Hillary Clinton is losing her mind and the election...(thank God)...2016


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Why do Republicans voters love Trump?

 

 

Now I have some business to take care off so go on and continue trying to defend Hillary if you can.

Being anti-Trump doesn't mean we're immediately pro-Clinton. I cannot support someone who has total disregard for the people, and laws of this country.

15 minutes ago, Dot Matrix said:

Being anti-Trump doesn't mean we're immediately pro-Clinton. I cannot support someone who has total disregard for the people, and laws of this country.

Reading that article .... this really seems like the "go to" line for Trump when he doesn't know the answer or have a plan.  I dare not play a drinking game for every time he speaks this line ... for I would suffer alcohol poisoning. 

 

"We are looking at that. We are looking at that,” Trump responded. “We’re looking at a lot of things.”

 

/sigh.  He doesn't have any plans.  Except a wall...I guess?  Banning Muslims?  Some tax plan that will benefit the wealthy greatly.  Other than that .... he is just looking into a "lot of things". :) 

 

And this line from the same article ....

When asked asked about whether Burkas should be banned in “schools, courts, and bordered checkpoints” in the United States during a February interview with Boston Herald Radio, Trump said “I’m okay with it. I know you’re shocked to hear me say it right? I’m okay with it.”

 

He is pro-bullying Muslim women into abandoning their cultural traditions and religious obligations...yep...that is the Trump way!   Doesn't France have a burqa ban?  Hmmm...yea .... how is that working out?

  • Like 3
18 minutes ago, Dot Matrix said:

Being anti-Trump doesn't mean we're immediately pro-Clinton. I cannot support someone who has total disregard for the people, and laws of this country.

Lets combat pointless rhetoric with more pointless rhetoric. Seems people are good at finding the most pointless ###### to complain about on both sides. Whether or not he's okay with it doesn't mean he'd do it, nor does it mean he has the authority to do it.

8 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Lets combat pointless rhetoric with more pointless rhetoric. Seems people are good at finding the most pointless ###### to complain about on both sides. Whether or not he's okay with it doesn't mean he'd do it, nor does it mean he has the authority to do it.

How is it pointless?  Or...what do you define as "pointless rhetoric"?  Is attacking Muslims cultural/religious freedoms (i.e. Burqa) pointless?  Is everything negative about Trump (either warranted or not) ... pointless?  Everything Trump or Clinton say should and can be scrutinized ... they are vying for the top seat in the US.  What they say ... isn't "pointless" ... and regardless if they have the authority to act on their words ... you can learn about their character or what they stand for.

 

Not pointless.

  • Like 3
2 hours ago, Gary7 said:

The old definition earned in the 1990's by that old leftie Ted Turner still holds:

 

CNN = Clinton News Network

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

The old definition earned in the 1990's by that old leftie Ted Turner still holds:

 

CNN = Clinton News Network

This is what John Kerry said .... what does CNN have to do with it?  You can disagree with what he said ... but what does attacking the news source achieve?

22 minutes ago, DocM said:

The old definition earned in the 1990's by that old leftie Ted Turner still holds:

 

CNN = Clinton News Network

Clinton News Network? Every time I turn on their "news" it's always about Trump. The news networks are the reason we are in the boat we're in. They covered Trump entirely far too much in the primaries and neglected real, viable candidates that couldn't ever get any airtime as they knew Trump would be a cash cow for ratings. 

Edited by shockz
30 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

This is what John Kerry said .... what does CNN have to do with it?  You can disagree with what he said ... but what does attacking the news source achieve?

Because regardless of how much coverage each candidate receives on CNN or the other Clinton shill sources, a generic Clintons negative stuff will be minimized as much as possible, or on the equivalent of Section F, Page 23. Or assigned to one of their acolytes. Most likely all of the above. 

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

Because regardless of how much coverage each candidate receives on CNN or the other Clinton shill sources, a generic Clintons negative stuff will be minimized as much as possible, or on the equivalent of Section F, Page 23. Or assigned to one of their acolytes. Most likely all of the above. 

Is Kerry Clinton's running mate?  

 

Sorry...still failing to see the connection with Kerry and...as you stated..."Clinton News Network"

45 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

How is it pointless?  Or...what do you define as "pointless rhetoric"?  Is attacking Muslims cultural/religious freedoms (i.e. Burqa) pointless?  Is everything negative about Trump (either warranted or not) ... pointless?  Everything Trump or Clinton say should and can be scrutinized ... they are vying for the top seat in the US.  What they say ... isn't "pointless" ... and regardless if they have the authority to act on their words ... you can learn about their character or what they stand for.

 

Not pointless.

It's pointless because he didn't say he'd do anything, only said he'd be "okay with it". Okay with a hypothetical scenario that may never actually come up. That's like me saying I'd be okay with ice cream right now. Well unfortunately I don't have ice cream so me being okay with said ice cream is irrelevant.

It's fine to scrutinize people for what they say, but scrutinize relevant things rather than answers to questions that provide scenarios that have not yet and probably never will come to pass.

7 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Is Kerry Clinton's running mate?  

 

Sorry...still failing to see the connection with Kerry and...as you stated..."Clinton News Network"

Please parse better. I was agreeing with what Gary7 posted in its entirety, which demonstrates my 'CNN has little veracity wrt the Clintons' comment.

 

Quote

2 hours ago, Gary7 said:


Secretary of State John Kerry said a recent spate of terror attacks in Western countries means ISIS is “on the run.” Watch CNNgo

CNN also said the above which is not true.

 

Just now, Emn1ty said:

It's pointless because he didn't say he'd do anything, only said he'd be "okay with it". Okay with a hypothetical scenario that may never actually come up. That's like me saying I'd be okay with ice cream right now. Well unfortunately I don't have ice cream so me being okay with said ice cream is irrelevant.

It's fine to scrutinize people for what they say, but scrutinize relevant things rather than answers to questions that provide scenarios that have not yet and probably never will come to pass.

Aaaah.  OK.  So selective hearing/listening.  Regarding your bad ice cream analogy .... a better one is that you don't like ice cream .... so no one can have ice cream.  Being "ok" with infringing on one's religious beliefs, especially for a POTUS hopefully, should be scrutinized.  What he, or Hillary says, are relevant ... even if you agree or disagree with it.

 

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

Please parse better. I was agreeing with what Gary7 posted in its entirety, which demonstrates my 'CNN has little veracity wrt the Clintons' comment.

Still...what does it have to do with Clinton?  Not-a-thing.  Did CNN say that ISIS is on the run ... or did they just report what Kerry said.  If CNN said that ISIS is on the run .... source?  All I see is "Kerry: ISIS 'is on the run' despite recent terror attacks"

4 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Aaaah.  OK.  So selective hearing/listening.  Regarding your bad ice cream analogy .... a better one is that you don't like ice cream .... so no one can have ice cream.  Being "ok" with infringing on one's religious beliefs, especially for a POTUS hopefully, should be scrutinized.  What he, or Hillary says, are relevant ... even if you agree or disagree with it.

 

Still...what does it have to do with Clinton?  Not-a-thing.  Did CNN say that ISIS is on the run ... or did they just report what Kerry said.  If CNN said that ISIS is on the run .... source?  All I see is "Kerry: ISIS 'is on the run' despite recent terror attacks"

Watch the Video it is on CNN. What does it have to do with Clinton? Most of your posts had nothing to do with Clinton.:p

1 minute ago, Gary7 said:

Watch the Video it is on CNN. What does it have to do with Clinton? Most of your posts had nothing to do with Clinton.:p

Thank you .... that was my point with regards to this comment ....

 

1 hour ago, DocM said:

The old definition earned in the 1990's by that old leftie Ted Turner still holds:

 

CNN = Clinton News Network

 

Clinton is running and not disconnected from this silly theory of the administration that IS is on the run. In fact, she's been saying the same thing.

 

Quote

 

 

She had Kerry's job and was instrumental in this US policy while at State, and supports the administration now.

Edited by DocM
2 minutes ago, DocM said:

Clinton is running and not disconnected from this silly theory of the administration that IS is on the run. In fact, she's been saying the same thing since 2014.

 

She had Kerry's job and was instrumental in this US policy while at State, and supports the administration now. 

So...did she claim ISIS on the run?  She hasn't been SecState for what... over 3 years now?

Just now, jjkusaf said:

So...did she claim ISIS on the run?  She hasn't been SecState for what... over 3 years now?

Why don't you give it a rest

 

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1303156-hillary-clinton-is-losing-her-mind-and-the-electionthank-god2016/?do=findComment&comment=597500046

 

3 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

What...because you can not explain why you brought Kerry's comments into this thread about Clinton ... and someone else makes a comment regarding the "Clinton News Network" .... just because they reported said Kerry comments?

 

Talk about dragging things off point ... your Kerry post did that.

 

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

"Secure" ad, Hillary For America, 12/20/15

In that ad she says ....

 

"America is not just electing a president. We're also electing a commander-in-chief. That choice matters, because strengthening the economy, making healthcare more affordable, raising incomes - all of that depends on us being both secure at home and leading the world. I will get up every single day and do whatever it takes to make sure our country is safe and strong. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

 

Missing: "ISIS is on the run"

 

Quote

Despite Recent Attacks And Growing Concerns From The American Public, Clinton Declared "We Now Finally Are Where We Need To Be" Against ISIS

Talking about pulling something out of context.  Here is what she said....which was posted on the GOP website .... not sure of the fallacy behind or why the GOP is even bothered (guess they are stretching).  You know neither candidate will be able to wave a magic wand and make ISIS or other terrorist organizations disappear.

 

 

Once again...neither has to do with CNN reporting what Kerry stated.

  • Like 2
Just now, jjkusaf said:

What...because you can not explain why you brought Kerry's comments into this thread about Clinton ... and someone else makes a comment regarding the "Clinton News Network" .... just because they reported said Kerry comments?

 

Talk about dragging things off point ... your Kerry post did that.

 

In that ad she says ....

 

"America is not just electing a president. We're also electing a commander-in-chief. That choice matters, because strengthening the economy, making healthcare more affordable, raising incomes - all of that depends on us being both secure at home and leading the world. I will get up every single day and do whatever it takes to make sure our country is safe and strong. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

 

Missing: "ISIS is on the run"

 

Talking about pulling something out of context.  Here is what she said....which was posted on the GOP website .... not sure of the fallacy behind or why the GOP is even bothered (guess they are stretching).  You know neither candidate will be able to wave a magic wand and make ISIS or other terrorist organizations disappear.

 

 

Once again...neither has to do with CNN reporting what Kerry stated.

I did not bring Kerry into this thread he was brought into before I post try to keep up.

 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Carol, Windows XP is still being used today only in a small capacity. It is still the best OS there is due to its backwards compatibility with other older software, the customization features, and friendly UI, and people often feel that upgrading to newer OSes is cost prohibitive in specialized Industries or developing countries, so the market share as of now is around 0.2%-0.3%
    • If I could, I would commemorate it the best way possible: Replacing old machines that are still running Windows XP with something more modern, stable and better.     Noone and nothing should be running Windows XP in 2026.
    • Google's new hand-wave reCAPTCHA can be bypassed with a stock photo by Ivan Jenic Image: Screenshot Google is testing a new reCAPTCHA method that asks you to wave at your camera to prove you're human. So, besides solving puzzles and reading distorted text, you can now use your computer’s camera to pass the verification test. When the hand gesture verification is triggered, your browser asks for camera access and prompts you to perform a simple gesture, like a wave or an open palm. Google says it records a short video of the movement and uses AI to extract 21 hand-knuckle coordinates to complete the verification process. The video is then immediately deleted, and Google swears it doesn't keep it. The process alone can be uncomfortable for people who wouldn’t want their biometric data, which hand scans technically qualify as, recorded. But it gets even more nuanced, as early testers discovered that the new hand-waving reCAPTCHA can be passed with a simple stock image. A user on X tested the new challenge using a stock image of a hand fed through OBS Virtual Camera, and it passed. I wanted to verify it, so I tried the same thing. It took me a few tries and a few stock images, but in the end, I was also able to pass the test. I simply had to readjust the stock image of a generic person waving inside OBS, and Google’s mechanism registered it as a legitimate hand gesture. Once again, it didn’t even have to be a video or an AI-generated hand animation. Given the simplicity of the process, the entire action can be automated in minutes. All it takes is a simple Python script to render the new reCAPTCHA method obsolete. And it doesn’t even have to be an AI bot, which is usually used for solving puzzles and other verification methods. The new reCAPTCHA method is still in its early phase, and Google will, hopefully, update its AI to at least reject still images. However, this incident, combined with users’ initial skepticism about Google’s practices regarding user data, likely won’t make too many people wave at the camera anytime soon.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Apprentice
      Asgardi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      sunrisea2milk earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      495
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      262
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      90
    5. 5
      macoman
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!