Why Hillary Clinton is sinking faster than the Titanic

a reply to: flatbush71

Hmmm, That is very interesting, surely suspect. ~$heopleNation

would not be surprised to see her emails in foreign / Russian hands

I don't believe Putin would release them.
because that would make her look bad and possible lose her the presidency.
the russians WANT her to be potus. they will not embarrass her--yet.

they might well hold on to them till after (heaven forbid) she gets in the white house, at which time they will hold them over her head to gain advantage.

she's so incompetent and corrupt that most of the bad actors in the world are rooting for her.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Profusion

that article was published over 6 hours ago - teh RMS titanic sank in 2h 48m - yet hillery is still here - ergo article = incorrect

And the titanic is no longer sinking

a reply to: Profusion

I have no love for Hillary, she is globalist, corporatist wall street puppet, but since you seem to be Interested in coverups, I thought this would interest you. However this one involves republicans.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
I just want people to stop and think of one thing before they vote: Do you honestly to God really want Hilary to have possession of the nuclear football when Bill gets caught diddling around again and embarrasses her?

The alternative is Trump having possession of the nuclear football every time someone insults him and he feels the need to fight back. What do you think we'd choose? And don't forget, he's on record saying we should kill terrorists and their families, and that he would "bomb the hell out of" ISIS's territory in Syria and Iraq, then send in oil companies like Exxon to take the oil.

I think his actual words and their consequences are a lot more worrisome than your hypothetical suggestion.

a reply to: ElGoobero

the russians WANT her to be potus. they will not embarrass her--yet.

Is that why Putin endorses Trump?

www.cnn.com...

She is my hero. I don't know how she made it out alive from that sniper attack. I still have nightmares from that video the violence. She is a true patriot. Anyway on the video I saw Clinton's buddy. He said that Hillary Clinton goes to La every month to practice witchcraft at her church of witchcraft. That really concerns me if it's true. A practicing witch in the White House is a scary thought. Also the fact that she got into a physical brawl in the state department and broke her elbow. The government leader in a physical fight in a government office. I have read that she says speak only unless spoken to also no eye contact and she calls her Secret Service protection agents pigs. She is one Evil Woman and I fear if she gets in the White House what she'll do with nuclear weapons. And also what she will do with veterans. They seem to think that veterans are subversive. I am a Marine Corps veteran who is not violent and I don't own any guns but if I wanted to I should be allowed as long as I follow the law. Well we all know that Hillary Clinton has done so many things wrong and gotten away with it before I doubt she's going to get in trouble now. Especially since she practices the ancient art of Bitchcraft. She is definitely one of the people I dislike the most.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

He said he would not interfere. Chris Wallace asked the question three different ways to see if he could trip him up on it . Obama finally said "How many times do I have to say it"
There's a shorter version I can't get if you can stand a few minutes. LOL. I won't force you though.

a reply to: SheopleNation

Political trolling is not allowed.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

He also said he wouldn't rule out using nukes against Europe.

www.independent.co.uk...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Profusion

There are no facts presented. The entire piece is an op-ed.

the facts are plain as day. she has lies coming out of her ears.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: enlightenedservant

He also said he wouldn't rule out using nukes against Europe.

www.independent.co.uk...

O_O

How did I miss that? This guy won't even rule out nuking our allies?

originally posted by: Profusion

What if the FBI recommends indicting Hillary over the email scandal -- my law enforcement sources tell me this is a very real possibility.

But it gets worse. Have you heard that Russia claims to have 10,000 of Hillary's hacked emails? They say they will release them. If this is the case, Hillary better stop worrying about the White House and start worrying about the Big House.

Would President Obama allow the Justice Department to indict his former secretary of state? I used to think “no.” But I now believe the answer to that question depends on only one factor -- is Hillary beating Trump?
Why Hillary Clinton is sinking faster than the Titanic

I realize that the article above is from Fox News. I'm posting this here for unbiased observers. I think there may be one or two others around here somewhere.

Liberals can skip the above because Fox News published it. The facts and the sound logical arguments are clearly irrelevant because the source isn't kosher, I understand. There's no need to muck up this thread with posts about that.

I'm posting this thread for mature adults who want to discuss facts and their implications.

I think the Russia thing is real. It was reported from several sources who, of course, may have been citing the same original source, but if it is true and you would have to be really on the Hillary side to deny the possibility, Hillary would be ripe for some good ol' fashioned KGB 80's style blackmail if elected. That my fellow ATS readers is some serious stuff for the American public. Imagine if the Kremlin had a few of her emails that she would never want the public to see and thought she had covered. Putin would play her like a harp at the Pearly Gates.

For this reason we should all demand that at least everything the FBI has be made available to a congressional committee on national security before the general election. It would be too classified to make it public but I think she should be indicted on the fact she was so careless with America's secrets that the possibility exists that the Russians have them. That is how other compromises of classified material are treated. If there is a possible compromise because of a security lapse (safe being left unlocked, a disc goes missing and is found in a dumpster, etc; these are real examples I saw in my career in the military) then the person is held accountable.

Blackmail is not beneath the Russian government when it comes to world politics. If they start that on Hillary after she is in office we are in big trouble as a country.

originally posted by: corkUSMC
She is my hero. I don't know how she made it out alive from that sniper attack. I still have nightmares from that video the violence. She is a true patriot. Anyway on the video I saw Clinton's buddy. He said that Hillary Clinton goes to La every month to practice witchcraft at her church of witchcraft. That really concerns me if it's true. A practicing witch in the White House is a scary thought. Also the fact that she got into a physical brawl in the state department and broke her elbow. The government leader in a physical fight in a government office. I have read that she says speak only unless spoken to also no eye contact and she calls her Secret Service protection agents pigs. She is one Evil Woman and I fear if she gets in the White House what she'll do with nuclear weapons. And also what she will do with veterans. They seem to think that veterans are subversive. I am a Marine Corps veteran who is not violent and I don't own any guns but if I wanted to I should be allowed as long as I follow the law. Well we all know that Hillary Clinton has done so many things wrong and gotten away with it before I doubt she's going to get in trouble now. Especially since she practices the ancient art of Bitchcraft. She is definitely one of the people I dislike the most.

do you have a link to a fight in the state department? Never heard that before.

I am a veteran (Navy, you know....the parent command of the Marines) and I knew a couple of guys who served on the white house staff in the 90's. The stories I heard about Hillary and her complete distaste for the military was appalling. I lifted weights with some secret service guys when the Clintons were in town once and heard the same thing from them. The fact that they were even talking surprised me but none of it was flattering to the Clintons.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: enlightenedservant

He also said he wouldn't rule out using nukes against Europe.

www.independent.co.uk...

O_O

How did I miss that? This guy won't even rule out nuking our allies?

He said he would 'never take any of his cards of the table'. He said nothing about not ruling out nuking Americas allies. It was a very smart answer to a stupid question.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: enlightenedservant

He also said he wouldn't rule out using nukes against Europe.

www.independent.co.uk...

O_O

How did I miss that? This guy won't even rule out nuking our allies?

He said he would 'never take any of his cards of the table'. He said nothing about not ruling out nuking Americas allies. It was a very smart answer to a stupid question.

He was directly asked if he would nuke Europe. He said no but also that he wouldn't take any cards off the table. That means it would remain an option to him. As in, the "card" to nuke Europe would still be "in play"/"on the table". And yes, the vast majority of European countries are strong allies of America, hence my deduction.

Also, I don't think it was a smart answer because there are definitely cards that should be taken "off the table". Would he also leave open the option of nuking American States? The moon? Tea Party protesters or the Super Bowl? LOL Obviously some cards should be considered "off the table" by default. And since one of the major points in making alliances is to avoid being attacked by your new allies, nuking them shouldn't even be an option.

well that's just like an opinion man

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: enlightenedservant

He also said he wouldn't rule out using nukes against Europe.

www.independent.co.uk...

O_O

How did I miss that? This guy won't even rule out nuking our allies?

He said he would 'never take any of his cards of the table'. He said nothing about not ruling out nuking Americas allies. It was a very smart answer to a stupid question.

He was directly asked if he would nuke Europe. He said no but also that he wouldn't take any cards off the table. That means it would remain an option to him. As in, the "card" to nuke Europe would still be "in play"/"on the table". And yes, the vast majority of European countries are strong allies of America, hence my deduction.

Also, I don't think it was a smart answer because there are definitely cards that should be taken "off the table". Would he also leave open the option of nuking American States? The moon? Tea Party protesters or the Super Bowl? LOL Obviously some cards should be considered "off the table" by default. And since one of the major points in making alliances is to avoid being attacked by your new allies, nuking them shouldn't even be an option.

The majority of Europe are allies with America now, but what about in the the future? Who knows what will change.
Moreover the question was about using nuclear weapons IN Europe, not against Europe. Have you seen the future? Do you know that we will not be fighting wars on European lands at some point in the future? What about tactical nuclear weapons - like 'bunker busters'? Should they be ruled out of use in Europe if say Europe is invaded and fortified by an enemy? Do you even know what they are? Does Chris Matthews, I wonder? Or is he just asking a very stupid question for effect.

Leaving all ones cards on the table is a smart answer to what was an utterly stupid question, as I said.

In terms of allies, Trump did not talk about or answer a question about allies. To even suggest he was giving a second thought to nuking allies from that interview is ridiculous and just another stupid twist on words to try and demonise and discredit.

Sooner or later - anti-Trumpers will realize that making things up and presenting them as fact will not work. I think many have stopped these stupid games now, but some remain.

a reply to: UKTruth

The majority of Europe are allies with America now, but what about in the the future? Who knows what will change.

So you're acknowledging that he's keeping the option open to nuke Europe?

Moreover the question was about using nuclear weapons IN Europe, not against Europe.

The actual questions were "How about Europe? We won't use them in Europe? You're going to use it in Europe?" It's obvious what was meant by them.

Have you seen the future? Do you know that we will not be fighting wars on European lands at some point in the future?

LOL Who's seen the future? What kind of question is that? Besides, this was about Trump and what he'd do if he became President in this election cycle. That's the next 4 years, with 8 at the max if he were reelected (US Presidents can only be President for up to 2 terms). So the option of using nukes in Europe relates to the next 4 to 8 years, not decades or centuries in some possible the future.

What about tactical nuclear weapons - like 'bunker busters'?

So once again, are you arguing in favor of using nukes in Europe? If so, what's the point in this whole exchange? Because you're literally trying to convince me that that are situations when it would be "right" to nuke Europe, which agrees with Trump's statement and my assessment of it.

Should they be ruled out of use in Europe if say Europe is invaded and fortified by an enemy?

In the next 4 to 8 years? How? By who? Some alien civilization? Be realist here. Russia doesn't have the troops or the motives to do that. And they would be attacked by a united NATO long before they could invade and fortify throughout Europe.

Not to mention, nuking them would be a lose-lose situation, both because they'd nuke us back, and because the newly-nuked European cities would be destroyed and radioactively contaminated in the process. Every nuked area would be like Fukushima or have damaging side effects like the areas littered with NATO's depleted uranium shells. The fact that you're casually overlooking this is just as ridiculous as Trump's statement.

In terms of allies, Trump did not talk about or answer a question about allies. To even suggest he was giving a second thought to nuking our allies from that interview is ridiculous and just another stupid twist on words to try and demonise and discredit.

So which European countries would you and Trump be hypothetically nuking? What European countries aren't allies of the US? Which specific countries in Europe should it be ok to nuke? Neither he nor you has ruled out nuking any specific European countries. And since Europe is full of our allies, it makes sense to deduct that you're including them in your "nuke-able" countries (especially since you won't rule out any specific countries). And let's not forget other aspects like the nuclear fallout onto the neighboring areas and countries. But I guess that's on the table too?

Oh yeah, should he also leave open the option of nuking US States, Tea Party protesters, or the Super Bowl? Are those cards on the table too? You never replied to that.

Sooner or later - anti-Trumpers will realize that making things up and presenting them as fact will not work. I think many have stopped these stupid games now, but some remain.

I think the fake tough guys who promote nuclear gamesmanship are the ones playing stupid games. But to each their own on that.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The use of "nukes" in Europe is not the same thing as the use of "nukes" against Europe.

The "nukes" come in sizes from small "tactical" all the way up to big "strategic" versions.

Escalation beyond "tactical" use is not a given.

Europe has two "nuke" capable nations. The UK and France. Either of whom can destroy Russia.

If you lived in Poland you might think differently.