Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
I know it's been discussed in the thread. I asked you a *********** question! Are you done dodging it, now?
Click to expand...

Dodging is not the word I would choose. Ignoring you is more precise. You are very difficult to have a discussion with because you seem to have a disconnect with a number of things.
 
16.5 said:
why should I be happy who her prison cellblock votes as President?
Click to expand...

Because after Hillary beomes President, declares martial law, and takes aways everyone's guns, then you will be in the adjoining cell block starting on 21 JAN 2017.

After all, she has been carefully noting everyone who has been saying bad things about her for about the past 30 years, and since your record is already so extensive, then you should be on the post-inaguration jail list.

Therefore, all of your pre-election Hillary fears will be fully validated and that fact should make you the most happy man who is in the Hillary slammer.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Would they have anything to do with a double standard?
Click to expand...

Double standard?
This coming from the party who still blames Bush for the Iraq War, when most of them voted for it, too. "War is bad", unless it's justified. When a Democrat wages war, it's justified, when a Republican does, it's horrible.

I'm sure that when President Hillary starts bombing the Middle East, everybody will get doe eyes over how "strong" and "capable" and "presidential" she is. Yes! She can fight ISIS just as ineptly as any male president! Progress! :D

As Secretary of State, [Hillary] supported American air power to overthrow the Ghadaffi dictatorship in Libya which has led to anarchy, a new base for ISIS and other extremist jihadist groups, and a refugee crisis.

Secretary of State Clinton supported the overthrow of the oppressive Assad regime in Syria, an effort which has led to a civil war in which hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions turned into refugees, a political crisis in Europe, and the rise of ISIS.

Secretary Clinton supported arming so-called Syrian moderates in the effort to overthrow Assad, despite there being few genuine Syrian moderates not affiliated with one brand or another of Jihadi extremism; and the predictable result has been that many of the American arms have fallen into the hands of ISIS and its ilk.

Now she calls for a no-fly zone in Syria, an idea that has been rejected by President Obama and that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says would require 70,000 troops to enforce. She has not explained what the US would do if Russia violated her proposed no-fly zone. Shooting down Russian planes could lead to World War III, while ignoring Russian violations would just make America look weak and Putin strong.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
It wouldn't be so difficult if you didn't ignore me, right?

Stop playing games.
Click to expand...
I try to have discussions with you but you are off in some other world than the one I exist in. You can't see something simple or open yourself to actually consider what the other person is talking about. It's like you are on the wrong railroad track and you are unable to widen your horizon enough to understand what someone is saying to you. So everything looks like it's wrong when actually it's just a little bit larger picture.

Like this nonsense, instead of looking at why people are saying Clinton has been found to be less dishonest than most Republicans, you can only consider the one single source you cited. The discussion was not about your one single source, it was about whether or not Clinton is more honest than the average Republican.

Runaway train never going back
Wrong way on a one way track
Seems like I should be getting somewhere
Somehow I'm neither here nor there

Sorry, thought about a one way track and my head filled with Soul Asylum. :p
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I try to have discussions with you but you are off in some other world than the one I exist in.
Click to expand...

Can you even substantiate that? I simply asked a question about the Politifact graphs, and instead of answering something or linking to a previous answer you instead thought I was talking about something else; even after I corrected you. So yeah, we don't seem to be living in the same world. Mine is called reality.

You can't see something simple or open yourself to actually consider what the other person is talking about.
Click to expand...

_I_ was talking about something. _I_ brought up a point. It's amazing that you think it's all about you.

It's like you are on the wrong railroad track and you are unable to widen your horizon enough to understand what someone is saying to you.
Click to expand...

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? I asked you a simple question. What part did I not understand? You've been very opaque about this.

Like this nonsense, instead of looking at why people are saying Clinton has been found to be less dishonest than most Republicans, you can only consider the one single source you cited.
Click to expand...

I didn't consider anything. I ASKED A QUESTION.

The discussion was not about your one single source
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I couldn't deviate from your talking points.
 
I tried to boil it down to the basics when you didn't get why the number of reports didn't equate to the number of valid reports and you never got it.

In the latest issue, can you just for a moment forget what your link said and recognize there is more applicable information out there?
 
Is there a nice way to suggest that two people may be more than just adversaries and should just go ahead and start dating?



Clinton and Sanders are almost there.

What, who did you think I was talking about?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, because he and his cronies are to blame, not the Congress that were lied to and bullied into going along.
Click to expand...

So you don't hold your representatives accountable for things that they vote on? My, that's awfully convenient.

Iraq War? "I was bullied and lied to."
PATRIOT Act? "I was bullied and lied to."
PATRIOT Act reauthorization? "I was bullied and lied to...again."
Trans-Pacific Partnership? "Bullied! Lied to!"
and so on.

(Incidentally, there are Republicans who think that the Iraq War wasn't Bush's fault, either, because he was lied to, as well! For some reason, I don't think you buy that one, though. What was that about double standards???)

Regardless, the stuff that I linked to is one of the big reasons why I don't support her. I will not vote for a hawk. Unlike the Democrats, my vote will not be swayed by bullies and liars.

Tony Stark said:
His problem is that she is insufficiently ideologically pure. Better to let the Republicans win.
Click to expand...

I only control one vote: my vote. I won't vote for Republicans. If other people want to vote for Republicans, I can't stop them.
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
Is that lie not enough? There are many more! Do some BASIC research!
Shillaries are lost!
Click to expand...

Dog Town said:
So...disingenuous it is! Don't worry, readers knew!:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I ask for lies and you bring me what is, at best, an embellishment that is completely irrelevant to anything political.

sunmaster14 said:
And this is not to your credit. Politifact's cherry-picked and biased ratings have no probative value whatsoever. Hillary Clinton is dishonest because she has told whopper after whopper for 25 years, and she does it almost automatically and reflexively. Yes, maybe Donald Trump is worse by some metrics, but to tell you the truth, I think his lies are not nearly as damaging because he is so transparent, and he lies about completely unimportant stuff. His lies are more like farts. Yeah, they smell bad, and they're sort of rude, but they go away after a few minutes. A Hillary Clinton lie is more like making a doody in somebody's sock drawer and covering up the smell with air freshener.
Click to expand...

What are these "whoppers" that you bring up?
 
Travis said:
I ask for lies and you bring me what is, at best, an embellishment that is completely irrelevant to anything political.



What are these "whoppers" that you bring up?
Click to expand...

Yesterday she lied and claimed she had produced all her emails, and that she was the "only" candidate that Wall Street was running negative ads against. Both were totally false.

That was yesterday.
 
Travis said:
I ask for lies and you bring me what is, at best, an embellishment that is completely irrelevant to anything political.

What are these "whoppers" that you bring up?
Click to expand...
Back to the double standard. One can find multiple examples of Sanders statements rated factually false but he's an OK guy. Find any example of Clinton having a statement rated false and she's a dishonest serial liar despite the fact in total her statements are rated true as often as Sanders' are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom