The All Purpose Hillary Clinton Thread

Darat said:
Dare I ask "evidence?"
Click to expand...

'Twas that little bitch Nicholas Witchell. He's been in trouble often enough for taking the piss of the royals. But I don't think anyone claimed it was the first instance, as it wasn't a royal audience. Liz was in NZ and Clark wore trousers to the formal dinner they gave for her nibs.

I doubt it's the first instance. Lizzie's been through various parts of Asia and some of the formal wear for the upper classes in India, Malaysia and Thailand (to name three I'm familiar with) are pajama-looking pants outfits.


ETA: Ninja'd by TA. Funny, I was thinking of PMing him to ask if he'd field the enquiry but decided to look it up myself.
 
Last edited:
fe8e35a3ed4f0e5042883da0813398a7.jpg


Hummm........
 
Foolmewunz said:
ETA: Ninja'd by TA. Funny, I was thinking of PMing him to ask if he'd field the enquiry but decided to look it up myself.
Click to expand...

Yeah mate, I remember it well, especially being a huge St Helen fan and an even huger critic of the old hag in London.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Helen Clark was the prime minister of NZ for many years. She only wore pants. She was lesbian (I have no problem with that) except she chose to deny it and was in a sham marriage. She was the first woman ever to refuse to wear a skirt when she met the Queen of England.

Why insist on pants only? I have no idea, but maybe it is indicative of a woman who focus is on power rather than being "feminine"?
Click to expand...

Totally living in your own world.... A woman doesn't mean you expectations of feminine so she must be a Lesbian.

For those that don't know and are vaguely interested, the reality is that Clark didn't believe in marriage as a necessity but took the step after being elected to Parliament in 1981. At that point she'd been living with her husband for 5 years. Since then they have had what most would consider a non-traditional marriage, with them often living apart due to their work, but there is no evidence other then people constantly rumouring it, that she is in any other way not devoted to her husband or that it is a sham marriage.
 
I'm told that "pants suits are the give-away with these politicians".
:confused::eek::boggled::eye-poppi << a quad, never before in 12 yrs
 
Leaked Clinton fundraising recording

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-audio-leak-228997

Hacked audio of a conversation between Hillary Clinton and donors during a February fundraising event shows the Democrat nominee describing Bernie Sanders supporters as "children of the Great Recession" who are "living in their parents’ basement."
Click to expand...

Odd how my parents' basement looks like my own home that I purchased from money I earned myself.

she preferred to occupy the space "from the center-left to the center-right" on the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

Center-left to center-right is the new progressive. At least I've been assured by her and her supporters that she is a progressive candidate.

"And on the other side, there’s just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we’ve done hasn’t gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don’t know what that means, but it’s something that they deeply feel."
Click to expand...

This isn't some vague concept Clinton. These things exist in the world today and seem to work well for the countries that use them. Maybe if Clinton didn't get easily confused she wouldn't wonder 'whatever that means'.
 
The_Animus said:
Leaked Clinton fundraising recording

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-audio-leak-228997



Odd how my parents' basement looks like my own home that I purchased from money I earned myself.



Center-left to center-right is the new progressive. At least I've been assured by her and her supporters that she is a progressive candidate.



This isn't some vague concept Clinton. These things exist in the world today and seem to work well for the countries that use them. Maybe if Clinton didn't get easily confused she wouldn't wonder 'whatever that means'.
Click to expand...

From the linked article:

"Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement," she said. "They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future."

Clinton added: "If you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."

"I think we all should be really understanding of that," Clinton said.
Click to expand...

It's almost like quote mining completely misrepresents what was said! What a crazy concept.
 
Stacko said:
From the linked article:



It's almost like quote mining completely misrepresents what was said! What a crazy concept.
Click to expand...

1. What you quoted has nothing to do with 2/3 of what I said/quoted.

2. I stand by what I said and nothing you quoted makes any of what she said any better.

It's right in line with her previous quote with meet the press which was

"I feel sorry sometimes for the young people who believe this, they don't do their own research,"
Click to expand...

Her stance is that we should be understanding of and feel sorry for the millennials who don't do their own research, live in their parents basement, have ****** jobs, and have deluded themselves into believing we can have something better. Oh, and because Clinton apparently doesn't understand what Sanders is talking about, even though these things exist in other countries, us Millennials must not really understand any of it either.
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
Well that's fair since you left out 2/3 of Clinton's comment to misrepresent it.
Click to expand...

A little math lesson for you.

I quoted Clinton on 3 different things. Stacko's additional quotes only covered 1 of those 3 things. That's 1/3, not 2/3.

But as I said the additional quotes he added don't change anything, so now you're down to 0/3 misrepresentations.

Also I believe quoting too much of the original article is a violation of forum rules.
 
The_Animus said:
A little math lesson for you.

I quoted Clinton on 3 different things. Stacko's additional quotes only covered 1 of those 3 things. That's 1/3, not 2/3.

But as I said the additional quotes he added don't change anything, so now you're down to 0/3 misrepresentations.

Also I believe quoting too much of the original article is a violation of forum rules.
Click to expand...

Oh please! You tried to make it seems as if Clinton was making some disparaging remark about the Bernie supporters. Then when your quote mining is exposed you turn to attacking her sympathising with them, and the notion that you didn't add the extra two lines because of the forum rules is an absurdity.

And as to Clinton's remarks. You have a generation of young people who were encouraged to believe that all sorts of opportunities would open up to them if they went and got a good education, many of them put themselves in serious debt to do so, believing it was an investment in their future. Now they find those opportunities are gone but the debt isn't. I wonder if a lack of empathy is a requirement to support Trump?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom