There's no FBI Clinton Foundation investigation, reports are false L̲O̲C̲K̲ H̲E̲R̲ U̲P̲ A̲N̲Y̲W̲A̲Y̲ - Polidicks

Thanks Fox. That title. :v:

its not true? whoa whoda thunk it

I knew there was something shady about the timing of that piece of "news." Fuck you Fox. [editline]4th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=postal;51304459]Jeez this has been the biggest back-and-forth clusterfuck. This next week is gonna be so insane.[/QUOTE] hopefully the orange idiot loses resoundingly and gets relegated to the bargain bin.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51305497]I knew there was something shady about the timing of that piece of "news." Fuck you Fox.[/QUOTE] You're calling out one source for using anonymous sources because another source told you that their anonymous sources disagree. Honestly, can we at least pretend to not be completely, 100% biased? Give it some time and see what comes out as we get more information. There's no reason to jump on any conclusions because you like the nameless sources of your news source better than the nameless sources of the other side's news source.

Why can't the FBI just say yes or no.

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;51304684]Its gonna be a living hell and tensions are running high at my job. I have to open the doors at 6am.[/QUOTE] Call in sick. Heck, have someone inflict physical trauma on you and get hospitalized. Any thing to avoid the fallout [QUOTE]hopefully the orange idiot loses resoundingly and gets relegated to the bargain bin[/QUOTE] Trump may not go away so easily if defeated. He might go into a narcissistic rage and cause even more chaos.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51305503]You're calling out one source for using anonymous sources because another source told you that their anonymous sources disagree. Honestly, can we at least pretend to not be completely, 100% biased? Give it some time and see what comes out as we get more information. There's no reason to jump on any conclusions because you like the nameless sources of your news source better than the nameless sources of the other side's news source.[/QUOTE] Well yes but this is pretty absurd [QUOTE=King Tiger;51299340]You people are either out of the loop or out of your minds if you think what the Clinton Foundation does is legal. It's a massive crime syndicate that corrupted our government for years and years.[/QUOTE]

It's amazing how powerful the media really is. Control the media, control the people. This election is a charade

Is this the FBI infighting amoungst their ranks? one side bullshitting? Both sides bullshitting????? WHAT IS GOING ON????? If she gets indited or not, i demand a hearing on this... we need answers.

what a goddamn clusterfuck this election is

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51305781]Is this the FBI infighting amoungst their ranks? one side bullshitting? Both sides bullshitting????? WHAT IS GOING ON????? If she gets indited or not, i demand a hearing on this... we need answers.[/QUOTE] Or maybe it's anonymous sources so ABC and Fox can really claim they said whatever, really. Anonymous sources and vagueness can go a long way.

[QUOTE=Recurracy;51305856]what a goddamn clusterfuck this election is[/QUOTE] it's gonna get a whole lot of crazier the coming days I reckon

I've said this before but this election won't be over on the 9th of November. [I]That's when the REAL fun starts.[/I] But seriously, what the metaphorical fuck Fox news.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;51305872]it's gonna get a whole lot of crazier the coming days I reckon[/QUOTE] I agree, the ride is just starting. Both sides are responsible for creating the upcoming chaos that awaits us in the days ahead.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51304994][video=youtube;t7BfSw3GgJk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7BfSw3GgJk[/video] relevant, there are no facts anymore. I have an answering machine full of "IMMEDIATE DIRE WARNINGS ABOUT A CORRUPTED HILLARY PRESIDENCY!"[/QUOTE] We have a whole party operating pretty much [I]only[/I] like that over here :suicide: So far it's still fine because none of the other parties like them and we (thanks to proportional representation) need a somewhat broader consensus here to change anything, but I'm pretty sure they're partially responsible for the increased xenophobic violence. They also actively work to disconnect people from the (here relatively impartial) media to radicalise them further :glare: In the terrible case that trump wins, I'll take solace in the USA's self-destruction hopefully killing their support over here too.

And this is precisely why I hate people jumping into conclusions based on sensationalist articles that can't be verified and don't report anything concrete. Just a zeppelin's worth of hype and hot gas. By this time it seems entire republican constituency is fully convinced Crooked Hillary is a criminal no matter what courts say without ever looking at the evidence. It's way too early in investigation to say whether she should be disqualified as a candidate. These processes roll on their own pace and jumping to conclusions only creates more mess. [QUOTE=ridinmybike;51305778]It's amazing how powerful the media really is. Control the media, control the people. This election is a charade[/QUOTE] And yet, it does not have to be so. Better critical thinking skills in general populace would greatly weaken sensationalist press' sway on them. People getting their news from greater variety of sources and making a conscious effort to weigh evidence and credibility independent of how it supports their preconceived views.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51306000]And this is precisely why I hate people jumping into conclusions based on sensationalist articles that can't be verified and don't report anything concrete. Just a zeppelin's worth of hype and hot gas. By this time it seems entire republican constituency is fully convinced Crooked Hillary is a criminal no matter what courts say without ever looking at the evidence. It's way too early in investigation to say whether she should be disqualified as a candidate. These processes roll on their own pace and jumping to conclusions only creates more mess. And yet, it does not have to be so. Better critical thinking skills in general populace would greatly weaken sensationalist press' sway on them. People getting their news from greater variety of sources and making a conscious effort to weigh evidence and credibility independent of how it supports their preconceived views.[/QUOTE] This is directly linked to education... bad education makes the us weak for this.

-snip-

[quote]There's no FBI Clinton Foundation investigation, reports are false[/quote] Doesn't matter. This has helped Trump (or at the very least, hasn't helped Clinton at all), and already has had some impact in the election. Minor, hopefully. Did people really think that she was going to be indicted two days away from the election or something? [editline]4th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Tamschi;51305898]We have a whole party operating pretty much [I]only[/I] like that over here :suicide:[/QUOTE] It's no surprise that Trump supporters like mispronouncing Lügenpresse so much. This kind of broader political development isn't exclusive to the US or Germany.

The media has always been biased and misinforming the public here and there, but never to the level it has been this election. It's getting to the point where half the public notices and begins trusting even worse online news sites. Plus the FBI seemingly being unstable and a mess. And then we have one candidate who literally says shit like Obama founded ISIS, Hillary wants 650 million (!) immigrants to pour in, election fraud is widespread, etc. and yet he's seen as the 'tell it like it is' candidate campaigning against the liar candidate. What the fuck is happening. Facts don't matter anymore. It's like Jon Stewart's infamous bullshit mountain erupted.

Im not sure i understand here, how do we know this is true and the other isnt? They both claimed anonymous sources, yes? Which nameless person do we trust?

She is definitely being investigated again but what that ultimately means is up in the air. With how broken the system is I expect her to get away, again. Comey will just commit suicide by shooting himself in the back.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51305781]Is this the FBI infighting amoungst their ranks? one side bullshitting? Both sides bullshitting????? WHAT IS GOING ON????? If she gets indited or not, i demand a hearing on this... we need answers.[/QUOTE] every alphabet agency has been at war internally and externally since like the early fifties, what are you surprised about? literally the entire history of the CIA and FBI has been a Great Game proxy war.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;51307447][B]She is definitely being investigated again[/B] but what that ultimately means is up in the air. With how broken the system is I expect her to get away, again.[/QUOTE] How desperate are you? Can you find a credible source to support this, or is it just wishful thinking? Comey may have violated the Hatch Act in the emails case, too.

If nobody had said anything about Clinton being about to get indicted, I would not think she was getting indicted. Now, when there is an equal amount of evidence on either side, it's the same situation as far as I'm concerned. The evidence on either side cancels out, so I think that she's not getting indicted.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51307363]Im not sure i understand here, how do we know this is true and the other isnt? They both claimed anonymous sources, yes? Which nameless person do we trust?[/QUOTE] Like I said in the previous thread [url]http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/media/baseless-fox-news-indictment-report/index.html?sr=twCNN110416baseless-fox-news-indictment-report0549PMStoryLink&linkId=30715590[/url] [QUOTE]Fox New anchor Bret Baier conceded Friday it was a "mistake" for him to report that an indictment is "likely" in an ongoing FBI inquiry into the Clinton Foundation.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Squad1993;51307447]She is definitely being investigated again but what that ultimately means is up in the air. With how broken the system is I expect her to get away, again. Comey will just commit suicide by shooting himself in the back.[/QUOTE] She's not being investigated, they're just adding indirectly relevant evidence to the case. [b]If[/b] it's credible or significant enough to reopen the case, they'll reopen it.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51304994][video=youtube;t7BfSw3GgJk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7BfSw3GgJk[/video] relevant, there are no facts anymore. I have an answering machine full of "IMMEDIATE DIRE WARNINGS ABOUT A CORRUPTED HILLARY PRESIDENCY!"[/QUOTE] I was just listening to an interview last night where a guy was crediting Gingrich with inventing this style of politics where you just tear everything down instead of fighting on policy positions. [QUOTE] ....And in a way, he had this long almost Leninist march to power in the '70s, '80s, '90s and he arrived by throwing enough rocks at enough leading Democrats that he brought them down and sort of shook their nerve. So that Gingrich, as I say, in "The Unwinding" was the first one to use mustard gas. It was like in trench warfare. The first person who's going to use certain toxic weapons is introducing something to the battlefield that can never be taken away. And it is going to make the nature of the war so much more destructive and lethal and that - Gingrich didn't have any limits. And he saw the virtue of it of sort of an extreme approach to politics that excited people. It created a direct connection between him and voters who might have been bored with the usual debates on the floor of the House. So Gingrich was really the guy. GROSS: What were the toxic weapons that he created? PACKER: He used both speeches on the floor in which he impugned the motives of Democratic leaders. For example, at one point, he essentially called... GROSS: This was when he was House speaker? PACKER: No, before when he was just a backbencher, a young Republican junior member of the House. And he gave a speech that, you know, no one in the House really paid much attention to but that was on C-SPAN because he knew the power of these cameras in which he essentially said that Speaker Tip O'Neill was a commie sympathizer because of positions on Nicaragua and that was breaking certain etiquette. You know, that wasn't done until then and not on the floor of the House, you know, not where you're supposed to talk about my distinguished friend from Massachusetts. And it was certainly a nonstop inquisition into the Clinton White House. So using all these... GROSS: He was one of the leaders of the impeachment of the Clinton... PACKER: Yeah. I mean, he was speaker during impeachment. He was Clinton's main antagonist. They had a lot in common. They both were kind of poor kids who'd grown up a bit unpopular, kind of overweight. But Clinton somehow developed that into someone who needed love. And Gingrich developed into someone who needed enemies and needed to make trouble, and he made a lot of trouble for Bill Clinton as did the Republicans. I mean, it all backfired because then there was investigations of Gingrich, and he turned out he was having an affair. And he had to leave... GROSS: He was having an affair while he was impeaching Bill Clinton. PACKER: Absolutely. Yeah. No, I mean, this is why mustard gas is such a danger or any weapon of mass destruction is such a dangerous thing because it - it's victims become everyone in the end. You know, Robespierre goes to the guillotine just like the rest of them. In the end, Gingrich fell as well, and then came back and fell again and came back. He's tireless. You know, and even now he's on Fox News telling Megyn Kelly to say Bill Clinton sexual predator - I want to hear those words from you. I mean, this is - imagine this being sort of the normal give and take of a politician and a journalist on TV in the '60s or in the early '70s. It's - he's sort of authored this anything-goes-destroy-your-enemies politics. And he's still doing it all these years later. That's what's kind of funny almost. GROSS: Do you also credit the whole approach of if you don't give us what we want we're going to shut down the government to Newt Gingrich? PACKER: That was in 1995 when he and Clinton were at an impasse over the budget and twice the Republicans shut down the government. It did not help them. The country blamed Gingrich, and Clinton won the 1996 election in some degree because of that, and it's now become a routine tool almost over the debt ceiling, over budgets, over even particular pieces of legislation. People in Congress are willing to shut down the entire government or to make it impossible for a Supreme Court nominee to get a hearing or for routine appointments in the executive branch to go unfilled for years because of a hold placed by a senator. No. This is what Gingrich has wrought - is a politics in which it's very easy to destroy and very hard to build.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=hippowombat;51304427]But that would mean that Fox exaggerated what was actually happening! They wouldn't do that, right? Right?[/QUOTE] No dude fox is like the most unbiased source ever idk where youd get that idea

America's next president is looking great. Either a sex offender(allegedly) or a crook (allegedly) Rather impressive how people under such a bright spotlight can still get away with it.