Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Feel the Bern!
Click to expand...

I'd rather the Republican party nominate a moderate conservative to balance things out, but that is certainly an option; I could never vote for any party that nominates Donald Trump.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I see you've come round to the opinion he was just making things up and was not releasing confidential information he had no legal right to do so.
Click to expand...
Good lord man you don't give up. I never said or implied it was anything but an opinion. Even if he had sources to confirm what he's saying, if he doesn't name them, its still an opinion. I certainly never claimed he had some legal right to to so either.

I do agree with him on his point, there's too much evidence for them, they will have to do something with her.
 
I wish people would stop pretending that this has anything to do with women's issues. Trump supporters started hammering this old canard as some sort of tu quo quo hen Trumps long history of misogynistic rhetoric became too much to bear.

Clinton actually has a voting record, whereas three Republican candidates have never held any elected office whatsoever. But we should forgive Trump because Bill Clinton had affairs and thus he must also have sexually abused somebody and Hillary didn't divorce him and thus she used her psychic powers to harm these accusers (in one case by thanking one for all her help which was secretly some sort of threat) so she really hates women and will make spousal rape legal again ... or something undefined and ridiculous.
 
Loss Leader said:
I wish people would stop pretending that this has anything to do with women's issues. Trump supporters started hammering this old canard as some sort of tu quo quo hen Trumps long history of misogynistic rhetoric became too much to bear.

Clinton actually has a voting record, whereas three Republican candidates have never held any elected office whatsoever. But we should forgive Trump because Bill Clinton had affairs and thus he must also have sexually abused somebody and Hillary didn't divorce him and thus she used her psychic powers to harm these accusers (in one case by thanking one for all her help which was secretly some sort of threat) so she really hates women and will make spousal rape legal again ... or something undefined and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Once again we're at this place where republicans hate women because they don't want to kill babies. Dems love women because they do want to kill babies and rape women, got it.

What about the women who vote republican?
 
logger said:
Once again we're at this place where republicans hate women because they don't want to kill babies. Dems love women because they do want to kill babies and rape women, got it.

What about the women who vote republican?
Click to expand...

Wow. I didn't think ******** could be stacked that high. I guess the fallacies must be acting as some form of binder.


Also, you forgot to preface the post with "So,"
 
logger said:
Good lord man you don't give up. I never said or implied it was anything but an opinion. Even if he had sources to confirm what he's saying, if he doesn't name them, its still an opinion. I certainly never claimed he had some legal right to to so either.

I do agree with him on his point, there's too much evidence for them, they will have to do something with her.
Click to expand...

And I never claimed that you claimed he had a legal right to do so either.

What we seem to have here is a politician claiming to be using and releasing confidential information, yet you are fine with him releasing this confidential information without a murmur from you that the authorities should look into his leaking of confidential information. That suggests a double standard in regards to politicians who say what you want to hear and politicians that you dislike or disagree with. The only other option is that the politician is a liar, and again it would seem a double standard is being used i.e. when a lying politician says something you want to hear you ignore the lies.
 
Darat said:
And I never claimed that you claimed he had a legal right to do so either.

What we seem to have here is a politician claiming to be using and releasing confidential information, yet you are fine with him releasing this confidential information without a murmur from you that the authorities should look into his leaking of confidential information. That suggests a double standard in regards to politicians who say what you want to hear and politicians that you dislike or disagree with. The only other option is that the politician is a liar, and again it would seem a double standard is being used i.e. when a lying politician says something you want to hear you ignore the lies.
Click to expand...

How do you square that with a reporter who has a source?
 
Darat said:
And I never claimed that you claimed he had a legal right to do so either.

What we seem to have here is a politician claiming to be using and releasing confidential information, yet you are fine with him releasing this confidential information without a murmur from you that the authorities should look into his leaking of confidential information. That suggests a double standard in regards to politicians who say what you want to hear and politicians that you dislike or disagree with. The only other option is that the politician is a liar, and again it would seem a double standard is being used i.e. when a lying politician says something you want to hear you ignore the lies.
Click to expand...

Except he's not a politician, you're putting words on my post. He is a private lawyer who may or may not have a source. He is giving an opinion, probably an informed opinion. That isn't usually considered a lie.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Subverting the judicial process by lying under oath.



Does anybody here really believe that Hillary patched things up with Bill for reasons other than her ambition for political office? Staying married because getting divorced would be bad for "business" is hardly a feather in one's cap.



Well, aside from the light it shines on her character (which, frankly, doesn't bother me so much, since I already know that she's a ruthless, power-hungry, politician), the behavior of her husband is important because there is no doubt he will be something of a co-President. Would anybody really believe he won't be the most powerful man in the country again, if she becomes President? He might even be the most power person in the country (and the world) again, depending on how resistant Hillary is to his opinions.
Click to expand...


She's a ruthless power hungry politician who will let Bill dominate her?

Seems like there's some sort of contradiction here.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
You'll notice, however, the pull of the Clintonian bug zapper even still remains strong. It'll obviously get you every time, but moths being moths...
Click to expand...

It's fascinating watching the Bill hatred roll forth. I never quite understood the virulence of the hatred but one of the reasons I like Bill is that he drives the Republicans bat **** crazy. :D
 
tsig said:
She's a ruthless power hungry politician who will let Bill dominate her?

Seems like there's some sort of contradiction here.
Click to expand...

No contradiction at all! Not sure what you're missing.

ETA: I see the problem! You must be confusing the word calculating with contradiction. You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
I'm not talking about sexual assault even though I personally think he is a predator, I'm talking about infidelity which is a question of his judgement. The kind of man that does what he does is on the low end of society.
Click to expand...

I guessing then that you feel that same way about Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and also Sir Winston Churchill too?
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
I guessing then that you feel that same way about Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and also Sir Winston Churchill too?
Click to expand...

Why is it that when unacceptable behavior is brought up to people on the left, they counter with other people with the same unacceptable behavior?
 
logger said:
Why is it that when unacceptable behavior is brought up to people on the left, they counter with other people with the same unacceptable behavior?
Click to expand...

I don't I accept Bill as a human being with human faults. Neither a god or a demon.

Let me know when you get a politician without any faults.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom