• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. She has been accused of treason and murder.

So? Some people think that she's an alien or a robot. How is that relevant at all to an argument that she is a better choice than Trump?

She has been cleared investigation after investigation.

False. Deciding not to indict somebody is not the same as "clearing" her. In fact, Comey did quite the opposite. He made it quite clear that there was a "there" there. And the FBI report, which was released on a Friday afternoon before Labor Day weekend, made it pretty clear that she had committed very serious crimes and jeopardized national security. The fact that Comey wimped out, probably because he prefers Hillary to Bernie, is not evidence of Hillary being cleared.

Edit and she was endorsed by the newspaper that hasn't' endorsed one in many many years.

So yeah, impressed is a great rational response.

I was talking about that stupid line in particular. I actually was surprised to find it in there. It was juvenile, and it detracted from the argument.
 
So? Some people think that she's an alien or a robot. How is that relevant at all to an argument that she is a better choice than Trump?

There is no argument that she isn't a better choice than Trump. There is a smear campaign that is ongoing for decades that failed to push her away from the political scene. And now that same smear campaign if failing at stopping her from getting the presidency.

In part because H is the most vetted politician in the US, in part because they got her running against a spoiled man-child with a track of shady business practices that spans since the 70s, that is standing by the "common man" after being born into wealth and making a business out of cheating hundreds of "common men" out of their legally contracted remuneration.
 
It's a little weird that you should be so impressed by such a massive strawman argument.
I swear, you and so many others label arguments as strawman. But it's clear you and many of them don't know what the term means.

That was hardly a strawman or a "sham" argument when that is what Trump and those supporting him have said about Hillary It simply suggests that they have gone off the deep end and the argument is reasonable and sound.
 
Last edited:
False. Deciding not to indict somebody is not the same as "clearing" her.

Guilty until proven guilty... that's the American way.

I suppose the presumption of inocence only applies to old orange males tha funneled money into the election of AGs that dropped cases against them.
 
I swear, you and so many others label arguments as strawman. But it's clear you and many of them don't know what the term means.

Yeah, take it up with the editorial staff of the Dallas newspaper.

You know, the ones with the long-time republican bent. They are honest enough to see it.

Then again, I doubt they would rely on Pravda as a reliable source, so that makes them different.
 
There were no criminal charges. There are no criminal charges.

So?

Guilty until proven guilty... that's the American way.

I suppose the presumption of inocence only applies to old orange males tha funneled money into the election of AGs that dropped cases against them.


And oddly the same people who are so sure there must be something criminal going on with Clinton just shrug and ignore the fact that Trump is on trial for fraud, and as you point out Megalodon appears to have bribed his way out of facing charges in one state.
 
Last edited:
And oddly the same people who are so sure there must be something criminal going on with Clinton just shrug and ignore the fact that Trump is on trial for fraud, and as you point out Megalodon appears to have bribed his way out of facing charges in one state.

I think one of the major reasons for Trump running is to put off the trial.
 
In the Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton fails the ABCs of handling classified information



That's pretty bad. Still, she's the only person standing between the Cheeto Fuhrer and the presidency, so what can you do?

What you quoted is written as if it's a series of things which individually should not be believed. Yet if you take the final point first and assume it to be true, that she did not know what (c) meant, then every other point is a logical conclusion to be drawn from that 1 error.

If she really didn't know what the (c) meant then it makes no sense to say she was lying about not sending classified info. She was wrong, and that's not the same.
 
Clinton's getting the third degree on the Commander-in-Chief Forum on MSNBC. If they hit Trump this hard he's going to squirm.

Clinton is doing OK. It's early.
 
One place that Donald certainly has the upper hand is in that he is able to control soundbites well. There is a saying that if you have to explain, you have already lost.

Sadly this is the trouble when you have a person that has indepth knowledge and understanding vs someone who believes that policy should be tweetable. We find the same thing in Conspiracy Theories where the claims can be thrown out in 1-2 seconds, but to explain why they are wrong can take 10-15 minutes of explanation.

Trump has the advantage that he can toss out a sound bite, but to rebut it takes 5 minutes or more.

Could be an issue in the coming debates.
 
One place that Donald certainly has the upper hand is in that he is able to control soundbites well. There is a saying that if you have to explain, you have already lost.

Sadly this is the trouble when you have a person that has indepth knowledge and understanding vs someone who believes that policy should be tweetable. We find the same thing in Conspiracy Theories where the claims can be thrown out in 1-2 seconds, but to explain why they are wrong can take 10-15 minutes of explanation.

Trump has the advantage that he can toss out a sound bite, but to rebut it takes 5 minutes or more.

Could be an issue in the coming debates.
I don't know. On the one hand he's a good ********ter, on the other hand, it's interspersed with some outrageous ignorance.
 
I don't know. On the one hand he's a good ********ter, on the other hand, it's interspersed with some outrageous ignorance.

That's true, but as long as it sounds good in a sound bite it doesn't matter if it's ignorant.

"I'll build a wall!" Who cares about the issues or the problems with actually doing it.

It's like his claim, that the Chinese didn't respect Obama because of the plane stairs incident. In reality it had nothing to do with Obama, but rather who got to drive the stairs and that the local driver the Chinese wanted couldn't speak English and so deal with the White House Staffers. But he can put it out that "Oh the Chinese don't respect Obama and we know this because they refused to give him any stairs to get off the plane." Nice sound bite, totally incorrect, but it plays well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom