Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dog Town said:
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.
Click to expand...

Power hungry people don't give up their power. So is she power hungry or a Bill puppet?
 
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...

Why is it that you don't actually understand the argument being made? The distinction being pointed out is not "He did it, too!" That's a Tu Quoque argument. The distinction is that, as you've directly told us, you don't care about the history of politicians you agree with. You only hold LOL Libs to those high moral standards.

What is being said is that there was as much wrong (which in most of our judgement equals "very little") in that behavior in Ike and Nancy Reagan as there is in Bubba's. I kinda like the thought that Old Blue Eyes was slipping it to "Mommie" while the feeb was in the Oval Office handling affairs of state. "Anybody know who took the watermelon flavored Jelly Bellies?" It's about the only thing that endears me to either of the Reagans.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Why is it that you don't actually understand the argument being made? The distinction being pointed out is not "He did it, too!" That's a Tu Quoque argument. The distinction is that, as you've directly told us, you don't care about the history of politicians you agree with. You only hold LOL Libs to those high moral standards.
Click to expand...

My Lol really bothers you doesn't it. Lol

Wrong though, I'm not interested in those because they're dead, imagine that.
Plus, they didn't abuse women like your wonderful predator Bill Clinton.
What is being said is that there was as much wrong (which in most of our judgement equals "very little") in that behavior in Ike and Nancy Reagan as there is in Bubba's. I kinda like the thought that Old Blue Eyes was slipping it to "Mommie" while the feeb was in the Oval Office handling affairs of state. "Anybody know who took the watermelon flavored Jelly Bellies?" It's about the only thing that endears me to either of the Reagans.
Click to expand...

No, what you're doing is what leftists always do, deflect.
 
logger said:
My Lol really bothers you doesn't it. Lol

Wrong though, I'm not interested in those because they're dead, imagine that.
Plus, they didn't abuse women like your wonderful predator Bill Clinton.


No, what you're doing is what leftists always do, deflect.
Click to expand...

I'm going to miss you when you disappear again in ten months, you know? It's so much more fun to argue against actual caricatures than having to make up straw men.

You don't care about those people because they're not running against conservatives, e.g. they're dead. You don't care about Nancy Reagan because she's not dead? You don't care that Trump is accused of abusing his wife because.....? The "abuser" accusations against Trump are from his divorce from Ivanka. Right around the same time as the accusations about Bubba. Yet you think that the accusations against Trump, who is running for POTUS in case you missed it, should give the highly moral voter nothing to worry about, but are more worried that the spouse of an accused abuser is running?

I don't see the consistency in the morality. It's almost like you only care if something has any value in derailing the campaign of someone you oppose.
 
Much as I don't have an appetite for Clinton in the Oval Office this thread's a testament to predictions gone wrong. One of the problems with trying it too early. given that trends favor her for the moment getting the nomination on the Democratic side, barring sanders performing an upset the way Obama did
 
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...

Nope, you can be ruthless and power hungry and still recognize your place in the pecking order. More importantly, ruthless and power hungry doesn't mean clever or cunning. Bill can probably run circles around Hillary intellectually, so there's not much she can do about being manipulated, unless she finds a comparably clever adviser who can balance out Bill.

I'll also note that Bill is an alpha male. Women who stay married to alpha males end up being dominated. The opposite happens with beta males (like me, for instance).
 
sunmaster14 said:
Nope, you can be ruthless and power hungry and still recognize your place in the pecking order. More importantly, ruthless and power hungry doesn't mean clever or cunning. Bill can probably run circles around Hillary intellectually, so there's not much she can do about being manipulated, unless she finds a comparably clever adviser who can balance out Bill.

I'll also note that Bill is an alpha male. Women who stay married to alpha males end up being dominated. The opposite happens with beta males (like me, for instance).
Click to expand...

Your understanding of human behavior is lacking in reason and fact. It's rather insulting. Please stop.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Nope, you can be ruthless and power hungry and still recognize your place in the pecking order. More importantly, ruthless and power hungry doesn't mean clever or cunning. Bill can probably run circles around Hillary intellectually, so there's not much she can do about being manipulated, unless she finds a comparably clever adviser who can balance out Bill.

I'll also note that Bill is an alpha male. Women who stay married to alpha males end up being dominated. The opposite happens with beta males (like me, for instance).
Click to expand...
Shades of Vox Day.

Your view of male/female relationships seems to be rather prehistoric.
 
tsig said:
Shades of Vox Day.

Your view of male/female relationships seems to be rather prehistoric.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. It is based on how humans evolved biologically. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to escape our biological constraints.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You don't care that Trump is accused of abusing his wife because.....? The "abuser" accusations against Trump are from his divorce from Ivanka. Right around the same time as the accusations about Bubba. Yet you think that the accusations against Trump, who is running for POTUS in case you missed it, should give the highly moral voter nothing to worry about, but are more worried that the spouse of an accused abuser is running?

I don't see the consistency in the morality.
Click to expand...

This rather reflects my thoughts on Trump going after this line of attack.

The consistency is not about morality.
 
Foolmewunz said:
but are more worried that the spouse of an accused abuser is running?
Click to expand...

Willful ignorance must be bliss!
It has been explained NUMEROUS times why HRC is tied to the sins of her keeper! Please try and pay some attention! Unless ignoring it is a sport!
 
sunmaster14 said:
And that's just typical, liberal science denialism. Sometimes I wonder if liberals believe in evolution at all.
Click to expand...


Your original statement was that women with alpha males end up being dominated. So, first you're going to have to show any evidence of that as a general rule. Then you can explain how it's at all evolutionarily advantageous.

You made the statement to support the assertion that a Yale educated President is intellectually superior to a Yale educated Senator and Secretary of State. You're going to have to support that statement.

You only said that in support of your idea that Hillary Clinton shut down female accusers of her husband because she was cold and calculating. I don't think you (or anyone else) has shown that she was ever able to cover up an allegation later found to be true; or even stop the spread of false allegation.

The whole argument is prejudice atop supposition balanced on rumor. Instead of regressing to sillier and sillier generalities, try evidence.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes, it is. It is based on how humans evolved biologically. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to escape our biological constraints.
Click to expand...

Me Tarzan, you Jane?

Interesting how "biology" just happens to reinforce ones beliefs.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And that's just typical, liberal science denialism. Sometimes I wonder if liberals believe in evolution at all.
Click to expand...

Science tells us that Hillary must be dominated by Bill??

Can we see that research?
 
Loss Leader said:
Your original statement was that women with alpha males end up being dominated. So, first you're going to have to show any evidence of that as a general rule. Then you can explain how it's at all evolutionarily advantageous.

You made the statement to support the assertion that a Yale educated President is intellectually superior to a Yale educated Senator and Secretary of State. You're going to have to support that statement.

You only said that in support of your idea that Hillary Clinton shut down female accusers of her husband because she was cold and calculating. I don't think you (or anyone else) has shown that she was ever able to cover up an allegation later found to be true; or even stop the spread of false allegation.

The whole argument is prejudice atop supposition balanced on rumor. Instead of regressing to sillier and sillier generalities, try evidence.
Click to expand...

I think he first has to demonstrate that human alpha males exist.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And that's just typical, liberal science denialism. Sometimes I wonder if liberals believe in evolution at all.
Click to expand...
At the point your posts include science instead of bald asserations I'll pay attention. History and body of work suggests there will be no need to pay attention

Edit, oh, you may want to question your teams view on evolution, I'm pretty comfortable mine is right with science.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom