Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
And still no leaks. Can't we find one attendee to leak something?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And considering that, Hillary could quite easily change anything that might seem damaging and release them, and given the passage of time, who would contradict the transcripts. Certainly no one beetling on about her releasing them.

Of course that she has released 32 years of tax returns vs Trumps zero.....
 
catsmate said:
So are you denying that, as even the publisher has accepted, the book has serious inaccuracies, that there's no independent verification for most of the claims and most of the claims fail to stand up to scrutiny?
Click to expand...

Is that a Rule of So?

MSNBC seems to disagree with your pro-Hillary spin, as CE's original link so plainly shows.
 
16.5 said:
a lot of Senators did? Oh dear, well then I will sure will make a note not to vote for them for President either.

What you've forgotten to mention in your rather partial narrative was that Hillary voted for military action in the event that Saddam did not comply with inspections. He did but Bush chose to invade anyway.


The rest is just silly Hillary spin. I understand that nonsense I struck out might make her supporters feel warm and fuzzy, but we know it is untrue.
Click to expand...

Once again political nuance contrasts with binary thinking. But hey, keep holding down that strike through button if you find it comforting.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Once again political nuance contrasts with binary thinking. But hey, keep holding down that strike through button if you find it comforting.
Click to expand...

"political nuance." Oh that is a fancy term for political spin, I am SO gonna use that!

Now, your binary thinking comment is interesting too! Because all the "political nuance" in the world does not matter when the only possible answer is:

Yea or Nay.

Lets take a gander shall we:

Clinton: Yea.
Sanders: Nay

:thumbsup:
 
Hillary Clinton hits Trump for not releasing his tax returns. "You have got to ask yourself, why does he not release them," she asks in NJ.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...

Democrats hit Hillary Clinton for not releasing her Goldman Sachs transcripts. "You have got to ask yourself, why does she not release them."

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite, I guess.
 
16.5 said:
Hmmmm...

Democrats hit Hillary Clinton for not releasing her Goldman Sachs transcripts. "You have got to ask yourself, why does she not release them."

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite, I guess.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'd like to see both. Preaching to the choir and all that, Hillary's transcripts would reveal the usual cherry-picked quotes to bitch about. Donald's tax returns? That'd be some interesting reading and would include a lot of finite information pertaining to his rash of lies about his Donaldness.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Hey, I'd like to see both. Preaching to the choir and all that, Hillary's transcripts would reveal the usual cherry-picked quotes to bitch about. Donald's tax returns? That'd be some interesting reading and would include a lot of finite information pertaining to his rash of lies about his Donaldness.
Click to expand...

The big difference lies in how common it is for candidate to release their tax returns (universal) vs how common it is for candidates to release transcripts from years old speeches (I'm not aware of a single time). I think it's pretty obvious that even those screeching about releasing the transcripts don't care what's in them, it's just a way to attack Clinton. It's not like releasing the transcripts will make those who have been demonizing Clinton for years suddenly decide to vote for her, nor will those transcripts convince those who plan to vote for Clinton to suddenly say that Trump is the better candidate.
 
wareyin said:
The big difference lies in how common it is for candidate to release their tax returns (universal) vs how common it is for candidates to release transcripts from years old speeches (I'm not aware of a single time). I think it's pretty obvious that even those screeching about releasing the transcripts don't care what's in them, it's just a way to attack Clinton. It's not like releasing the transcripts will make those who have been demonizing Clinton for years suddenly decide to vote for her, nor will those transcripts convince those who plan to vote for Clinton to suddenly say that Trump is the better candidate.
Click to expand...

From the sublime to the ridiculous. This "argument" suffers from several glaring factual errors, the most important of which are: 1. the speeches are not "old" speeches, they were from the time after Hillary left State and while she was gearing up for run as President; 2. the transcript issue is not a Trump issue, it is a Bernie sanders issue.

Basically a softball pitch which anyone can slam out of the park.
 
16.5 said:
From the sublime to the ridiculous. This "argument" suffers from several glaring factual errors, the most important of which are: 1. the speeches are not "old" speeches, they were from the time after Hillary left State and while she was gearing up for run as President; 2. the transcript issue is not a Trump issue, it is a Bernie sanders issue.

Basically a softball pitch which anyone can slam out of the park.
Click to expand...
Sanders? You mean that guy who lost? How can it be a Sanders issue?

eta: Speaking of glaring errors, the speeches are 3 years old. I stated they are "years old speeches", yet you claim they aren't "old". Try a different handwave, that one didn't work
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Sanders? You mean that guy who lost? How can it be a Sanders issue?

eta: Speaking of glaring errors, the speeches are 3 years old. I stated they are "years old speeches", yet you claim they aren't "old". Try a different handwave, that one didn't work
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

Putting aside the hyperbole that he lost (which is stupid) the issue arose during a Democrat Party debate. Your assertion that the speeches are old is preposterous because they were given after she left State and while prepping for this very Presidential Election.

Just terrible arguments 0/10.
 
16.5 said:
Oh dear.

Putting aside the hyperbole that he lost (which is stupid) the issue arose during a Democrat Party debate. Your assertion that the speeches are old is preposterous because they were given after she left State and while prepping for this very Presidential Election.

Just terrible arguments 0/10.
Click to expand...

When the handwave doesn't work, you double down on it? Keep trying.

Sanders cannot win, ergo he has lost. The speeches are 3 years old, ergo they are years old.
 
Argumemnon said:
Aren't you voting for Trump, 16.5? Why all the fuss about Sanders, then?
Click to expand...

Ahh, now we see another strategy, the "Socratic Method," or as I like to call it: Just Asking Questions.

The main component is the "assumed fact"/false premise/loaded question.

Here is false premise is that "I am voting for Trump," of course, which we all know is blatantly untrue.

It can be effective in skilled hands, unfortunately here it is simply blatantly disingenuous.
 
wareyin said:
The big difference lies in how common it is for candidate to release their tax returns (universal) vs how common it is for candidates to release transcripts from years old speeches (I'm not aware of a single time). I think it's pretty obvious that even those screeching about releasing the transcripts don't care what's in them, it's just a way to attack Clinton.
....
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's extremely unlikely that Clinton said anything at a public event that would be severely damaging. Chances are she used some infelicitous phrases, comparable to her "“We'll put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" in West Virginia, that would blow over after a couple days embarrassment. But her refusal to release them hands a continuing tool to her opponents that is a distraction from Trump's much more severe and dangerous flaws. Publish and be done with it.
 
16.5 said:
Ahh, now we see another strategy, the "Socratic Method," or as I like to call it: Just Asking Questions.

The main component is the "assumed fact"/false premise/loaded question.

Here is false premise is that "I am voting for Trump," of course, which we all know is blatantly untrue.

It can be effective in skilled hands, unfortunately here it is simply blatantly disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Avid readers know that you are a Bernie Sanders fan, but they also assume you're a Trumpian due to your comical hatred of Hillary.

I dunno. Maybe tone that down a bit? You're going to be stuck with her for 8 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom