Hillary Clinton in Twitter meltdown - or is it her campaign team?

And to call others blind is a ridiculous statement.

Fair enough..."optically challenged" then.

originally posted by: ker2010
a reply to: UKTruth

Im just gonna go by what Obama says about ole Hillary.

Guess I agree with Obama on this one.

a reply to: UKTruth

When you don't have a Leg to Stand on with the Real Issues in Politics , your Last Resort is to Attack your Opponent on a Personal Level and Hope the Monkey Crap Sticks . Case in Point , Hillary " Perpetual Lies ' Clinton .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: UKTruth

When you don't have a Leg to Stand on with the Real Issues in Politics , your Last Resort is to Attack your Opponent on a Personal Level and Hope the Monkey Crap Sticks . Case in Point , Hillary " Perpetual Lies ' Clinton .

And if that were at it was we had to go on, she would be home free. All people lie more than we would like to admit and some a hell of a lot if you count the white lies we tell. Some people rationalize their lies are the truth to psych themselves up for the game of BS.

"If you tell tell the truth, you don't have to remember the story" to paraphrase Mark Twain. So, pointing at a proven fact that would normally weigh in a decision of trust worthy factors (perpetual lies, you may remember) is now a personal attack, monkey crap for you. Not for me.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: UKTruth

No he just said:

1. Ban Muslims from entering the US until an unspecified time. I believe the words he used were "total and complete shutdown?" Do you acknowledge that he said that? He's reiterated it on several occassions.

2. Place mosques and other unspecified places under surveillance. There's been multiple iterations of this, here's one from the middle of June:

"We have to go and we have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques. And we have to check other places."

Back in November on Breitbart Radio:

"We ought to start [surveillance] up again, and we ought to start it up this morning"

Then there was the Yahoo News interview where he was asked if surveillance of Muslims should include warrantless searches?

France declared this state of emergency where they closed the borders and they established some degree of warrantless searches. I know how you feel about the borders, but do you think there is some kind of state of emergency here, and do we need warrantless searches of Muslims?

Do you remember what his response was?

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Do you acknowledge that he said those things? Warrantless searches are flat out unconstitutional. Warrantless searches based on the person's religion violate even MORE constitutional protections.

3. In the same Yahoo interview, the reporter asked him the following question:

"Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?"

His answer?

"We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

That was Nov 19, 2015. The very next day, he was a very similar question by an MSNBC reporter.

"Do you think there should be a database system that tracks the Muslims here in this country?"

Do you remember what Donald Trump said to that? I won't even ask you if you want to acknowledge that one because here is answer:

"there should be a lot of systems, beyond databases, I mean we should have a lot of systems"

Correct me if I'm wrong here but "beyond databases" includes databases? No?

So yeah, ban a group by religion, conduct illegal surveillance of their places of worship "and other places" (homes? businesses?) and get them to register for a database.

It's no wonder the always deplorable Pamela Gellar approves. So no, not quite "banning a religion" but not far off either.

Holy Cow, man, find yourself a safe space and curl up. Maybe someplace where you won't be triggered by people who look at the world and see reality instead of what they're teaching you in middle school.
I'm no Trump supporter but even I can see that at least some of what he says makes a lot of sense.
Illegal immigrants or even a goodly portion of the legal ones from third-world-barbarian countries are a danger to those of us who just want to live in peace with our fellow humans.
People employed in corrections and the justice system can explain to you why these folks don't belong in our culture without through vetting. They are the racist barbarians, not the people who are begging for relief from having to deal with their barbarism. They think marriage to nine year-olds is okay and then beating those young women with sticks is okay. They don't believe that females should learn to read and write or learn to speak the language of the county in which they live.
Go down to your local jail or police department and ask them how that multi-cultural thing is working out with these third world imports. Ask them how the barbarians treat the female employees.
You can flame me all you wish, call me any name you like but I will never agree to allow people with that mindset into my community. It is NOT what the United States represents.

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: UKTruth

I find it funny that she does this.

Because at this point, she's preaching to the choir.

And it's a small choir, getting smaller all the time if what I'm hearing from life-long Dems is the trend. Some are going to Trump on the down-low, some are simply staying home but a goodly number are actually taking a look at their other options and Johnson is gaining momentum as these two act more like kids in a sandbox every day.
She can't even fill a 60-passenger bus for a rally---even by offering to pay the riders.

Did you see the turn-out at her rally today? Take away the people paid to be there (in dollars or anticipated favors) and you could fit the crowd into my '73 Chevy Impala.
Don't get me wrong, I feel for the old gal. I know what it's like to have dreams dashed by things beyond my control. I know what it feels like to have a dream realized and how it hurts to have one dashed. It's a very hard job to change your path in life when you've worked and sacrificed in pursuit of your dream. I was taught that it is a mark of maturity is to admit to reality, shift gears and find new goals.
It's a common human condition, thus the clichés that describe it, "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade."...."Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back on the horse." and on...

It's got to be really, really discouraging for her to see these tiny crowds and know that her husband can fill any venue. Add illness and probable steroids to help the antibiotics along and you've got a perfect recipe for a meltdown.

originally posted by: Darkmadness

originally posted by: alomaha
I didn't know that dead can tweet...

She's not dead she's defending our rights as citizens to freedom of speech through a social media driven campaign targeting one of the worst criminals in the history of mankind.

Lookey heer! I found Hillaries ATS account

originally posted by: Kalixi

originally posted by: Darkmadness

originally posted by: alomaha
I didn't know that dead can tweet...

She's not dead she's defending our rights as citizens to freedom of speech through a social media driven campaign targeting one of the worst criminals in the history of mankind.

Lookey heer! I found Hillaries ATS account

Heheheheeeeee....that's a good one!

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: UKTruth

No he just said:

1. Ban Muslims from entering the US until an unspecified time. I believe the words he used were "total and complete shutdown?" Do you acknowledge that he said that? He's reiterated it on several occassions.

2. Place mosques and other unspecified places under surveillance. There's been multiple iterations of this, here's one from the middle of June:

"We have to go and we have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques. And we have to check other places."

Back in November on Breitbart Radio:

"We ought to start [surveillance] up again, and we ought to start it up this morning"

Then there was the Yahoo News interview where he was asked if surveillance of Muslims should include warrantless searches?

France declared this state of emergency where they closed the borders and they established some degree of warrantless searches. I know how you feel about the borders, but do you think there is some kind of state of emergency here, and do we need warrantless searches of Muslims?

Do you remember what his response was?

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Do you acknowledge that he said those things? Warrantless searches are flat out unconstitutional. Warrantless searches based on the person's religion violate even MORE constitutional protections.

3. In the same Yahoo interview, the reporter asked him the following question:

"Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?"

His answer?

"We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

That was Nov 19, 2015. The very next day, he was a very similar question by an MSNBC reporter.

"Do you think there should be a database system that tracks the Muslims here in this country?"

Do you remember what Donald Trump said to that? I won't even ask you if you want to acknowledge that one because here is answer:

"there should be a lot of systems, beyond databases, I mean we should have a lot of systems"

Correct me if I'm wrong here but "beyond databases" includes databases? No?

So yeah, ban a group by religion, conduct illegal surveillance of their places of worship "and other places" (homes? businesses?) and get them to register for a database.

It's no wonder the always deplorable Pamela Gellar approves. So no, not quite "banning a religion" but not far off either.

Holy Cow, man, find yourself a safe space and curl up. Maybe someplace where you won't be triggered by people who look at the world and see reality instead of what they're teaching you in middle school.
I'm no Trump supporter but even I can see that at least some of what he says makes a lot of sense.
Illegal immigrants or even a goodly portion of the legal ones from third-world-barbarian countries are a danger to those of us who just want to live in peace with our fellow humans.
People employed in corrections and the justice system can explain to you why these folks don't belong in our culture without through vetting. They are the racist barbarians, not the people who are begging for relief from having to deal with their barbarism. They think marriage to nine year-olds is okay and then beating those young women with sticks is okay. They don't believe that females should learn to read and write or learn to speak the language of the county in which they live.
Go down to your local jail or police department and ask them how that multi-cultural thing is working out with these third world imports. Ask them how the barbarians treat the female employees.
You can flame me all you wish, call me any name you like but I will never agree to allow people with that mindset into my community. It is NOT what the United States represents.

Are you daft? Pray tell, how much money have we spent on this fake 'war on terrorism'??? When you walk down the street, do you think, 'uh oh, I better watch out for those arab terrorists!'. Of course not. We have spent 5 TRILLION DOLLARS on this fake war on terrorism thus far. And for what? We've destroyed our constitution because of this fake war on terrorism. And for what? Please tell us so we can be better 'educated'.

Oh, and if our gov't was so 'worried' about 'terrorism', then please explain to all of us how both Bush and Obama have neglected to close our borders, or at least to spend a single dollar to prevent all of these 'arab terrorists', from entering our freaking country!?

If you actually believe what you wrote, there is no hope for your critical thinking skills. Because just like the fake 'war on drugs', that was decimated segments of our society and young people, while the CIA imports coc aine and heroin from South American and Afghanistan (Mena Airport anyone?), where we've spent untold TRILLIONS on complete bs, the fake war on 'terrorism' has also helped to INCREASE any terrorism, by killing and maiming the women and children of these countries, which would pi$$ off anyone with a brain between their soldiers.

Geez. Hopeless. We are doomed because we can't think for ourselves, and see what our eyes tell us. How sad.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Let's see...um we have in prison the "eMe" Mexican Mafia with over 50K foot-soldiers working for them on the outside.
Trump did not say all were bad as he has Latino's working for him. Spin away there buddy.

Islam is Islam....forget your History?

Her social media team/campaign management is advising the media on what questions to ask Trump. Take the mob related questions for example, if those make a dent in his public perception then she'll hammer him on those questions again, plus whatever answers he gives, during the debates.

She's probing for cracks in his veneer using the media as her attack dog ahead of the debates.

I don't support her, but that's the logic. Find a weakness and exploit it. It looks desperate because she's running out of time ahead of the debates, and he most certainly is posing a real threat. (Though nothing that rigging electronic voting machines can't handle).

a reply to: EYEofSAURON

And don't even get me started on the "CLINTON CRIME FAMILY"

a reply to: Jason88

Don't worry, Trump has his own ppl

originally posted by: EYEofSAURON
a reply to: Jason88

Don't worry, Trump has his own ppl

Indeed. And not to go off topic too much, but who's going to check the veracity of the electronic voting machines? There's no doubt the DNC will cheat to win. No doubt. And it's a fact these machines are tampered with, testified fact, since the Bush W. days. That's probably it's own thread...

Edit on topic: Hillary needs a *bombshell* revelation to occur during the debates for her support to increase. This Twitter salvo is an attempt to see where to aim her attack to achieve said bombshell. Again, I can't stand her... just thinking it thru.

originally posted by: Jason88

originally posted by: EYEofSAURON
a reply to: Jason88

Don't worry, Trump has his own ppl

Indeed. And not to go off topic too much, but who's going to check the veracity of the electronic voting machines? There's no doubt the DNC will cheat to win. No doubt. And it's a fact these machines are tampered with, testified fact, since the Bush W. days. That's probably it's own thread...

'No doubt the DNC will cheat to win...' Geez. I am so tired of people denigrating one party, while ignoring the crimes of the other. When are you going to wake up and realize that BOTH parties are completely corrupted? You think the Republicans haven't cheated repeatedly in past elections and wouldn't cheat in the current one? I guarantee they have, and they will.

The ONLY solution is to NOT VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS! NONE OF THEM. Vote for ANYONE else. There's no way they can do the damage to our constitution than the two main parties have already done...

And on topic, there is no freaking way that Hillary typed in ONE single tweet. She can't even deal with email! And people think she actually tweets anything? My G-d, people are incapable of thinking with their noggin anymore...

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

Hey, you're absolutely correct, don't vote for either. But to split hairs, I brought up the origin of rigged voting machines by mentioning George W. So yes, both parties cheat. I believe the Clinton campaign has the 'keys' to the machines this time around though.

On point: Hillary probably doesn't even know the contents of the tweets [yet] since she doesn't do press conferences and controls her give & take as much as possible. That is, unless a tweet gets a response from the Trump team....then it's off to war room.

DP

a reply to: nomoredemsorrepsI
Oh my goodness. I don't know where you came up with those ideas that I support any war. I'm just totally confused. Perhaps you should re-read the post?
I've marched in protests agin 'em all. Vietnam, drugs, middle east, terror---all the government scams we're being forced to support with our dollars and the lives of our youth. I'm an old "Make love not war" hippie from the time when we tried to use creativity to draw attention to our views rather than crudity.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
I think immigration laws are a good idea and want them enforced.
I think laws against beating up other people are a good idea and should be enforced.
I think laws that infringe on my right to ingest substances of my informed choice are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
I think laws that attempt to force me to purchase a product of which I have no need are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
I think laws that infringe on my privacy are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
I want the immigrants who come to my community to come because they want to be a part of the little slice of civilized society we have. I don't care what their color or creed is as long as they are seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and are willing to work along side others for those goals.
Hope that clears it up for ya!

a reply to: Darkmadness

So, you're saying that she's attacking herself, then? Because Hillary Clinton is a traitor who sold us out to the Russians over Uranium One, who then turned around and LIED about Trump being in cahoots with the Russians. Not just for points but to cover her own butt. It is unbelievable. It is unconscionable that you would defend that woman. Protect our first amendment rights? Right after she put up her position as Secretary of State as an opportunity to get side income while allowing access for MONEY. She literally makes me embarrassed to be an American. The only place that woman should be going in the next six months is prison. Your comments make me believe that maybe some of her supporters should join her.

How's that for 1st Amendment rights?

So that we can further examine this topic, we should discuss how your foolish candidate influenced and manipulated a United States electoral process.

On the subject of the recently-released DNC emails, my question is did Chris Stevens' check to HRC bounce? I say that now since we all know that she allows people to pay to become ambassadors. Is that why she willingly allowed him and three other Americans to die in Benghazi? It's the people who willingly follow known criminals who have sold out our country that make me sick to my stomach. You should be ashamed of yourself.

originally posted by: Darkmadness

originally posted by: JHumm
Maybe one of the symptoms of her illness is to act like a five year old. ...

She's not acting like a 5 year old!

It's called freedom of speech.

Pfffft.


Also, that's a mighty fine signature you have there, it really shows how tolerant you are. /s in case you missed it.