Hillary openly panders to Mormons

[LeSellers]

5 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

i'm saying it could also be done to keep her out of office.

It wouldn't take many such killings to keep her out of office if the frame up were announced on the leftstream media. As it is, the progressives are hiding it, not exposing it.

The circumstances scream don't rock her boat or die. (And that boat isn't wholly political.)

Lehi

[LeSellers]

5 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

IT should be interesting to see what wikileaks is promising to spew in the near future.

"Spew" is a bit prejudiced.

If what we're seeing in the run up is indicative, that spew should be interesting, indeed. One can only hope that those who vote for a living care at all about security and such. It might also be fun to see how they react to the leaked DNC files showing the DemoComm Party is far more racist than the Ferguson, MO, police department where three or four eMails were enough to burn the city down and fire the police chief.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

On 8/11/2016 at 6:01 AM, unixknight said:

People don't trust Clinton's sincerity when she claims to have fought for religious freedom.  I wonder why...

"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."  -Hilary Clinton a few days earlier when she was feeling a bit more honest

Ohhhh that's right.  We gotta pay for abortions, in her mind. 

Not merely pay for them, but enjoy it.

Lehi

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This really bugs me.

I've lost track now I've how many times you've said those exact words to me.   Needless to say this is not an area we are going to agree on.  

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Well we could start with him being the first candidate I'm aware of to evoke a response from the church.  Our leaders are against his anti-Muslim policies because of our own history of persecution.  

I suspect Joseph Smith's candidacy evoked more than "a response".

I also suspect the "response" was more against what people think he said, rather than what he actually said.

He hasn't said anything "anti-Muslim", but more anti stupidity on the part of the immigration policy of this current admuckitupistration.

And, what he said about illegal Mexican immigrants is undeniably true. Some of them are rapists, drug dealers and so on. Few of them are upper or middle class folk. The data are clear.

Most of the anti-Trump rhetoric is based on completely erroneous reports of his words, or, if the words are given, they're out of context and sandwiched between a lot of left-wing propaganda.

Lehi

Edited August 13, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I've lost track now I've how many times you've said those exact words to me.   Needless to say this is not an area we are going to agree on.  

LOL! That's an awesome response Lit. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton for the main following reasons:

1) Her solution for our lagging economy is more taxes and more government programs that will cause even more poverty and government intrusion into our lives.

2) She said she wants Australia gun control laws here in the United States.  That would effectively destroy all of our 2nd Amendment liberties.

3) Her Clinton "Charity" is nothing more than a slush fund for her and her family.  It is full of fraud and deceit.

4) There are many questionable and very suspicious deaths of people surrounding the Clintons.  I cannot trust someone who murders.

5) Her open disdain for obeying the law was shown with her intentional deletion of classified e-mails.  Anyone who was not a lord of Washington D.C. would already be incarcerated by now for these actions.

Edit: Miss Clinton will also pick a Supreme Court Justice that will do even more damage to the United States Constitution.  The Supreme Court is currently half packed with Justices that believe the solution for many problems in America is more government intrusion into State power and into the lives of Americans.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Still_Small_Voice

[Blackmarch]

23 hours ago, LeSellers said:

"Spew" is a bit prejudiced.

If what we're seeing in the run up is indicative, that spew should be interesting, indeed. One can only hope that those who vote for a living care at all about security and such. It might also be fun to see how they react to the leaked DNC files showing the DemoComm Party is far more racist than the Ferguson, MO, police department where three or four eMails were enough to burn the city down and fire the police chief.

Lehi

I trust not wiki leaks more than i do the russian gov, the chinese gov, or the clintons.... And many parts of the us are rapidly achieving that level of trust from me.

[Hemisphere]

On 10.8.2016 at 9:19 PM, Eowyn said:

Yeah, no one wants a woman for a king. Just men. Like Obama. 

obama... ? never heard of her before...

[Hemisphere]

well, hitlary will lead you into the next war, you people don´t want. she promised her jewish backers to assist Israel with the "Iran" problem. Most of all, being morally bankrupt, she only stands for one group and that is the people that pay her campaign and I am no necessarily talking about the voters that have problems opening their eyes and ears. Also we are talking about a person, that has nothing in common with average hard working joe and hasn´t had a civilian job in how many decades ... ? she just went from one seat of power to the next, living off the taxpayer and promising them to continue to do so against any interest of the american people. However to be fair, voting for Clintor Trum / CLUMP is equally a bad choice, one of them being pest and the other the bourbonic plague. In light of those... a second american revolution might just be a very healthy idea. 

[cdowis]

On 8/10/2016 at 3:12 PM, tesuji said:

Why does it have to be pandering, when she explains to Mormons in terms that Mormons understand, why she will be a better president than Trump?

She has absolutely nothing in common with the Mormons, and I have irrefutable proof====>>  

====>>>>>>>>>  she opened her mouth, her lips were moving and she said that she will protect our religious rights.

Edited August 13, 2016 by cdowis

[askandanswer]

On 8/11/2016 at 7:08 AM, MormonGator said:

It's pretty obvious that @anatess2 and I disagree on this issue and we can both get very passionate and tart on it. Just so that everyone knows I do consider Anatess a friend and hope she considers me one too.

Sounds a bit like some sort of Florida conspiracy to me. 

[Blackmarch]

On August 12, 2016 at 1:00 PM, LeSellers said:

It wouldn't take many such killings to keep her out of office if the frame up were announced on the leftstream media. As it is, the progressives are hiding it, not exposing it.

The circumstances scream don't rock her boat or die. (And that boat isn't wholly political.)

Lehi

There are times when something is deemed to harmful to bring to the public, even when the entity that does the hiding had no part in it at all.

Of course that is what it screams, that is about the first thing that everyone who had any doubts about the clintons is thinking... Its seems so blatently obvious.... At least that is how our brains like to fill the gap anyways and connect what few dots there are. However it strikes me as too obvious a very shortsighted and stupid move on the clintons part if it really was connected to them- considering they already have had their fair share scandals, courts, legislatures and deals that shouldve had people calling for their heads on a plate yet were able to get by without hardly a scratch, without death being involved.... Why change tactics now? Why not use their expertise and high connections, bribing power, media power and etc? 

now if it wasnt the clintons (and assuming it wasnt bad coincidence), then it was a good move in that it accomplishes making a significant portion of the populace seriously wondering if she is a murderer, or convinced that she is. She takes the blame, at the same time it also moves many voters away from her. And by now this is so ingrained by media that should the verdict be that she is innocent that either verdict will go unheard, or many will be convinced that shes bought out the judge and jury.

[LeSellers]

8 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

now if it wasnt the clintons (and assuming it wasnt bad coincidence), then it was a good move in that it accomplishes making a significant portion of the populace seriously wondering if she is a murderer, or convinced that she is. She takes the blame, at the same time it also moves many voters away from her.

But the opposite is also true: were we to assume that she had nothing to do with the murders and other suspicious deaths around her and her husband, then she becomes the victim of this vast right-wing conspiracy and gains the support of a significant part of the voters.

The thing is, no one in the left-stream media has even raised this possibility, and the numbers are high, and rising. What better way to paint her with a brush of rosy hue?

8 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

And by now this is so ingrained by media that should the verdict be that she is innocent that either verdict will go unheard, or many will be convinced that shes bought out the judge and jury.

The pattern around her is that she treats the law as if it does not apply to her.

The eMail scandals, the lies about Benghazi, the lies about landing in Boznia under sniper fire, and the myriad of lies about her husband's mistresses and rape victims; these all point to her scoffing at the law. Why would murder be the exception?

If we look at the eMail scandal, for example, Comey recommended she not be indicted. But he did so in a speech that listed her myriad of crimes. If that isn't "[buying] out the [prosecution]" what does?

And, as I said earlier, even if she didn't order the murders herself, she has surrounded herself with people who would. And she could have known, and, indeed, she should have known what was going on amongst her confidant(e)s. If she didn't know (which I doubt), she has the façade of plausible deniability.

The circumstantial evidence is such that any unbiased jury would find her guilty of a host of felonies. That murder would, or might be, one has no power to shock me in the least.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Sounds a bit like some sort of Florida conspiracy to me. 

Lol! Conspiracy? @anatess2 and I were also involved in the Kennedy assassination. 

[askandanswer]

13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Lol! Conspiracy? @anatess2 and I were also involved in the Kennedy assassination. 

Yes, I remember seeing you hiding out near the bookstore, in your alligator skin boot, with a suspicious bulge under your jacket and a bottle of Jack Daniels in your back pocket. I thought you looked kind of suspicious and I could tell just by looking that you were from Florida. I didn't realise that you were in cahoots with anatess that early, but now, thanks to your admission, another piece of the puzzle falls into place. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I know this is preaching to the choir.  :)  

http://ldsmag.com/hillary-clinton-is-no-champion-of-religious-freedom/

[bytebear]

On 8/13/2016 at 11:07 AM, Blackmarch said:

I trust not wiki leaks more than i do the russian gov, the chinese gov, or the clintons.... And many parts of the us are rapidly achieving that level of trust from me.

The thing is, no one has denied the content of the leaked material.  Frankly, that surprised me. I would have thought they would have at least claimed some of them had been doctored.  But maybe because the FBI is investigating, your words can come back to haunt you.

[Blackmarch]

8 hours ago, bytebear said:

The thing is, no one has denied the content of the leaked material.  Frankly, that surprised me. I would have thought they would have at least claimed some of them had been doctored.  But maybe because the FBI is investigating, your words can come back to haunt you.

True. and A lot of truth to that. which is probably why no headline of republican leaning media (at least onesi've seen so far which isn't many, and not saying the opinion sections haven't- those have been pretty rife) has officially posted that she's guilty or in cahoots with any of the deaths that are close to the Dem party/ or clintons.  You can get sued if you go too far.

probably also a bit of a waiting game at the moment as well, jut to see if anything else comes out before the heavy hitters start taking stands.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Blackmarch

[Jojo Bags]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 1:12 PM, tesuji said:

Why does it have to be pandering, when she explains to Mormons in terms that Mormons understand, why she will be a better president than Trump?

Apparently, she was asked by they paper even, to give this statement.

Personally, as a Mormon even, it's not even close. Hillary will be a better president and shares my values, much more than Trump does. Way more than Trump does.

In his book, "The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil," Elder H. Verlan Andersen said that your political values reflect your moral values.  Think about it.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Jojo Bags

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

In his book, "The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil," Elder H. Verlan Andersen said that your political values reflect your moral values.  Thin about it.

The same is true for almost anything that remotely resembles philosophy: economics, politics, religion, and so on.

I have developed what I call "the Iron Law of Humanity": You can tell what any person or group of people want by observing, over time, what they accomplish." There's a similar "law" that tells us that that which a man thinks every day will make him into that thing.

Lehi

[Blackmarch]

Quote

 

LeSellers:
"But the opposite is also true: were we to assume that she had nothing to do with the murders and other suspicious deaths around her and her husband, then she becomes the victim of this vast right-wing conspiracy and gains the support of a significant part of the voters.

The thing is, no one in the left-stream media has even raised this possibility, and the numbers are high, and rising. What better way to paint her with a brush of rosy hue?"

 

If media ever decide to pick up that angle, no doubt that's what they would make it into- however at the moment they would have the same problem, as much as accusing her of murder is a problem. Right now the left has a better position than that since the majority of the deaths have been ruled something other than homicide (altho hopefully the FBI is looking into them, but considering how emails were handled doesn't inspire much confidence)- all they'd have to say for the moment is the right is so desperate to get hillary out of the race that they would say anything, and they would be right....  all the right has is a theory that happens to fit a few facts.
if the left decided to take the angle i have layed out they shoot all the rulings of deaths not being homicide out the window, which would then throw more suspicion on hillary, as well as put them in the same spot the right is; that the right could say that they are so desperate to defend hillary that they are willing to say anything to keep her in the race.

But it wouldn't require a vast conspiracy... only two maybe three people, one with a good ear to the ground, taking advantage of a unique situation, from any platform, or perhaps even multiple platforms.




 

Quote

 

LeSellers:

"The pattern around her is that she treats the law as if it does not apply to her.

The eMail scandals, the lies about Benghazi, the lies about landing in Boznia under sniper fire, and the myriad of lies about her husband's mistresses and rape victims; these all point to her scoffing at the law. Why would murder be the exception?

If we look at the eMail scandal, for example, Comey recommended she not be indicted. But he did so in a speech that listed her myriad of crimes. If that isn't "[buying] out the [prosecution]" what does?

 

Exactly- if she were to tell the truth the only people who'd really believe her would be her devout folllowers
 

Quote

 

Lesellers:

And, as I said earlier, even if she didn't order the murders herself, she has surrounded herself with people who would. And she could have known, and, indeed, she should have known what was going on amongst her confidant(e)s. If she didn't know (which I doubt), she has the façade of plausible deniability.

 

If she is part of a greater conspiracy, then yes (but you then have to prove racketeering and prove that greater conspiracy or something like that if i recall right at least that's what i seem to recall the FBI using to take down organised crime), or if she actually hired folks with the intent of murder then yes (however her being part of a bigger conspiracy would explain such deaths better, but if it's the case that she is the head or close to it, it runs the problems i layed out previously in the thread).... otherwise there's a problem- generally people that have homicidal tendencies tend to hide them, and hide them well.
otherwise if someone of her group said "let me handle it" and then a death occured and she didn't offer it to the authorities or the FBI, then also yes... however I doubt the murderer would have been this direct in seeking "authorization" (for lack of a better word at the moment).
 

Quote

 

LeSellers:

The circumstantial evidence is such that any unbiased jury would find her guilty of a host of felonies. That murder would, or might be, one has no power to shock me in the least.

Lehi"

 

Guilty of other crimes yes. however of the deaths, not quite as easily, even the circumstance is stretched thin on  that one, and the ability to link them to the others is fairly tenuous. As for murder to be shocking in political circles... eyebrow raising more like, shocking? no. My question to the world in that regard is why isn't there more?

 

Quote

LeSellers:
The eMail scandals, the lies about Benghazi, the lies about landing in Boznia under sniper fire, and the myriad of lies about her husband's mistresses and rape victims; these all point to her scoffing at the law. Why would murder be the exception?

This would be a change of MO from the past.. altho it is true a person could change, or perhaps they felt they couldn't get away with such in the past (either would be difficult to prove)- While Murderers are almost always liars, not all liars are murderers.