Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[acbytesla]

Wow, that is so biased that I think John Oliver's show should be required to register as a pro-Hillary PAC.

Besides the sugar-coating of Hillary's scandals, he completely ignores the fact that she was serving in government at the time and therefore violated the public trust. Whatever Trump may or may not have done in the past (and the things John Oliver claims are horrible are extremely minor), he was definitely not in government service at the time.

We can only measure Hillary and Donald by what they have done. I have not seen a single time that Hillary Clinton has violated the public's trust. I have however seen the countless times where she has been falsely accused by Republicans though.

OTOH, there is significant evidence of Trump cheating ordinary citizens as a day to day business tactic. There is significant history of Hillary working to improve the lives of others. Trump's personal history is about him helping himself.

Which one is likely to care about the average American citizen? The answer is obvious. The one who has been doing it her entire life or the one who ha never done it and suddenly at 70 years old pretends he cares?

 

[Belz...]

Wow, that is so biased that I think John Oliver's show should be required to register as a pro-Hillary PAC.

One wonders how much negative comments one has to make about her for you to consider that they don't support her.

 

[acbytesla]

Wow, that is so biased that I think John Oliver's show should be required to register as a pro-Hillary PAC.

Besides the sugar-coating of Hillary's scandals, he completely ignores the fact that she was serving in government at the time and therefore violated the public trust. Whatever Trump may or may not have done in the past (and the things John Oliver claims are horrible are extremely minor), he was definitely not in government service at the time.

You could say the same thing about Sean Hannity, Bill OReilly and the FAUX NEWS CREW.

 

[Belz...]

So... did she spend the debate coughing and making weird faces?

I'm sure Slings and Arrows will be along to claim his victory, then!

 

[The Don]

So... did she spend the debate coughing and making weird faces?

Apparently she blinked a lot - which apparently makes her unfit to be President.

 

[Belz...]

Apparently she blinked a lot - which apparently makes her unfit to be President.

....you're joking, right?

 

[Foolmewunz]

....you're joking, right?

Well, any port in a storm for the haters. They were counting on her passing out, having a seizure or having to run for a bathroom break. You can backtrack to the original comments from the charming witch hunt brigade and see them starting out on that tack. That's why the Trump Sniffles was so funny. I wanted her to say, "Oh, fer crissake someone give him a tissue!"

 

[Belz...]

Well, any port in a storm for the haters. They were counting on her passing out, having a seizure or having to run for a bathroom break.

Yeah, just like they were counting on her going to prison. When those things didn't happen, they blame conspiracies, among other things.

 

[Tero]

I watched her eyes the whole time. Neither eye wandered off on its own course during 90 minutes. I guess the brain tumor took a break that 90 minutes.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I watched her eyes the whole time. Neither eye wandered off on its own course during 90 minutes. I guess the brain tumor took a break that 90 minutes.

That's one of the symptoms of Breitbartius Parkin-monia-heimer Disease. To the untrained eye, they appear totally normal. You have to wait for an orthodontist in Okmulgee to post a Youtube. Only then do the symptoms become obvious.

 

[caveman1917]

Because some newspapers are good sources of information.

I've yet to find one.

much more likely to present unbiased information than websites.

Why? There are many, many, more websites than newspapers. Even by sheer chance there's probably a bunch of websites which are less biased than any newspaper.

And there doesn't seem to be any inherent reason why one method of information filtering and delivery would be more or less biased than another. Also, many newspapers are on websites these days so the distinction is blurry anyway.

Or, to put it more succinctly, DUH? The New York Times has a fine reputation because they have earned it. They are not entirely free of bias, but they are nonetheless reliable.

Is this based on evidence or something like gut feeling?

 

[caveman1917]

Yeah, just like they were counting on her going to prison. When those things didn't happen, they blame conspiracies, among other things.

Of course she won't go to prison, prison is something for the working class - not for the ruling class.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Of course she won't go to prison, prison is something for the working class - not for the ruling class.

And for criminals, which she is not.

 

[caveman1917]

And for criminals, which she is not.

Of course she isn't, criminality and prison is something for the working class and not for the ruling class, like I said

 

[thaiboxerken]

Of course she isn't, criminality and prison is something for the working class and not for the ruling class, like I said

Nonsense. Your post attempts to be clever but fails like a Trump excuse.

 

[caveman1917]

Nonsense. Your post attempts to be clever but fails like a Trump excuse.

When you have no arguments, bring up Trump.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When you have no arguments, bring up Trump.

You are correct. It is not an argument. It is an expression of doubt of your silly assertion that Hillary would be considered a criminal if she wasn't part of the "ruling class."
Be like Trump, just spout anything and don't let the facts bother your claims.

 

[caveman1917]

You are correct. It is not an argument. It is an expression of doubt of your silly assertion that Hillary would be considered a criminal if she wasn't part of the "ruling class."
Be like Trump, just spout anything and don't let the facts bother your claims.

 

[The Don]

Argumentum ad rolleye.....

Your claim is that, if she were not part of the ruling elite, Hillary would be in prison right now. I'd like to see you present some evidence to support this claim. First you would need to present evidence that she had committed illegal acts which would warrant a custodial sentence and then you'd need to show that she has avoided justice as a result of being a member of the ruling elite.

The right wing bring up things like BENGHAZI !!!!11!1!11, emails and the Clinton Foundation.

The left wing bring up drone strikes and Libya and Syria.

All have been investigated repeatedly, in some cases by very partial investigators and yet there has been no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Furthermore even if there were, all of these relate to situations which have come about because she is a member of the ruling elite. If she wasn't then she wouldn't have been in a position to do whatever she is supposed to have done wrong w.r.t. Benghazi, have a private email server as Secretary of State, set up the Clinton Foundation, order drone strikes or shape U.S. policy in Libya and Syria.

So rather than just flinging around allegations in the same way a monkey slings its poo, why not provide evidence to back up your claims.

 

[caveman1917]

Argumentum ad rolleye.....

Your claim is that, if she were not part of the ruling elite, Hillary would be in prison right now. I'd like to see you present some evidence to support this claim. First you would need to present evidence that she had committed illegal acts which would warrant a custodial sentence and then you'd need to show that she has avoided justice as a result of being a member of the ruling elite.

The right wing bring up things like BENGHAZI !!!!11!1!11, emails and the Clinton Foundation.

The left wing bring up drone strikes and Libya and Syria.
All have been investigated repeatedly, in some cases by very partial investigators and yet there has been no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Furthermore even if there were, all of these relate to situations which have come about because she is a member of the ruling elite. If she wasn't then she wouldn't have been in a position to do whatever she is supposed to have done wrong w.r.t. Benghazi, have a private email server as Secretary of State, set up the Clinton Foundation, order drone strikes or shape U.S. policy in Libya and Syria.

Ok. Suppose I convince some of my friends to build drones and start killing people in the streets with them. Don't you think I would be found a criminal and put in prison?

So rather than just flinging around allegations in the same way a monkey slings its poo, why not provide evidence to back up your claims.

That criminality and prison is something for the working class rather than the ruling class? Hardly an allegation, more like a patently obvious observation.