Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive


Recommended Posts

I think you're dismissing what the guy is saying unduly. Note that most of his comments have to do with the conduct of the agents being odd (but professional and commendable), indicating that something long-term and strange is going on.

He doesn't make any medical statements other than that the explanations we've been given are suspect (and they are).

 

 

Indeed. That is what the most concerning aspect is. That this is somehow normal enough behavior for someone who has a fifty-fifty chance of getting into the White House at this moment. 

 

Well, that and the outright lying and obfuscation.

 

...

 

...

 

And the hidden, secret fear that we all have that Alex Jones is secretly right afterall and Hillary Clinton is in fact Queen of the Lizard folk. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jeb Bush  

So DNC, sure was a good idea to back Clinton over Sanders, eh? Clinton is just so much more electable.

[get prepped for some ramblings]    I get more depressed than scared.    Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till

I think you're dismissing what the guy is saying unduly. Note that most of his comments have to do with the conduct of the agents being odd (but professional and commendable), indicating that something long-term and strange is going on.

He doesn't make any medical statements other than that the explanations we've been given are suspect (and they are).

 

 

This is the guy, who was a low-level staff member of the Secret Service who  former members said he would likely have never been around the First Family, yet somehow "walked in on" the most guarded human on the planet making out with a journalist and daughter of Walter Mondale. But then when he got called out on it by higher-ranking Secret Servicemen, he merely "heard about it." He also claimed to have personally thrown out semen-and-lipstick stained towels, lamenting destroying of "evidence" at the time, which would stand out as a really lame and easy contradiction in an Encyclopedia Brown mystery. But flashback to 1998 and he merely claimed to have witnessed people throwing out towels that he merely assumed to have semen stains on them.

 

So I'm sorry if this is going to be the one lie he doesn't tell in service of his career of taking down the Clintons for profit, but I'm not going to take any of this guy's stuff at face value.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the guy, who was a low-level staff member of the Secret Service who  former members said he would likely have never been around the First Family, yet somehow "walked in on" the most guarded human on the planet making out with a journalist and daughter of Walter Mondale. But then when he got called out on it by higher-ranking Secret Servicemen, he merely "heard about it." He also claimed to have personally thrown out semen-and-lipstick stained towels, lamenting destroying of "evidence" at the time, which would stand out as a really lame and easy contradiction in an Encyclopedia Brown mystery. But flashback to 1998 and he merely claimed to have witnessed people throwing out towels that he merely assumed to have semen stains on them.

 

So I'm sorry if this is going to be the one lie he doesn't tell in service of his career of taking down the Clintons for profit, but I'm not going to take any of this guy's stuff at face value.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578

 

I am aware of this fellow, his book, and the supposed AFAUSSS statement. The problem with that for me is that when I first read an article discrediting him (I think it was that very Politico article, actually), I tried to dig up the original AFAUSSS statement, and got nothing. I've never seen any citation whatsoever, nor any confirmation at all of the source in any of those articles. I have also never seen this statement corroborated on any news website that I would consider unbiased.

I have no idea who Byrne is, nor do I have any dog in this fight. I don't know how "low" or "high" level he was, nor have I read his book. None of that matters, because nothing he said in that article was outlandish. He said "this was the procedure we would normally follow, and they didn't evidently follow that, and they acted as though they had done this before." There's nothing ridiculous about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is he has done nothing in my eyes to believe anything he says as he has lied extensively about his clearance and experiences. If it was maybe corroborated by someone more trustworthy, maybe I would consider, but this man has done nohting to earn my trust, but plenty for me to not trust him, especially when his analysis ends as such:

 

"When I protected her, I witnessed her irate behavior and, frankly, I don't think anyone can operate with such uncontrollable fits of anger and not have it take a toll on a person's health- I think that's exactly what has resulted. I can't help but feel sorry for her detail, because I know from personal experience that they will bear the burden for as long as their mental and physical resilience will tolerate. I bet that night they got berated for letting this "leak," but it has nothing to do with their performance and everything to do with her character.

 

When I worked at the White House, a man exhibited the same exact behavior as he froze inside a medical detector. On his full time nurse's request I held him under the armpits and stood by him until his seizure passed. he was an average American, and while it was embarrassing for him in front of all those people, I was employed to protect and serve. All he had to do was be straight with me and all was well. I expect Hillary to do thte same and I expect my media to do like I did , ask what's going on so we know how to respond."

 

Besides him making an assumption that her "uncontrollable fits of rage" affected her health ("I think that's exactly what resulted"). Then makes up more stories (like he enjoys doing) about them getting berated for a "leak." Then follows up with some kind of story about holding a man having a seizure and some kind of lesson we should learn about honesty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is he has done nothing in my eyes to believe anything he says as he has lied extensively about his clearance and experiences. If it was maybe corroborated by someone more trustworthy, maybe I would consider, but this man has done nohting to earn my trust, but plenty for me to not trust him.

 

Wait, do we have any actual evidence that he lied? Or just an uncited story leaked to various liberal media appendages?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, do we have any actual evidence that he lied? Or just an uncited story leaked to various liberal media appendages?

 

Is there any evidence that a series of blatantly unprovable stories that he himself contradicts are true? Because if his stories in his book are true, then he lied to the Starr report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much to criticize Clinton about that people really don't need to make up stories, but people want to dislike them even more so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's full of it. This also applies to the idea that Clinton is about to die from some disease instead of being temporarily ill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Donald Trump is one of the worst presidential candidates, excluding obvious horrible past people. But I'm not going to immediately jump behind any effort like Pepegate to discredit him. Likewise, I'm a left-leaner who has serious complaints about Clinton's backing and turnarounds on issues. But I ask anyone who genuinely can't come up with a positive thing to say about her as a politician also base it on something besides conjecture and conspiracy theories. Otherwise, we're never going to get anyone better in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much to criticize Clinton about that people really don't need to make up stories, but people want to dislike them even more so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's full of it. This also applies to the idea that Clinton is about to die from some disease instead of being temporarily ill.

 

Temporary or not, there's enough super weird shit going on with Clinton for people to be rightfully concerned. I really dislike how for some people this has to be an "either or" thing. Clinton's pretty old, and old people die of "temporary" illnesses all the time. The fact that we've seen, by my count, at least 4 or 5 instances of obvious unwellness from Clinton tells me we are likely to see more, and it makes me wonder what's going on. If these are all "temporary", then what's happening? Does the have an autoimmune disorder? What's up?

Maybe the Clinton campaign could answer these questions satisfactorily, but they aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Donald Trump is one of the worst presidential candidates, excluding obvious horrible past people. But I'm not going to immediately jump behind any effort like Pepegate to discredit him. Likewise, I'm a left-leaner who has serious complaints about Clinton's backing and turnarounds on issues. But I ask anyone who genuinely can't come up with a positive thing to say about her as a politician also base it on something besides conjecture and conspiracy theories. Otherwise, we're never going to get anyone better in the future.

 

What the fuck does Donald Trump have to do with Clinton's health being in question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much to criticize Clinton about that people really don't need to make up stories, but people want to dislike them even more so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's full of it. This also applies to the idea that Clinton is about to die from some disease instead of being temporarily ill.

Yeah. I've lived 20 years of Clinton conspiracy theories from White Watergate, Vince Foster suicide, whoever that other guy that was supposed to have been assassinated in the Serbian plane crash, Troopergate, drug smuggling in Arkansas in addition to the more mainstream Travelgate, Clinton's sexual escapades and now the E-mail scandal and Clinton Foundation. 

 

There is an old story about the Gingerbread man who keeps getting away which the Clintons have done for decades now. I'm not going to invest any emotional energy into their demise until I see a fox actually devouring the two.

