Hillary Clinton

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by davew

Hilary and Bill sure do have many people with suicides and accidental deaths in their background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLop...t=4320.6421755

Snopes has a posting debunking all of these claims. I'm not going to post a link; you can look it up if you want. But Snopes also gives us a look at the techniques used by those who try to make us believe something for which there is no actual evidence. The following several paragraphs are directly from Snopes.

List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton's mother's chiropractor.
Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or contradict with hard evidence.
Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."
If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
Most important, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...

End of Snopes article.

[Inner Dirt]

Someone defending Hillary from A-Z like she is a Mother Teresa clone. If that isn't creepy I don't know what is.

[davew]

Hilary's war on women brigade?

-> If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.


Just because you do not like some of what is presented does not make it all false, if you use that same logic how could you ever defend Hilary?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Someone defending Hillary from A-Z like she is a Mother Teresa clone. If that isn't creepy I don't know what is.

What is creepy is believing everything bad about someone just because you don't agree with her political philosophy.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by davew

Hilary's war on women brigade?

-> If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.


Just because you do not like some of what is presented does not make it all false, if you use that same logic how could you ever defend Hilary?

Defending herself and her husband against women who are actively trying to destroy them is not a war on women. Defunding Planned Parenthood is a war on women. Allowing men who abuse their wives easy access to guns is a war on women. Unequal pay for equal work is a war on women.

Whether I like what is presented or not is not relevant. It is false because it is false.

[davew]

I guess Congress got it wrong (from Wikipedia)->

The Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by davew

I guess Congress got it wrong (from Wikipedia)->

The Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998.

No, they got it right. Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted. The House of representatives brings Impeachment charges. The Senate tries the case. Sixty seven guilty votes are required to impeach the president.

Of the two articles of impeachment, the one concerning perjury received the most support. It received fifty votes. The article charging obstruction of justice received forty five votes. At the time the Republicans controlled the Senate, holding fifty five seats. So not only did the impeachment efforts fail by a wide margin, but they did not even gain the support of all Republicans.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by mostpost

What is creepy is believing everything bad about someone just because you don't agree with her political philosophy.

About as creepy as believing everything good about someone just because you DO agree with her political philosophy.

For someone who claims to be smarter than 97+% of the masses and for someone who claims to be an "outside of the box" thinker, your views always seem to line up directly with the carefully groomed/scrubbed/sanitized versions of "facts" as held by the DNC.

For someone who is critical of others ignoring the inconvenient "facts" about Hillary, you seem to conveniently overlook her obvious flaws of a complete lack of integrity. She's one of the most phony humans on the planet. You've got to love the southern accent she puts on for certain crowds. You've got to love her ever-changing views based on her staff's opinion polls.

If she had kicked that bum slick Willy to the curb for his cheating ways, then perhaps she'd have earned a slim glimmer of respect. But no, her hunger for power at all costs has allowed her to conveniently overlook her husband's deceit - thereby becoming an enabler of Bill's "war on women".

[Tom]

Of the two articles of impeachment, the one concerning perjury received the most support. It received fifty votes. The article charging obstruction of justice received forty five votes. At the time the Republicans controlled the Senate, holding fifty five seats. So not only did the impeachment efforts fail by a wide margin, but they did not even gain the support of all Republicans.

so the repubs then voted honestly according to the facts of theda case and not down poltical lines.

You would NEVER get that kind of a vote from the dems!
Much like the vote for the ACA, when NONE of the dems had a clue what was in the bill, yet they voted it in. Like the scumbags they all are.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

About as creepy as believing everything good about someone just because you DO agree with her political philosophy.

For someone who claims to be smarter than 97+% of the masses and for someone who claims to be an "outside of the box" thinker, your views always seem to line up directly with the carefully groomed/scrubbed/sanitized versions of "facts" as held by the DNC.

For someone who is critical of others ignoring the inconvenient "facts" about Hillary, you seem to conveniently overlook her obvious flaws of a complete lack of integrity. She's one of the most phony humans on the planet. You've got to love the southern accent she puts on for certain crowds. You've got to love her ever-changing views based on her staff's opinion polls.

If she had kicked that bum slick Willy to the curb for his cheating ways, then perhaps she'd have earned a slim glimmer of respect. But no, her hunger for power at all costs has allowed her to conveniently overlook her husband's deceit - thereby becoming an enabler of Bill's "war on women".

You are overlooking her dominant quality, the drive to get what she wants no matter what it takes or how she gets it. If it takes lying, cheating, stealing, taking millions from anyone or government no matter what they may have done ... is that a bad thing ????? mostpost seems to admire her drive.

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by davew

You are overlooking her dominant quality, the drive to get what she wants no matter what it takes or how she gets it. If it takes lying, cheating, stealing, taking millions from anyone or government no matter what they may have done

Hey, you erroneously posted this in the wrong thread instead of the one where you are to say something positive about the "other" side.

By the way, not the type of positive I look for!

[Clocker]

Hillary has a new grandchild. The boy is named Aidan.

Rumors on the web are that the next one will be named Abettan.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

About as creepy as believing everything good about someone just because you DO agree with her political philosophy.

For someone who claims to be smarter than 97+% of the masses and for someone who claims to be an "outside of the box" thinker, your views always seem to line up directly with the carefully groomed/scrubbed/sanitized versions of "facts" as held by the DNC.

For someone who is critical of others ignoring the inconvenient "facts" about Hillary, you seem to conveniently overlook her obvious flaws of a complete lack of integrity. She's one of the most phony humans on the planet. You've got to love the southern accent she puts on for certain crowds. You've got to love her ever-changing views based on her staff's opinion polls.

If she had kicked that bum slick Willy to the curb for his cheating ways, then perhaps she'd have earned a slim glimmer of respect. But no, her hunger for power at all costs has allowed her to conveniently overlook her husband's deceit - thereby becoming an enabler of Bill's "war on women".

Glad I wasn't the only one that noticed. I know quite a few Democrats who are above average intelligence and have a snobbish attitude the way they look down on people they consider less intelligent than themselves. Yet they are basically a cookie cutter democrat on every issue down to what flavor of ice cream to like, they never think against party lines.

I go against party lines quite often. I vote Republican 99+% of the time (I have voted for two Democrats in my life including elections at all levels).
Where I go away from the party platform is as follows.

I am an atheist.

I believe in a woman's right to chose.

I believe homosexuality is biological and is not a choice. On the other hand I do not want to watch two dudes kiss and I would appreciate if they just did their business in private and didn't show it to the world. Since I don't show my heterosexuality by showing affection in public to my girlfriend, I would appreciate the gay people doing the same. I don't think people should be defined by their sexual orientation. It should not be flaunted either way.

[Tom]

She should have named him Beelzebuba!

[Greyfox]

Some are complaining about Trump's campaign owing him money.

So I thought I'd mention this ad regarding the Clintons

[YT="If You've Got the Money Honey?"]qJeHH_1scQI[/YT] .