact. It would be interesting to see if anyone has tried to analyze the correlation.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

holfresh wrote:FBI probing new Hillary Clinton emails...

And the markets tanking... related?

Last two presidential election cycles post 8 year terms both coincided with market collapses, not saying is cause and effect or even related. But 2000 and 2008 were last two recessions. So you are likely to see the "smart" money bailing on stocks.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:FBI probing new Hillary Clinton emails...

What took them so long?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/792049409244663809/photo/1

From what I gathered reading this forum, it appears Clinton and secret world bank illuminati has allowed or directed the FBI to do this.

Good point but at least no "laws" were broken. Hillary is a regular Alice Capone.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:What stop putting words in my mouth and assuming. I am getting tired of it.

I've been very patient with your lying.

please explain to me...i cant wait to hear.

I answered your simple question with a "yes" and you require explanation?

I don't condone political tactics that are underhanded, on either side. Been clear about this.

So I'd consider sending someone around in a Donald Duck costume and tactics to target grounds to suppress turnout undesirable, if not equal.

As I've been clear I don't consider the Veritas videos as proof the Clinton campaign directly or knowingly engaged in illegal voting fraud, I don't understand what's unclear to you.

No, i was NOT drawing an equivilency to voter suppression tactics acknowledged by the trump campaign and illegal voting fraud by the Clinton campaign, because the latter has not been established. You saying "what we have learned" doesn't make it so.

No, you keep denying the part when they say that what they do is fraud, by saying its "bragging". And besides, when you say they are "bragging" isn't that your inference?

No, it's not my inference, I'm saying it directly. Why do I need to keep explaining this to you?

Because they bragged about it I've been clear several times that warrants an investigation. But no law enforcement agency is going to convict them based on edited video and neither am I.

Is there evidence of fraud beyond their claims on the video, yes or no?

I get that isn't your stance. You're willing to convict based on what you've seen alone and are also willing to connect it to the Clinton campaign based on what you've seen alone and that's your right. I fully understand your position.

Why don't you take a second to try to understand mine.

Investigate? Yes.

Convict? No.

What is deflecting about any of this???

I've addressed duck.

I've addressed the alledged voter fraud.

I've addressed why I mentioned the voter suppression story.

I've never once said anything about journalistic bias (no idea why that was even raised).

What they hell else is there?

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:FBI probing new Hillary Clinton emails...

What took them so long?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/792049409244663809/photo/1

From what I gathered reading this forum, it appears Clinton and secret world bank illuminati has allowed or directed the FBI to do this.

Good point but at least no "laws" were broken. Hillary is a regular Alice Capone.

Should've stopped at "good point".