Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
Yeah.

What kind of drooling, brain dead cretin would ever give even the most minute iota of credence to a load of cow feces like that?
Click to expand...

Well, it's in the same Wikileaks e-mails to/from Podesta everyone's already been giving credence to... so...
 
Argumemnon said:
I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive.
Click to expand...

Well, you just go ahead and post some references to how this is like other things it isn't actually like so you can get you WTI points up before the weekend.

Or, post some cites that validate your assertion this is common.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Well, you just go ahead and post some references to how this is like other things it isn't actually like so you can get you WTI points up before the weekend.
Click to expand...

What is it with you and always thinking that the people you disagree with are playing a game with you?

These constant personalisations are getting tiresome. Stop it.

All I'm saying is that this sort of con isn't surprising or rare. Illegal, sure, but not all that uncommon. Now you're treating it as some sort of woo-woo claim, which is bizarre to say the least. Maybe your spam filter is really good on your e-mail server, but I get scam mails all the time, and fraud continues to be illegal in my country.
 
So, you don't have any cites validating your claim that election fraud scams attempting to disenfranchise voters are common, then.

Got it. Argument by goatse and invalid comparisons.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Any thoughts on Spirit Cooking?

https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/wikileaks-john-podestas-satanic-dinner-warning-graphic-content
Click to expand...

quadraginta said:
Yeah.

What kind of drooling, brain dead cretin would ever give even the most minute iota of credence to a load of cow feces like that?
Click to expand...

Ummm.... could someone help an outsider out here? Marina Abramovic is a rather erm.. 'out there' artist, but I'd say she'd be an interesting person to have dinner with. What specifically is the problem for the Democrats in this mail?
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
So, you don't have any cites validating your claim that election fraud scams attempting to disenfranchise voters are common, then.

Got it. Argument by goatse and invalid comparisons.
Click to expand...

Strawman. I never said anything of the like, and you know it. For all your accusations of me playing games, you're seemingly the one engaging in them.

Do me a favour: put me on ignore if you can't discuss civilly.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Well, it's in the same Wikileaks e-mails to/from Podesta everyone's already been giving credence to... so...
Click to expand...

What, exactly is "it" that you are referring to ?

Are you making some sort of false equivalence between a Podesta email and the nonsense in your link ?
 
Argumemnon said:
Strawman. I never said anything of the like, and you know it. For all your accusations of me playing games, you're seemingly the one engaging in them.

Do me a favour: put me on ignore if you can't discuss civilly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, odd numbered month. Not your turn.

But hey, strawman!

Go ahead and post some cites that illegal ads falsely claiming to be from a candidate are common.
 
Last edited:
Jrrarglblarg said:
Sorry, odd numbered month.
Click to expand...

...is it that month of the year for you, then?

But hey, strawman!
Click to expand...

Yes, because I didn't say anything like that. I didn't say election frauds of this sort are common. I said frauds like this are common. That they target voters may be new, but that isn't relevant to my lack of surprise/outrage at seeing it. Don't make the mistake of assuming that this means I don't find it bad or illegal, as I've already said that I do.

Go ahead and post some cites that illegal ads falsely claiming to be from a candidate are common.
Click to expand...

See above. You're smart enough to read what I actually wrote rather than construct a dishonest version of it.
 
That's it? That's your response to a clarification to YOUR misrepresentation? YOU misrepresent another poster, demand that they provide evidence for a claim they NEVER made, and when they, more than once, make sure to clarify what they said to you, you just leave?

I don't believe for a second that you really think that I'm the one playing games, and you can be sure that I'll remember this in any future interaction with you.
 
Are any of you following this spirit cooking thing on Twitter? I underestimated the number of babies on the internet.

So many people are "shocked." It is risible.
 
The Big Dog said:
David Brock runs media matters and correct the record which is directly coordinating with the Clinton campaign.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part is illegal as correct the record is a super pac. They are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign they are trying to support.

So my question is simple - Do you have any evidence of this coordination or is this just a baseless accusation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom