Majority Disapprove of Decision Not to Charge Clinton on Emails (POLL)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
Sounds like even if Clinton had been charged they STILL would vote for her.

Yeah just like how you wouldn't have voted for her anyways regardless of the outcome.

PS: Way to use the court of public opinion to try to overturn a federally investigated case done by professionals.

You missed two words - "Way to use the court of public opinion to try to overturn a federally investigated case done by paid-off professional criminals."

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: neo96

Outcome of this Issue and Likelihood of Supporting Clinton

I think those may be weasel words... in other words, deliberately misleading.

The decision not to charge Clinton was never going to affect my likelihood of supporting Clinton because that's never ever going to happen no matter what they decide! Whether they charged her or not, she never had my support and never will have my support.

But the way it was phrased and presented makes one think the decision not to charge was the deciding factor. Maybe it's not.

a reply to: neo96

The last question is: "Likelihood of Supporting Clinton", and the majority said no difference.

What makes you think that these people would vote for Clinton in the first place?
Maybe this poll reveals the hidden truth - that most people are already planning to not vote for her?
That 58% may have never planned to vote for her at all.

And 28% said they are less likely to vote for her. That means she may have lost 28% of her voters.


(disclaimer: I have little faith in the validity of "polls").

a reply to: neo96

I think we all know the US with the constant manipulation by the PTB is being turned into a third world country run by despots. So I think an example of how they operate with their own fellow criminals is in order ;-)

In South Africa, Winnie Mandela was brought up on charges of sexual misconduct, sexual assault, drugging, raping and murdering minors. The boys in question were between 14 and 17. She was convicted on all counts and sentenced in the late 80's. When hubby, Nelson Mandella, came to power in the 1994 general (s)election, he pardoned her. For this, she became the leader of the Pan African Congress against her husband and then committed more crimes. This time, 87 counts of fraud, embezzlement and theft. At least she left kids alone, we think. What does Nelson do? He pardons her again and makes her minister of culture. A vile beast who drugs, rapes and kills kids to make muti (witch doctor medicine), who is alleged to have created the execution method known as necklacing, is surrounded by suspicious deaths and who steals and lies to advance her career and bank account. She did live in a 22 room mansion just off the N1 in Soweto.

I mean wow, you just can't make this s**t up lol.

Now, if you look at Clinton along with the Jeffery Epstein affairs and roll in her predilection for power and money via fraud, lies and then add the number of suspicious deaths, it looks a lot like Winnie Mandela. Who would have thunk it, that the PTB would use a despotic African control model for the US?

Cheers - Dave

There could have very well only been 15 people out of 300,000,000 Americans who did that survey

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
Sounds like even if Clinton had been charged they STILL would vote for her.

Yeah just like how you wouldn't have voted for her anyways regardless of the outcome.

PS: Way to use the court of public opinion to try to overturn a federally investigated case done by professionals.

You missed two words - "Way to use the court of public opinion to try to overturn a federally investigated case done by paid-off professional criminals."

Cheers - Dave

No, I spoke correctly. No sensationalism or made up adjectives/adverbs needed. That is unless you happen to have access to some bank statements that prove what you added to my words are true. Otherwise it is just rampant speculation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
Sounds like even if Clinton had been charged they STILL would vote for her.

Yeah just like how you wouldn't have voted for her anyways regardless of the outcome.

PS: Way to use the court of public opinion to try to overturn a federally investigated case done by professionals.

You missed two words - "Way to use the court of public opinion to try to overturn a federally investigated case done by paid-off professional criminals."

Cheers - Dave

No, I spoke correctly. No sensationalism or made up adjectives/adverbs needed. That is unless you happen to have access to some bank statements that prove what you added to my words are true. Otherwise it is just rampant speculation.

Listening to the Charles Ortel interview or going to his website might begin to clear up your understanding of the situation.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Translation: "Go read these words by some guy that agrees with my confirmation bias"

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: neo96

The last question is: "Likelihood of Supporting Clinton", and the majority said no difference.

What makes you think that these people would vote for Clinton in the first place?
Maybe this poll reveals the hidden truth - that most people are already planning to not vote for her?
That 58% may have never planned to vote for her at all.

And 28% said they are less likely to vote for her. That means she may have lost 28% of her voters.


(disclaimer: I have little faith in the validity of "polls").

You are correct. This is why the statistics seem off at first glance.

That 58% includes people like you and I who were never going to vote for her anyway, even before the FBI/email issue.

The poll also shows 95% of Republicans were not impacted by the FBIs decision but a third of dems were. There is a large plurality of effect amongst the Independent voters as well.

The full context of the poll helps explain the bigger picture. However, I am with you in I am not so sure of the veracity of these polls anymore.

a reply to: neo96

As if the FBI should be recommending anyway. Many that are sympathetic to Clinton haven't thought about this.

Its the prosecutors job and place to decide if charges should be brought.

a reply to: Logarock

very correct.

however, its a hot potato and no one is wanting to hold it. we elect on personality, not cajones. And lord knows what all these appointees do to grease the skids themselves.

In the US we have the finest government that can be appointed by whoever steals the election.

The thing is it's still not over. SD is back on and the committee is pressing on with perjury. Then the FOIA lawsuits. Saying it was a mistake or careless is not going to work in those cases. Mainly because those had an negative impact financially on reporters. Really interested in seeing if she has to talk to Judicial Watch. If she does and starts pleading the 5th it's going to be impossible to recover from.

This ones a damn no brainer. If you thinks she's and out & out liar & a thief & a cheat.....then give your vote to another person. She is the definition of "vile". Her hubby is the definition of......can't keep it in his pants.

a reply to: neo96

It is kind of nice, though,

that they aren't TOTALLY brain dead.

a reply to: xuenchen


" It sure looks like Hillary was not acting in the best
interests of the citizens while she was SoS." X

Six Penny Nail meet .357 RamSet pistolo...fox.
On your and Tex's behalf, the time has come-- and the
BS meter needle is bent enough from being floored by
this creature to actually bring the charges.

If for only you and Tex.. this logical disconnect is nationwide--
I see it every day even in the strongholds of what seemed
once common sense.. almost rural areas full of conservatives.
Gone with the broken wind...

I'm going to crack that container of Old #7 now and be
hung over with the weed eater later this morning.
Two cycle self-flagellation beats voting this cycle I swear.

She could eat babies faces on live video. Would not make a difference. Most Americans vote with whomever they identify with. Like sports, you pull for your team even if that one player drunkenly ran over school children and the coach is a huge dick. You identify with them anyhow, because go blue! Silver is the enemy!

All the while most politicians are stealing your lunch and patting you on the head. And you love it.