Hillary Caught Lying About Iowa?

DarkFury

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2015
27,260
8,247
940
Sun, Sand And Palm Trees
It seems there be a little issue about lying here certainly not large by a Clinton's by but Iowa state standards it could be a problem.


"Officially, the Democratic party in Iowa has not announced a winner. The process forward may include a recount, or may simply be left a tie. One imagines the flurry of phone calls among the Party and the candidates’ camps trying to sort this out."

She did not and has not won Iowa by Iowa standards. So exactly how did she LIE this time?

"Except for Hillary, who, despite all the weight of that reality, has already declared herself the winner. In one of her careful parsing of words, Hillary announced herself the winner, based on her own count of delegates allotted, ignoring the vote tally itself. Sure thing, Hils."

Oh she based it on HER count. Well hell we ALL know just how honest that would be right? And we ALL know Hillary and her flunky's are NOT worried about Sanders right?

"The New York Times reports that the close results were “deeply unnerving” to Clinton and her husband, as well as her advisers, some of whom had expressed growing confidence in recent days that they had recaptured political momentum after weeks when Sanders was drawing huge crowds and rising in the polls. The Clinton's had appeared optimistic at rallies over the weekend, thanking Iowans for their support as much as urging them to turn out to vote."

Okay she is worried, may have flat out wet herself. They are looking at a recount and NO declared winner. It SO close even with the 6 out 6 coin toss wins she may have lost.

YOU Sanders supporters better pull your heads out of your ass because this woman has NO objection to lying, cheating or stealing her way to the White House.

Everyone Except Hillary Still Thinks Hillary and Bernie are Tied in Iowa
 
Poor, poor Democrats, they have to choose from

upload_2016-2-2_16-9-15.png
 
Last edited:
Everyone is aware that #1. the DNC does not want Sanders and #2. the DNC controlled every aspect of the Iowa caucus. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the DNC would do it's best to insure a Hillary victory. It's likely that Sanders won and the best the DNC was able to do was to delay the returns of a couple of precincts and give Hillary the (narrowest in history) slim victory of 2%.
 
2%? Try 0.2% 4 votes with O'Malley still holding ~8 (0.6%)

But who cares who really won. The breakdown is a 22 delegates split. Winning is a concession prize that says "I've got a few more votes than you, barring any mistakes in counting!!"

The bottom line is the delegate count, which isn't going to change with a recount.
 
I will say one thing.

Sanders has exposed many weaknesses in Hillary's campaign that either Rubio, Cruz or Trump can use to win the Whitehouse...

It does not look good for ol' Hill
 
she won half the delegates ... no lie.

Bernie won the other half ... no lie

Fury full of bs ... no lie.
 
Poor, poor Democrats, they have to choose from

View attachment 62071

Indeed. I am curious about one thing, though. And this is a serious question: how is it that Sanders (an independent) can run on the democrat ticket? I mean, shouldn't he be running as an Independent?

RandallFlagg

In that case, Drumpf should be running as other than Repub because his policies have always been other than conservative.

Until now.

Same with him deciding to play the part of a "christian". Or hiring illegals, sending his business to China and Mexico and all the rest of his lies.

Oh wait - all those lies make him eligible to be a Republican.

But, seriously, why in the world would you say Sanders should not or can not run as a Dem?

What law are you basing that on?
 
Desperate much?
No, not at all. Just SHE called it NOT the state. How about we let them count clown trash?


You lose so of course, you accuse the winner of lying.

As usual, you're full of crap and you're not reeeel bright.
I want to hear the state call it NOT some KNOWN liar. That's fair.


prove she didn't win half of the states delegates ..

I'll wait
 
Of course this political-female-Hannibal-Lecter lied! She lied about everything else, why wouldn't she lie about this. Hillary is such a GLARING, female-Eric-Cartman psychopath, I automatically assume the truth is the opposite of whatever this reedy-voiced goblin says.
 
Desperate much?
No, not at all. Just SHE called it NOT the state. How about we let them count clown trash?


You lose so of course, you accuse the winner of lying.

As usual, you're full of crap and you're not reeeel bright.
I want to hear the state call it NOT some KNOWN liar. That's fair.


LOL

You really are dumb as a dirty rock.

Do you really believe that no candidate has ever before declared they were winning (or losing) ahead of whatever state, country, news source announced?
 
Poor, poor Democrats, they have to choose from

View attachment 62071

Indeed. I am curious about one thing, though. And this is a serious question: how is it that Sanders (an independent) can run on the democrat ticket? I mean, shouldn't he be running as an Independent?
He is claiming "Socialist Democrat" status. Not that the party has ever said they have such a wing.


Okay, what law are you basing your agreement with RandallFlagg on?

Cuz, I've never heard of what you two are yammering about.
 
Everyone is aware that #1. the DNC does not want Sanders and #2. the DNC controlled every aspect of the Iowa caucus. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the DNC would do it's best to insure a Hillary victory. It's likely that Sanders won and the best the DNC was able to do was to delay the returns of a couple of precincts and give Hillary the (narrowest in history) slim victory of 2%.
.2%
 

Forum List

Back
Top