 

I think Donald Trump is one of the worst presidential candidates, excluding obvious horrible past people. But I'm not going to immediately jump behind any effort like Pepegate to discredit him. Likewise, I'm a left-leaner who has serious complaints about Clinton's backing and turnarounds on issues. But I ask anyone who genuinely can't come up with a positive thing to say about her as a politician also base it on something besides conjecture and conspiracy theories. Otherwise, we're never going to get anyone better in the future.

I'd rather talk the Clinton Foundation and e-mail scandal coupled with her policy positions on Syria, Libya and whatnot myself.

 

But it's after Labor Day. Election season is now officially underway. And there is no way to put a positive spin on Clinton collapsing on 9-11. 

 

We've seen a tightening of the polls. Coupled with a Basket of Deplorables, the E-mail scandal, and the fact that people just don't like Hillary, I won't be surprised to see this race being a toss-up by the time the debates occur.

 

That's assuming another shoe doesn't drop.

 

Temporary or not, there's enough super weird shit going on with Clinton for people to be rightfully concerned. I really dislike how for some people this has to be an "either or" thing. Clinton's pretty old, and old people die of "temporary" illnesses all the time. The fact that we've seen, by my count, at least 4 or 5 instances of obvious unwellness from Clinton tells me we are likely to see more, and it makes me wonder what's going on. If these are all "temporary", then what's happening? Does the have an autoimmune disorder? What's up?

Maybe the Clinton campaign could answer these questions satisfactorily, but they aren't.

 

Yep. Weird shit is going on. And when CNN and the Washington Post has even gotten around to asking questions, you know there's a lot of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I haven't read his book, and I am asking honestly - do we have any evidence that he lied?

 

He told two different stories about the possibility of "destroying evidence." One story involved him personally doing it in his book, the other involved a vague story of someone else doing it in his Starr report testimony. By simply looking at them, one of them is a lie. According to his bosses, he never had the clearance to have been "outside the President's office while he was in it." And he wouldn't have just been able to walk right in and see him making out with a reporter without having been checked out first. He then changed his story from him being the one witnessing the event to saying it was something he had just heard. If you want to know what part he played in the Secret Service, here it is:

 

http://theweek.com/articles/443399/what-uniformed-division-secret-service-anyway

 

So until he has proof for any of these stories, they are only the truth to Gary Byrne. And he has nothing to refute that, so his stories of constantly being around Cheating Bill and Raging Hillary ring hollow unless he provides some kind of proof for any of his stories. So if you're going to focus on me calling him a liar, I'll retract. How about this as my position instead: "He has made many claims which cannot be backed by other parties with a seeming end towards discrediting Bill and Hillary Clinton at all costs. His own peers have discredited his claims by pointing out that being part of the Uniformed Division, he would not have had such close, regular, intiimate access to the Clintons as he claimed in he did in his book. Due to these ends, I reserve the right to not consider his allegations of supposedly being so regularly angry that it's negatively affecting her health. His veracity has the possibility of discoloring his analyzation of the issue. I therefore do not accept what he says without large amounts of skepticism."

 

What the fuck does Donald Trump have to do with Clinton's health being in question?

 

An olive branch on where I stand and what I hate about modern discourse. Out of the blue I admit, but whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An olive branch on where I stand and what I hate about modern discourse. Out of the blue I admit, but whatever.

 

Oh, no problem. I just thought that was very out of left-field.

 

He told two different stories about the possibility of "destroying evidence." One story involved him personally doing it in his book, the other involved a vague story of someone else doing it in his Starr report testimony. By simply looking at them, one of them is a lie. According to his bosses, he never had the clearance to have been "outside the President's office while he was in it." And he wouldn't have just been able to walk right in and see him making out with a reporter without having been checked out first. He then changed his story from him being the one witnessing the event to saying it was something he had just heard. If you want to know what part he played in the Secret Service, here it is:

 

http://theweek.com/articles/443399/what-uniformed-division-secret-service-anyway

 

So until he has proof for any of these stories, they are only the truth to Gary Byrne. And he has nothing to refute that, so his stories of constantly being around Cheating Bill and Raging Hillary ring hollow unless he provides some kind of proof for any of his stories. So if you're going to focus on me calling him a liar, I'll retract. How about this as my position instead: "He has made many claims which cannot be backed by other parties with a seeming end towards discrediting Bill and Hillary Clinton at all costs. His own peers have discredited his claims by pointing out that being part of the Uniformed Division, he would not have had such close, regular, intiimate access to the Clintons as he claimed in he did in his book. Due to these ends, I reserve the right to not consider his allegations of supposedly being so regularly angry that it's negatively affecting her health. His veracity has the possibility of discoloring his analyzation of the issue. I therefore do not accept what he says without large amounts of skepticism."

 

I'm less worried about whether he cleaned up spooge personally than the contents of his article. Which, sure, might be spurious, but are also fairly mild. He's not alleging much, and it fits with what we already knew.

Basically from my reading I got two basic points:

1. The Clinton campaign's explanations for these fits are ringing increasingly hollow (not news to us).

 

2. It's concerning that the Secret Service appear to be used to this.

 

Now, I could see taking issue with some of the language which makes it sort of sound like he was a field agent, not a UD, but those two points don't sound so outlandish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, no problem. I just thought that was very out of left-field.

 

 

I'm less worried about whether he cleaned up spooge personally than the contents of his article. Which, sure, might be spurious, but are also fairly mild. He's not alleging much, and it fits with what we already knew.

Basically from my reading I got two basic points:

1. The Clinton campaign's explanations for these fits are ringing increasingly hollow (not news to us).

 

2. It's concerning that the Secret Service appear to be used to this.

 

Now, I could see taking issue with some of the language which makes it sort of sound like he was a field agent, not a UD, but those two points don't sound so outlandish.

 

And it's perfectly fine with me to ask reasonable questions. I admit, I'm genuinely curious about the situation. My issue is that his article doesn't explain enough to me, with an underlying problem of how he has been known to make outlandish, unverifiable claims, and that it could feed into a poisonous based on inaccuracies as a result. I feel that at least gives me the right to be highly skeptical.

 

Properly verified Secret Service (agents or otherwise) accounts are fascinating to read. There seems to be general rules about what you should or shouldn't relay, probably due to how they can be used. Secret Service for FDR have been actively accused of having coniscated pictures and cameras that could have revealed information about his illness. I'm only also assuming that they had to physically assist him in moving around. It was the same deal for Kennedy, who was supposedly non-ambulatory at times. The way I tend to receive such claims I treat like we treat first-hand stories of military action. I'll accept the story, and scrutinize it against as many relevant factors as possible, including personal character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this happened.

 

trump-meme-feed-inline_zpshtz9po8h.jpg

Donald Trump, Pepe the frog, and white supremacists: an explainer

That cartoon frog is more sinister than you might realize.

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

 

That's Hillary's own website going full nutter over a stupid cartoon frog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another big (600-700mb) guccifer leak happened today.  Has stuff suggesting certain people getting seats as an ambassador for their "donations", a whole lot of stuff on gerrymandering (having "favorable" relations with people who make federal redistricting software and stuff, various strategies, etc.), credit card info and SSN of some donors, "non-partisan" organizations supporting the DNC, and more I'd imagine.  As an example, Julius Genachowski "donated" $3.5 million to the DNC, then served as the chairman of the FCC from 2009-2013.  It's still being dug through, but I imagine there's going to be more coming out of it

 

 

 

Also, it seems Hillary still has some sour feelings towards Obama for '08

 

 

xwp2ZRw.png

ZfEMiK9.png

 

 

 

 

https://mega.nz/#!uwBGyCoQ

Decryption key is !ZSPbUeUjmeSt0GEovBrEYV9V_3CX09hROm3JQJmr0HU

Password for the file itself is "(GuCCif3r_2.0)"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...