Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trumpettes are getting so desperate to call Clinton a crook, a new talking point is some BS that she did work on her NY house without the proper permit because she's above the law.:rolleyes:

And Trump's legal troubles, "none of that is criminal," another blatant lie, more than a few Trump cases are indeed criminal.

They are still out in force claiming Clinton is under a criminal investigation when she is not. Breitbart cherry picked a WSJ article to write a misleading headline, WSJ: FBI Criminal Investigation of Clinton Foundation Includes ‘Secret Recordings’

In reality, the WSJ article says
Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said.
Click to expand...

While Breitbart quotes the WSJ correctly, the headline implies something completely different.

That's probably where the claim the DoJ shut down a legit investigation came from.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's not a false equivalence: I called them both cons!

The only problem here is people adding content to my posts, as usual, because they're emotionally invested in the discussion. People's mental problems are not my concern.
Click to expand...

Sigh... they are not cons of equal weight. No one is adding content to your post. Some of us are still not buying your analogy, that's all.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sigh... they are not cons of equal weight.
Click to expand...

Of course not. That's obvious.

No one is adding content to your post.
Click to expand...

You just did, by assuming that, somehow, I said that they had the same weight.

Some of us are still not buying your analogy, that's all.
Click to expand...

That's fine by me. It's the unjustified accusation of dishonesty, merely for suggesting that there'S nothing new or surprising about this sort of thing, that I find objectionable.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's not a false equivalence: I called them both cons!

The only problem here is people adding content to my posts, as usual, because they're emotionally invested in the discussion. People's mental problems are not my concern.
Click to expand...

You believe what you want.

I'm simply telling you that's how I understood your posts. If multiple people are mis-interpreting your posts, maybe it's you, not us.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I'm simply telling you that's how I understood your posts. If multiple people are mis-interpreting your posts, maybe it's you, not us.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that if not for the multiple clarifications I've made. After that, the misunderstanding isn't my fault, and continuing to maintain it can only be deliberate.

As I've said: I can't be outraged by this, because I find it entirely expected, just like any other con. That doesn't mean it's not wrong or illegal. And election-related cons aren't new, either. I don't see where the problem is.
 
Argumemnon said:
Of course not. That's obvious.

You just did, by assuming that, somehow, I said that they had the same weight.

That's fine by me. It's the unjustified accusation of dishonesty, merely for suggesting that there'S nothing new or surprising about this sort of thing, that I find objectionable.
Click to expand...
Let me repost your quotes from Jrrarglblarg
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B
Lots of outrage from the left about this:

https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5489/3...c2a7e3d136.jpg

Warranted, but any chance they're just mad they didn't think of it first?
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Argumemnon
Why outrage?
Originally Posted by Argumemnon
No, of course, but it's not the first time people try to con others with stuff like this.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Gee, how mad must they get at all those viagra e-mails they get!
Click to expand...
Your question was, "why outrage" to which you proceeded to argue the straw man, "it's not the first time people try to con others with stuff like this." That it was a con was not the thing upon which the argument was based. The definition of a straw man is to address something for which the debater did not argue.

We all agree they are both cons. We don't agree on the equivalence of outrage over the two. Your analogy addresses a straw man, they are both cons, which was never part of the argument.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
...

As I've said: I can't be outraged by this, because I find it entirely expected, just like any other con. That doesn't mean it's not wrong or illegal. And election-related cons aren't new, either. I don't see where the problem is.
Click to expand...
Again, you are not outraged because it is expected. Fine. But you asked why are we outraged. Expected or not is not my argument. Stating your argument is fine, just don't frame it as addressing mine.

I expect Trump to lie persistently about Clinton being a crook. That doesn't make me less outraged by the outright lies.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Let me repost your quotes from Jrrarglblarg
Your question was, "why outrage" to which you proceeded to argue the straw man, "it's not the first time people try to con others with stuff like this." That it was a con was not the thing upon which the argument was based. The definition of a straw man is to address something for which the debater did not argue.

We all agree they are both cons. We don't agree on the equivalence of outrage over the two. Your analogy addresses a straw man, they are both cons, which was never part of the argument.
Click to expand...

I never spoke of any sort of equivalence of outrage. This is, again, your own fabrication.

"Outrage" means "an extremely strong reaction of anger, shock, or indignation." acording to the internets. I find it hard to have such a reaction when something common, though wrong, occurs again and again. Am I outraged by Trump's lies? No, since he lies pretty much all the time. If you can maintain outrage after such repetition, I guess we react differently to this sort of thing.

ETA: Of course it also depends on where this ad comes from. If it's a random internet douchebag, meh. If it's straight from the Trump campaign, that's an entirely different matter.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
I thought the last election cycle was a circus, but now I'm so depressed by this one that nothing surprises me anymore.
Click to expand...

It's.. depressing overall.

The only thing that keeps me going is that if president trump royally screws up the country, I can move back to Canada.
 
The Big Dog said:
I feel ya, the Clinton Cronies in the Justice Department trying to shut down an investigation.

Appalling.
Click to expand...

How unsurprising that you don't care about the possibility of criminal actions by the FBI. As long as they harm Clinton, they could go straight to murder, right?
 
Megalodon said:
How unsurprising that you don't care about the possibility of criminal actions by the FBI. As long as they harm Clinton, they could go straight to murder, right?
Click to expand...

How unsurprising that you don't care about the possibility of criminal actions by the Clinton. They could go straight to murder, right?

teh FBI is committing crimes!

I love Hillary fans.
 
The Big Dog said:
How unsurprising that you don't care about the possibility of criminal actions by the Clinton. They could go straight to murder, right?

teh FBI is committing crimes!

I love Hillary fans.
Click to expand...

All evidence obtained during countless investigations and hearings points to her being not guilty of any crimes.

All evidence of recent events points to the FBI illegally coordinating with a presidential campaign against another.
 
Megalodon said:
How unsurprising that you don't care about the possibility of criminal actions by the FBI. As long as they harm Clinton, they could go straight to murder, right?
Click to expand...

Would it be considered criminal for the FBI to leak information to Giuliani
two days before Comey's letter to Congress?

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/04/rud...gn-got-advance-notice-of-james-comeys-letter/

"Rudy is now openly boasting that the the Trump campaign got advance notice
of James Comey's letter."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom