Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Huh.... I guess we should call this thread 16.5's thread, huh?
Click to expand...

Just curious.

Who will you be voting in the general election: Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. He has next to zero chance of getting the nomination. You know it's going to be Clinton vs Trump.

and which party have you voted for in the last few cycles? assuming you mean for President, right?: I voted for write in candidates
Click to expand...

So you have a habit of voting for the losers? ;)
 
RobRoy said:
Nope. Already cast my vote for Bernie in the California primary.

YOU'RE WELCOME BERNIE!

In this case I'm not "Pro-Hillary". I'm anti-Stupid.
Click to expand...

You think the State Department IG's report today blasting Hillary for her malfeasance with respect to handling her emails is "stupid"?

'k.
 
16.5 said:
I am serious, and when super delegates read the IG's report today, I am confident they will too.
Click to expand...

Well, of course if they switch over, that's a different story, but I doubt that's going to happen, unless they think she can't win the GE.

Could be interesting, though.
 
16.5 said:
Huh.... I guess we should call this thread 16.5's thread, huh?

Who will you be voting in the general election: Bernie Sanders.

and which party have you voted for in the last few cycles? assuming you mean for President, right?: I voted for write in candidates
Click to expand...

I'd be shocked if you actually wrote in Sanders for the presidential election this year, however that's the only way you'll be voting for him.
 
16.5 said:
You think the State Department IG's report today blasting Hillary for her malfeasance with respect to handling her emails is "stupid"?

'k.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see your error. You'll see it too in a minute. You suggested I read the Clinton emails thread. My responses have only been in regards to that thread. I couldn't possibly respond to a report I haven't read yet.
 
RobRoy said:
Ahh, I see your error. You'll see it too in a minute. You suggested I read the Clinton emails thread. My responses have only been in regards to that thread. I couldn't possibly respond to a report I haven't read yet.
Click to expand...

So you read the thread ?
 
16.5 said:
You might want to take a gander at the Clinton Emails thread or just about any news source before you count anyone out....
Click to expand...

RobRoy said:
Ahh, I see your error. You'll see it too in a minute. You suggested I read the Clinton emails thread. My responses have only been in regards to that thread. I couldn't possibly respond to a report I haven't read yet.
Click to expand...

There was no error.
 
Seriously though: who's gonna be Clinton's First Lady?
Cause I'm having a hard time picturing Bill in a dress
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

It's relevant that today is not my first day on the internet because it means that I have experience with discussions similar to, even exactly on, the Clinton emails thread. I'm aware of the background on the issues, the arguments surrounding it, and—barring some amazing new information provided in the mentioned IG report—I've already arrived at my conclusion. Participation in the thread would not further enlighten me or change my opinion on the matter. The greater majority of the arguments, as suggest by 16.5's position and use of the thread as some kind of wrecking ball, are likely junk.

I've done junk before. I don't feel the need to do it again.

But you offered an opinion on a thread you hadn't read.

I'm sure all of us see the glaring double standard, even if you don't.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not exactly certain where your ire is coming from or why it's directed at me, as I suspect we likely fall on the same page in regards to the Clinton emails, but I have not actually created a "glaring double standard". Instead, what you've created here is a false dichotomy. Equating the substance of the Clinton emails thread with the perceived substance of the report. Unfortunately, they do not have parity. I don't need to read every thread in the "Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories" forum to have a similarly valid opinion without it being a "glaring double standard" by the same measure that I don't need to watch every Ewe Boll film to know that they all are junk.

However, if you feel this points out a "glaring" error in my personality, that is, of course, unfortunate. You seem otherwise like a reasonable and intelligent individual.
 
RobRoy said:
It's relevant that today is not my first day on the internet because it means that I have experience with discussions similar to, even exactly on, the Clinton emails thread. I'm aware of the background on the issues, the arguments surrounding it, and—barring some amazing new information provided in the mentioned IG report—I've already arrived at my conclusion. Participation in the thread would not further enlighten me or change my opinion on the matter. The greater majority of the arguments, as suggest by 16.5's position and use of the thread as some kind of wrecking ball, are likely junk.

I've done junk before. I don't feel the need to do it again.

Well, I'm not exactly certain where your ire is coming from or why it's directed at me, as I suspect we likely fall on the same page in regards to the Clinton emails, but I have not actually created a "glaring double standard". Instead, what you've created here is a false dichotomy. Equating the substance of the Clinton emails thread with the perceived substance of the report. Unfortunately, they do not have parity. I don't need to read every thread in the "Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories" forum to have a similarly valid opinion without it being a "glaring double standard" by the same measure that I don't need to watch every Ewe Boll film to know that they all are junk.

However, if you feel this points out a "glaring" error in my personality, that is, of course, unfortunate. You seem otherwise like a reasonable and intelligent individual.
Click to expand...

I don't have any ire towards you, I'm just pointing out what I thought to be a fairly obvious double standard.

Although an IG report and an internet thread are different things, the idea that you should read either prior to making judgments seems rather common sense.

Simply because something is in the CT section (for example) doesn't automatically make it crap. It may make it more likely ... but still.

I mean, you already are reading and participating in the politics section :)
 
RobRoy said:
<snip>

Well, I'm not exactly certain where your ire is coming from or why it's directed at me, as I suspect we likely fall on the same page in regards to the Clinton emails, but I have not actually created a "glaring double standard".
Click to expand...

It's called intellectual honesty. Kind of refreshing to see some of it in this forum.

Instead, what you've created here is a false dichotomy. Equating the substance of the Clinton emails thread with the perceived substance of the report. Unfortunately, they do not have parity. I don't need to read every thread in the "Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories" forum to have a similarly valid opinion without it being a "glaring double standard" by the same measure that I don't need to watch every Ewe Boll film to know that they all are junk.
Click to expand...

In the case of a conspiracy theory as silly as the kind of stuff we see in the 9/11 threads, you may have a point. But what about the theories or analyses advanced and debated with respect to Hillary's email kerfuffle strikes you as being obviously wrong and "junk?" Do you deny there is a real controversy there? Do you deny that the FBI is investigating Hillary's and her staff's handling of email communications? I think there has been a fruitful, if frustrating, discussion in that thread. Fruitful because a lot of information has been pulled together from disparate sources and peer-reviewed. Frustrating because some of Hillary's supporters in the thread argue over every little nit. They would make wonderful additions to Hillary's defense team if she does get indicted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom