The All Purpose Hillary Clinton Thread

An anti-Trump person sent me this in an email about Presidents from JFK to present... These are the parts relevant to this thread.

Snopes doesn't talk about this explicitly, but has this to say

As Time magazine noted as far back as 1993, cranking out spurious stories that discredited Hillary Clinton and were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents was a known political trick:
A Republican consultant told a network newscaster that his job was to make sure Hillary Clinton is discredited before the 1996 campaign. Each day anti-Hillary talking points go out to talk-show hosts. The rumor machine is cranking out bogus stories about her face (lifted), her sex life (either nonexistent or all too active) and her marriage (a sham). Many of the stories are attributed to the Secret Service in an attempt to give the tales credibility.

But hey, I'm sure THIS time they are legit, right?
 
(snip)

The rumor machine is cranking out bogus stories about her face (lifted), her sex life (either nonexistent or all too active) and her marriage (a sham).


Rumors? No truth?

Face lift? Check her neck wrinkles, those puff cheeks, and that Joker smile.
Sex life non-existent? One child and Bill is too busy with others.
Sham marriage? She wants power, and Bill is the path forward. The pants suits are the give-away with these politicians (eg Helen Clark of NZ)
 
Rumors? No truth?

Face lift? Check her neck wrinkles, those puff cheeks, and that Joker smile.
Sex life non-existent? One child and Bill is too busy with others.
Sham marriage? She wants power, and Bill is the path forward. The pants suits are the give-away with these politicians (eg Helen Clark of NZ)

I take it that this marks your formal departure from any semblance of a grown up discussion. You just glide by the fact that you posted as evidence in a skeptics forum a lying rumor-mongering partisan email.

Now we go to worthless digs about her personal appearance and/or sex life? Wake me when you get back to some substance.
 
I take it that this marks your formal departure from any semblance of a grown up discussion. You just glide by the fact that you posted as evidence in a skeptics forum a lying rumor-mongering partisan email.

Now we go to worthless digs about her personal appearance and/or sex life? Wake me when you get back to some substance.


Is this not what both Trump and Hillary are doing to each other?

And am I not allowed to respond to another post? Just because you don't like the answer.

Have you proof that the allegations are lies? That there is no reason to suspect that they might be true? That you trust Hillary with your life, and if she has not disclosed such information, then it cannot be true?
 
Rumors? No truth?

Face lift? Check her neck wrinkles, those puff cheeks, and that Joker smile.
Sex life non-existent? One child and Bill is too busy with others.
Sham marriage? She wants power, and Bill is the path forward. The pants suits are the give-away with these politicians (eg Helen Clark of NZ)

Is that it? Is that as low as the argument can fall? Sexist bilge about appearance and love life.......and this in support of a bloated obese bloke who shags anything that moves. Your argument has no perspective, but far worse than that........it has absolutely no class at all.
 
Rumors? No truth?

Face lift? Check her neck wrinkles, those puff cheeks, and that Joker smile.
Sex life non-existent? One child and Bill is too busy with others.
Sham marriage? She wants power, and Bill is the path forward. The pants suits are the give-away with these politicians (eg Helen Clark of NZ)
The pants suits are the give-away of what? :confused:

What a truly bizarre post. All the depth of a puddle.
 
Is this not what both Trump and Hillary are doing to each other?

And am I not allowed to respond to another post? Just because you don't like the answer.

Have you proof that the allegations are lies? That there is no reason to suspect that they might be true? That you trust Hillary with your life, and if she has not disclosed such information, then it cannot be true?

No, Hillary isn't do that. Trump is. Stop pretending that this is a back-and-forth.
 
Rumors? No truth?

Face lift? Check her neck wrinkles, those puff cheeks, and that Joker smile.
Sex life non-existent? One child and Bill is too busy with others.
Sham marriage? She wants power, and Bill is the path forward. The pants suits are the give-away with these politicians (eg Helen Clark of NZ)

The pants suits are the give-away of what? :confused:

What a truly bizarre post. All the depth of a puddle.

As I have said before - Trump's suits also have pants. Could be that PartSkeptic is just frustrated because he wants to look at Clinton's legs.
 
Is this not what both Trump and Hillary are doing to each other?

And am I not allowed to respond to another post? Just because you don't like the answer.

Have you proof that the allegations are lies? That there is no reason to suspect that they might be true? That you trust Hillary with your life, and if she has not disclosed such information, then it cannot be true?

No. As mentioned.... burden of proof. I don't post gossip and innuendo, even if I believe it. If I find something worth looking into in a broadside or "look what I just found in my in box".... I check into it. You didn't check the details - you would've learned that the information was false.... demonstrably false (the book was published before the incident with the general could've taken place, so could not claim the stupid anecdote).

You can believe whatever you wish to. When you peddle it here, you better be able to offer some semblance of verification. And that was only my first complaint.

Your ensuing post is just personalized sexist nonsense. Who gives a rat's ass what she wears? She's almost seventy; do we expect her to look like Greta Garbo? She's not running for Miss Fox News Leggy Bimbo, she's running for POTUS. We know for a fact that Trump has fake hair and chemically enhanced suntan (for certain definitions of "tan"). I've seen pics of Ivanka as a young girl and I'd bet she's had a nose job. Who gives a rat's ass?
 
The pants suits are the give-away of what? :confused:

What a truly bizarre post. All the depth of a puddle.


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"?
 
As I have said before - Trump's suits also have pants. Could be that PartSkeptic is just frustrated because he wants to look at Clinton's legs.


Bill is happy not to see them. Why should I want to see them? I have no fetishes and am a regular guy.

You guys do know that some of what I say is to contribute a bit of humor to this so serious "life or death" debate? ;)
 
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"?

My wife wears a skirt or dress maybe three times a year. As a school teacher, her focus on power is relentless!

Why are some men so thrown off by women who aren't like their mothers?
 
My wife wears skirts and dresses more often that a few times a year, but in general finds wearing pants and not shaving as often as she feels is necessary for skirts is much easier for going about daily life and work. The semiconductor I work at disallows* wearing of skirts and dresses on the fabrication floor. Turns out the low to medium wage women I work with are all power hungry! Even that grandmother who is working to maintain decent healthcare until she qualifies for Medicare next year.

*We used to have skirt/dress accommodating "ladies" clean room suits that were rarely used even by those they were intended for, so now the more religiously conservative women just wear various pants with faux or removable skirts on them. I think if someone actually complains they still have access to the "ladies" clean room suits but I haven't seen them in a few years. The ladies suits are annoying when you are tall and looking for the long version of suits. Both were marked as -L.
 
My wife also almost never wears dresses or skirts. Doesn't like them much.
I don't see the big deal. it doesn't make her any less feminine. Last I checked she still had all the appropriate plumbing.
 
Is that it? Is that as low as the argument can fall? Sexist bilge about appearance and love life.......and this in support of a bloated obese bloke who shags anything that moves he can buy. Your argument has no perspective, but far worse than that........it has absolutely no class at all.

FTFY!
 
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.

Dare I ask "evidence?"
 
Does the Queen insist women meeting her must wear skirts.
I think the last time my wife wore a dress was at our wedding 20 years ago.
 

Back
Top Bottom