Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Who said anyone "judged her guilty"? What a silly straw man.
Click to expand...

But you said that someone was ignoring "Hillary's gross misconduct"... S&A had cited something in the code/law about "gross negligence". One assumes with your insistence on using accurate terminology, that you had something that related to "gross misconduct". It's not a strawman, it's a quote.
 
wareyin said:
It's quite a common linguistic understanding that the choice of descriptors changes the perception of the thing being described. I'm surprised that would have to be explained.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you were confused when I said that they think it changes the nature of the thing, and thought I was talking about perception, which is implied by the bit where I said that they think it changes the nature of the thing.

Maybe you should read more carefully in the future.
 
Argumemnon said:
Perhaps you were confused when I said that they think it changes the nature of the thing, and thought I was talking about perception, which is implied by the bit where I said that they think it changes the nature of the thing.

Maybe you should read more carefully in the future.
Click to expand...

Maybe you were bothered when a better answer than yours was given (perception of the thing rather than nature of the thing), and so you tried to act haughty. Unfortunately for the 'why do the words we use to refer to things matter?' bunch, in politics as well as social matters, perception is key.
 
Argumemnon said:
Perhaps you were confused when I said that they think it changes the nature of the thing, and thought I was talking about perception, which is implied by the bit where I said that they think it changes the nature of the thing.

Maybe you should read more carefully in the future.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example where somebody believes the name of a thing also changes the nature of the thing itself? I think in almost all cases, people are trying to change the perception of the thing, not the intrinsic nature of it.
 
wareyin said:
Maybe you were bothered when a better answer than yours was given (perception of the thing rather than nature of the thing), and so you tried to act haughty. Unfortunately for the 'why do the words we use to refer to things matter?' bunch, in politics as well as social matters, perception is key.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because skepticism has failed, unfortunately. People place more value on their perceptions than on reality, and you, sir, are agreeing with them.

sunmaster14 said:
Can you give an example where somebody believes the name of a thing also changes the nature of the thing itself? I think in almost all cases, people are trying to change the perception of the thing, not the intrinsic nature of it.
Click to expand...

The point isn't that the nature of the thing itself is changed, but that people perceive the same thing as having a different nature because you use a different word.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah, because skepticism has failed, unfortunately. People place more value on their perceptions than on reality, and you, sir, are agreeing with them.



The point isn't that the nature of the thing itself is changed, but that people perceive the same thing as having a different nature because you use a different word.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of a position in politics which has a 'reality' unaffected by the perception of that position?
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah, because skepticism has failed, unfortunately. People place more value on their perceptions than on reality, and you, sir, are agreeing with them.



The point isn't that the nature of the thing itself is changed, but that people perceive the same thing as having a different nature because you use a different word.
Click to expand...

I'm still at a loss as to what you meant. You seemed to be disparaging the belief that how something is described with words (i.e. framed) can be very important. I'm surprised that anybody wouldn't believe framing matters. Human language is not as precise as mathematics, and the inherent ambiguity in words gives an awful lot of room to mislead without actually lying.
 
wareyin said:
Indeed, the whole point of this (and previous) thread is to sow doubt on behalf of Trump supporters! Why, pointing out that reality is failing their narrative is just wrong, I say! So there!
Click to expand...
Is 16.5 a Trump supporter? He won't answer me, and at least from the posts I have read he hasn't said. There are only two choices as far as I can tell, vote for Hillary, or don't vote.
 
Marcus said:
Is 16.5 a Trump supporter? He won't answer me, and at least from the posts I have read he hasn't said. There are only two choices as far as I can tell, vote for Hillary, or don't vote.
Click to expand...

The OP of this thread (ElfGrinder3000) was a far right poster. He never even attempted to pose as a Sanders supporter. 16.5 has been claiming to be a Sanders supporter for the last 2 months, but we have years of far right, Republican supporting posts from him. I find it difficult to believe that one would jump from far-right, 'Republicans always good/Democrats always bad' to support of a far-left Dem in one election cycle.

As far as your binary, I think it's vote for Clinton, or vote for Trump. One of those 2 will be the next President, so you have to (as always) pick the lesser of 2 evils.
 
RobRoy said:
Why would you come into a thread whose title is "Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2" and NOT ask it? That's the real question here.
Click to expand...

There's two things that can "finish" Hillary, and they're both future events (election/FBI investigation), so I figure this thread is speculation about the likelihood of either of those events.

But the OP title is horribly phrased.
 
The Clinton Foundation Got Big Bucks from Nations that 'Fund Extremist Organizations'

In a major speech earlier this week, Clinton sharply criticized three countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait – for "funding extremist organizations."

Here's the irony: The Clinton Foundation has received a whopping $40 million from all three of these countries.

According to the nonprofit's records, the Clinton Foundation has received:

◾Between $10 million and $25 million from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
◾Between $5 million and $10 million from the State of Kuwait
◾Between $1 million and $5 million from the State of Qatar​

Read more:
http://moneymorning.com/2016/06/16/...om-nations-that-fund-extremist-organizations/ (June 16, 2016)
Click to expand...


And guess who funds the Islamist militant group ISIS?

"Grossing as much as $40 million or more over the past two years, ISIS has accepted funding from government or private sources in the oil-rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait."

How Does ISIS Fund Its Reign of Terror?
Click to expand...


However, according to the Clinton Foundation, the money they receive from these 3 terrorist sponsoring dictatorships is being used to promote equality for women:

"We’re working toward a world where more girls and women can achieve full participation in all aspects of life. Our programs empower girls and women to participate more fully in the social and economic life of their communities."

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/by-topic/girls-and-women
Click to expand...


So, in addition to sponsoring terrorism, these countries are also philanthropists, eager to promote women's rights. Ah, that's such a heartwarming story -- perfect blend of terrorism and women's rights.
 
wareyin said:
The OP of this thread (ElfGrinder3000) was a far right poster. He never even attempted to pose as a Sanders supporter. 16.5 has been claiming to be a Sanders supporter for the last 2 months, but we have years of far right, Republican supporting posts from him. I find it difficult to believe that one would jump from far-right, 'Republicans always good/Democrats always bad' to support of a far-left Dem in one election cycle.

As far as your binary, I think it's vote for Clinton, or vote for Trump. One of those 2 will be the next President, so you have to (as always) pick the lesser of 2 evils.
Click to expand...

It's my own binary choice I'm thinking of, I suppose. Hillary is odious, but Trump is unthinkable, so I will have to choose between her and Stay Home. At least that way I will be able to say later I didn't vote for her.
 
Marcus said:
It's my own binary choice I'm thinking of, I suppose. Hillary is odious, but Trump is unthinkable, so I will have to choose between her and Stay Home. At least that way I will be able to say later I didn't vote for her.
Click to expand...

Well, if you choose to stay at home, that is one less vote that the unthinkable candidate must get to win. If you are ok with that, then be proud that you made no attempt to stop the unthinkable from happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom