Received: from nobody by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cccgJ-00035c-Lm for lojban-newreal@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:45:59 -0800 Received: from [83.167.242.16] (port=48879 helo=revenge.candidateupdatedinfo.com) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cccgH-00034q-CL for lojban@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:45:58 -0800 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:49:17 -0700 Priority: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-ID: Reply-To: HSI-Alert@candidateupdatedinfo.com Subject: Attn: All Trump-Supporters! Hillary's Plan for-Revenge. Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit To: lojban@lojban.org From: HSI-Alert MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Spam_score: 2.2 X-Spam_score_int: 22 X-Spam_bar: ++ X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: February 11th, 2017. Hillary's Secret-Revenge Plan. Political-Notification No.1180386358712. Greetings lojban@lojban.org, [...] Content analysis details: (2.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: candidateupdatedinfo.com] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 1.9 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 0.9 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS 0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money February 11th, 2017. ***************************************************************. Hillary's Secret-Revenge Plan. ***************************************************************. Political-Notification No.1180386358712. ***************************************************************. Greetings lojban@lojban.org, JUST-LEAKED: Hillary has a secret-plan to get revenge and ALL Trump-supporters really need to see this... There is now concrete-evidence that Hillary rigged the 2016-election, but she STILL lost! Now she's angry and looking for revenge on anyone who voted for President-Trump. The video below will lay-out all the evidence against her and just how she will tried to get her-revenge, but keep in mind this is Hillary we're talking about so make sure you watch it right away before she has it taken-down or banned. Go here to see this shocking-video now: http://voterinfo.candidateupdatedinfo.com If you'd prefer to not-receive future politicalads-you can. end-them by going_here: http://btye3.candidateupdatedinfo.com /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////. *-2885 Sanford-Avenue S.W. No.40442_Grandville-M.I. #49418. So once again, Julian Assange places his hand near the plunger, threatening to detonate more anti-Hillary dynamite. Fair enough. If he has something real, whatever we think of him and his methods, it will have to be grappled with. But before he starts in, let???s put the topic of New Clinton Revelations in the context they deserve???a context everyone forgets the instant a titillating email or tape emerges, like the tape from this past weekend in which Clinton supposedly demeaned Bernie Sanders???s supporters but in fact did the opposite (as Sanders himself agreed). I???ve written two columns in my little series aimed at trying to persuade swing voters why they really don???t want Trump in the White House. The first argued that while she may be flawed, ???even deeply flawed,??? he is psychotic (an argument that???s looking better with each passing week). The second made the case against voting for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. This third one is toughest one to write so far (and will be the longest one, because it requires some detailed explanations of some things). Here, I???m going to try to tell you, if you???re a younger voter or if you just don???t remember this stuff because you have other things to think about in life, that Hillary Clinton isn???t nearly as crooked as you think she is; that most???yep; most???of what you???ve read about her over the past quarter-century is either wildly exaggerated or, in a surprising number of cases, simply not true at all. You will wonder: How could something that???s simply not true even make its way into the newspapers in the first place? In due course, I will explain. So let???s go back to 1992, and her husband???s first campaign, which is where all this started. Ponder this context: At that point, since 1948???for 44 years???American had only had presidents who???d served in wars in some form or another, usually World War II (Ronald Reagan by making movies, but he got the draft board to count it somehow). And, for an even longer period???much longer???America had only had first ladies who were proverbial little women at their husband???s side. Except for Eleanor Roosevelt, they didn???t have opinions about matters of state. And they certainly steered well clear of meddling in the presidency (officially, at least; Edith Wilson and Nancy Reagan were the most notable unofficial exceptions). They selected china patterns. And finally, remember that it was 26 years ago, and life was different from today. Yes, the feminist revolution had happened, and women had joined the work force in huge numbers by then. But not everyone liked it, not by a long shot. And more broadly the culture wars were raging; the very term ???culture wars??? had just come into general use in 1990 or 1991. So into this milieu walk Bill and Hillary Clinton, the first president and first lady from the ???60s generation. He, to his critics, was a draft dodger (and there is no doubt that he delayed service as long as he could and then had the good fortune to draw a high lottery number). And she was a feminist, which she didn???t bother to deny. In addition, for years she had been the chief breadwinner in the Clinton household. The governor of Arkansas made $30,000, maybe $35,000 in the ???80s. Hillary, a partner in Little Rock???s prestige law firm, made six figures. And she was seen, then, as ???secretly??? more liberal than her centrist husband. What I???ve described so far comes under the heading of ideology???her feminism, her public profile, and her known beliefs all added up to a woman who challenged the conventions of the day. You can see, given the image of the First Lady that prevailed up to Hillary???s arrival on the scene, why that upset some people. But what, you might be wondering, do these ideological matters have to do with corruption? This is the key question that must be answered in assessing Hillary Clinton???s public life and reputation.