Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was not my original statement. Your lack of precision foreshadows a frustrating dialogue, which won't happen here in any case, because it would be a derail. For the record, my assertion, which was not meant to be absolute, was that women who marry alpha males and stay married to alpha males end up being dominated. This can mean some women, most women, or all women. I definitely do not mean "all," although I certainly believe "most," and if pressed, could certainly prove "some." The takeaway is the "stay" part. Staying married to an alpha male is difficult if there is not a dominant-submissive relationship. One or the other of the spouses would most likely end up leaving if there weren't. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is well known (and obvious in my view) that the best reproductive strategy for females is to have sex with the alpha males but marry the betas. Of course the best strategy for obtaining political power is probably to marry the alpha males and **** your political rivals.

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.
Click to expand...

Once again, you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't believe Bill Clinton is intellectually superior to Hillary because he is an alpha male and she is his wife. I believe he is intellectually superior because I've observed both of them for over two decades, and Bill's intellect impresses me, and Hillary's doesn't. No sexism necessary at all. I'll note that I supported Bill Clinton early in the 1992 primary cycle and voted for him in 1992. I have watched him closely for a very long time.

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.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of Monica Lewinsky? There was a fairly well-known scandal involving her that broke in 1998. The allegation was actually proven true with science! DNA profiling to be more specific.
 
DavidJames said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's an article which may knock your smug belief in liberal intellectual superiority off-balance:

Finally, consider the question of how maleable human nature is or isn't. It is not logically impossible that we evolved as general purpose computers, with all details determined by the program, not the hardware. But it does not seem likely, given the obvious advantages of hardwiring in whatever rules worked in the environment where we evolved. Nor does it seem plausible given that most of our evolutionary history predates human rationality, making it likely that humans retain quite a lot of pre-human traits.
Click to expand...

Almost all liberal shibboleths about human nature are becoming increasingly incompatible with our knowledge of evolution and genetics. Things are going to be get very awkward in 10-20 years, as scientists start unraveling our hardware, and show that we can't just fix certain problems by tinkering with the software.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Actually, that was not my original statement. Your lack of precision foreshadows a frustrating dialogue, which won't happen here in any case, because it would be a derail. For the record, my assertion, which was not meant to be absolute, was that women who marry alpha males and stay married to alpha males end up being dominated. This can mean some women, most women, or all women. I definitely do not mean "all," although I certainly believe "most," and if pressed, could certainly prove "some." The takeaway is the "stay" part. Staying married to an alpha male is difficult if there is not a dominant-submissive relationship. One or the other of the spouses would most likely end up leaving if there weren't. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is well known (and obvious in my view) that the best reproductive strategy for females is to have sex with the alpha males but marry the betas. Of course the best strategy for obtaining political power is probably to marry the alpha males and **** your political rivals.



Once again, you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't believe Bill Clinton is intellectually superior to Hillary because he is an alpha male and she is his wife. I believe he is intellectually superior because I've observed both of them for over two decades, and Bill's intellect impresses me, and Hillary's doesn't. No sexism necessary at all. I'll note that I supported Bill Clinton early in the 1992 primary cycle and voted for him in 1992. I have watched him closely for a very long time.



Ever hear of Monica Lewinsky? There was a fairly well-known scandal involving her that broke in 1998. The allegation was actually proven true with science! DNA profiling to be more specific.
Click to expand...


In what way did Hillary Clinton ever suppress or intimidate Monica Lewinsky? Was it when Lewinsky confided in Linda Tripp? Was it when she was held by the Special Persecutor and not given a lawyer? Was it when she gave actual testimony? Was it when Clinton lied about his relationship and actually got caught? Was it when the US Congress impeached her husband? Maybe it was.during Lewinsky's TV special.

Or maybe Hillary didn't control that story in any way at all.
 
Loss Leader said:
In what way did Hillary Clinton ever suppress or intimidate Monica Lewinsky? Was it when Lewinsky confided in Linda Tripp? Was it when she was held by the Special Persecutor and not given a lawyer? Was it when she gave actual testimony? Was it when Clinton lied about his relationship and actually got caught? Was it when the US Congress impeached her husband? Maybe it was.during Lewinsky's TV special.

Or maybe Hillary didn't control that story in any way at all.
Click to expand...

Is this denial, or just naive? You are smarter than this!

ETA: Does "narcissistic, loony-toon" ring any bells?
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
In what way did Hillary Clinton ever suppress or intimidate Monica Lewinsky? Was it when Lewinsky confided in Linda Tripp? Was it when she was held by the Special Persecutor and not given a lawyer? Was it when she gave actual testimony? Was it when Clinton lied about his relationship and actually got caught? Was it when the US Congress impeached her husband? Maybe it was.during Lewinsky's TV special.

Or maybe Hillary didn't control that story in any way at all.
Click to expand...

The Clintons had a good plan, and they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling spermatozoa.

Not sure if you are old enough to have followed the story, but it was looking like Bill and Hillary's "big lie" strategy was going to work:

The attacks on the dress story, along with testimony leaks, made it easier for columnists and commentators to downplay the dress story, after it reemerged. It also made it more likely that they could be spun by the White House. One such comment: Geraldo Rivera's July 8 declaration that there is "absolutely no possibility that a so-called semen-stained dress exists" based on the fact that "Monica has insisted to everyone that things never went that far."
Click to expand...
 
Foolmewunz said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're grasping at just about anything.
You don't care about those people because they're not running against conservatives,
Click to expand...
Lol
No they're irrelevant.
You don't care about Nancy Reagan because she's not dead?
Click to expand...
Lol
No actually she is irrelevant.

You don't care that Trump is accused of abusing his wife because.....?
Click to expand...
Well, his wife said she was mistaken, what am I supposed to do? Force her to take up the accusation again?
The "abuser" accusations against Trump are from his divorce from Ivanka.
Click to expand...
Lol
That would be Ivana there chief. And again, she seems to have taken it back. ;)

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?
Click to expand...

Lol
Okay you caught me.
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.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm concerned about putting these two weirdos back in the White House.
 
DavidJames said:
Can Vince Foster and Ron Brown will be far behind?
Click to expand...

Yep, just more of the MANY dead bodies that litter the Clinton road!
One of the reasons sending HRC against the Republicans will fail!
You HRC lovers will only have your selves to blame, for president Trump!! Unless you wise up now, and get behind Bernie!
 
sunmaster14 said:
The Clintons had a good plan, and they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling spermatozoa.

Not sure if you are old enough to have followed the story, but it was looking like Bill and Hillary's "big lie" strategy was going to work:
Click to expand...


Your one source (the other is just a clip of Bill Clinton) says nothing about the White House successfully controlling the story, let alone even trying to control the story, let alone involving Hillary Clinton in some way.

Once again, what is Hillary Clinton supposed to have done in the Lewinsky case that you disapprove of?
 
Loss Leader said:
Your one source (the other is just a clip of Bill Clinton) says nothing about the White House successfully controlling the story, let alone even trying to control the story, let alone involving Hillary Clinton in some way.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious?! I sure gave you more credit! Oh well...
 
DavidJames said:
Can Vince Foster and Ron Brown will be far behind?
Click to expand...

Heck let's just replay the whole impeachment thing.

As I said before when 'Bill Derangement Syndrome" hits reason goes out the window as Repubs brains explode.:):D:boxedin:
 
BenBurch said:
If HRC loses both NH and IA, and not by small margins,I don't think she will recover from that. Now, however, it looks like she will lose IA by a very tiny margin.
Click to expand...


I'll call the race after SC. I don't think Sanders plays in the south. But if he can take a southern state, I'll be exceedingly impressed.


ETA: He's gaining but he's still forty points back.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Hillary has a high negative perception score in GA if I recall. Or did last summer.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of Zell Miller Democrats out there.

If Sanders has a chance here, it's because he actually has some organization on the ground, and Hillary has largely given GA a miss. His last rally here was a big success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom