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

    • I've been on Deezer for over a decade, but glad that Tidal joined them in fighting AI slop. Can't stand such takes as Spotify's: "Spotify's CEO recently pushed back against listeners who call AI music "slop," urging people to stop using the term and instead embrace the creative potential of AI music."
    • “Could” … in the IS the healthcare is run by insurance companies that make indecent profits denying basic treatments to people that are paying money for nothing. Besides, where are all the Trump epigones who were stating that the tariffs were going to paid by foreign companies and not the US citizens? …
    • Microsoft Teams gets smarter at spotting sneaky meeting bots by Usama Jawad Microsoft Teams is set to receive a couple of new features soon, including a dedicated Recap app and a rather controversial location tracking functionality. The Redmond tech giant has also explained how it has made online communication and collaboration a lot more performant this year. Now, the company has detailed more secure bot admission mechanisms, as first reported by us in March 2026, and now available in Teams. As the use of AI has expanded across enterprise environments, Microsoft has begun allowing users to integrate bots into their meetings for various tasks, such as note-taking. While this has a tangible productivity benefit for users, Microsoft has highlighted how misconfiguration has allowed bots to join meetings that they shouldn't. This has created security and privacy risks, which Microsoft is now combating using a new Teams admin policy that allows organizers to control how external bots access meetings. Admins can leverage a policy called Manage external bots and their access to meetings. The default configuration is "When detected, require approval before joining", which places detected bots in a lobby before they are explicitly admitted into the meeting. The other option disables the experience. Microsoft has also requested admins to only allow organizers and co-organizers to manage access to a meeting, so that other people don't randomly allow bots into meetings. Teams will now be able to leverage infrastructure signals to intelligently detect and distinguish between bots and humans. Microsoft will soon also trial a registration experience for independent software vendors (ISVs) to build a system that registers a bot with Microsoft, so it is marked as a "known" bot. Teams will also categorize bots as trusted and suspected threats so that organizers can quickly identify which bots they want to allow into a meeting. Additional safeguards to block accidental admission of a bot into a meeting include: No one-click Admit option for identified bots Confirmation prompts when admitting participants that include bots Warnings when organizers choose Admit all, and bots are included Microsoft has begun rolling out this experience, and it will be retiring the current CAPTCHA verification implementation. In the future, the company plans to roll out new capabilities like allow-lists, organization-wide policies, admin reports, audit logs, and more granular controls.
    • With the current hardware prices Microsoft should lift the restriction. Then if you have the correct TPM then allow you to use X feature, if you don't have the correct TPM then don't but still actually let you run windows. 11. With a disclaimer during install that X features would be unavailable.
    • It's good for recycling of course. But commence inflation of a second hand RAM bubble and price gouging on DDR 4 inventory in 3... 2... 1...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!