But if you want me to say something positive about Clinton?
I think that the Clinton Foundation does some good* for the world.
*Disclaimer: Their administration expense rate is very high for a charity. I'm actually surprised that IRS is still allowing it to be one, since there are very specific rules about charity and non-profit status in regards to administration expenses.
Hillary Clinton 2016 Presidential Thread
Hillary Clinton 2016 Presidential Thread
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Only because it was blatantly obvious of the media skewing the story so much that they practically made it up.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
You know what? I'm just against Trump as I am against Clinton. I am just as outspoken on him than most people are. I'll still vote for him because he is still the lessor of the two evils.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
At least he isn't a proven pathological liar who flaunts national security and federal law like it's nothing to him. Can't say that about Clinton though.
Got = good*
Anna Ruthven said: »
eliroo said: »
Because Fox news has been so ***for so many years nobody watches them.
Sorry nobody on the internet, when was the last time you tuned into fox? I live in Texas and I don't think I've watched Fox news in years because of how HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE they were during the Obama election.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The LA governor specifically asked Obama to stay away since a presidential visit would divert resources away from the disaster response. Have the conservative talking points not been updated for this week yet?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-obama-slammed-failing-visit-louisiana-flood-sites-n633541
This article from MSNBC says that Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center of Politics, was the one who mentioned the line above.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-obama-slammed-failing-visit-louisiana-flood-sites-n633541
Regardless a presidential visit will often draw awareness to the situation to more people and maybe even goad people to helping them out.
Obama shouldn't matter in this situation any way though. More importantly was about what Clinton did:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/20/clinton-visits-tons-of-places-none-of-which-are-flood-wracked-louisiana/
According to this article she decided that fundraisers were more important than showing her support for LA.
Anna Ruthven said: »
A good 60% (modest number) of the claims you post are Fox News-esque, or just swapping names to say that Hillary is divisive while Trump has divided the GoP in worse ways than Hillary has the Democrats.
Anna Ruthven said: »
Matter of opinion. I think Trump would get us into a bunch of *** with other countries and sever trade deals that would further *** up our economy. Btw that deportation thing? That would be bad for the economy if done drastically.
What you are hearing is the media's twisting of Trump's words.
Anna Ruthven said: »
Can you prove he isn't?
All you have is what the media tells you to think.
eliroo said: »
Sorry nobody on the internet, when was the last time you tuned into fox? I live in Texas and I don't think I've watched Fox news in years because of how HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE they were during the Obama election.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Except two things: 1) Fox News is equally diversity towards Trump as they are towards Clinton. And 2) Almost every single one of my claims are generally backed up with sources. I'm not like some of the other posters here who make outrageous claims and never back them up.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
That's your opinion. And Trump already stated he isn't going to deport millions of illegals, even stated it today.
What you are hearing is the media's twisting of Trump's words.
What you are hearing is the media's twisting of Trump's words.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Absolutely. One of Trump's "weaknesses" is that he has never held public office. So, by virtue of that "weakness," he has never flaunted national security and federal law in the same way Clinton has.
All you have is what the media tells you to think.
All you have is what the media tells you to think.
On that last one, you made that about Hillary. I asked if you had proof Trump isn't a crook, you responded with an observation and assumption that since Trump has never held public office he hasn't done what Hillary supposedly has. Which is true, he has had different experiences but it's not proof that he isn't corrupt.
Anna Ruthven said: »
I've seen you make outrageous claims that could only be backed up by a clickbait ad or the Onion or something.
Anna Ruthven said: »
I haven't actually watched the news today.
Anna Ruthven said: »
That's an observation, not proof.
I can go only by what is reported by the media, and if you remove the fluff, you cannot say that Trump is a pathological liar. A liar probably, pathological, or even to Clinton's degree, no.
If you are looking for a honest politician (or person at that), you will never find one. You can't even look in the mirror for an honest person.
But if you are going to say that Trump is at the same level as Clinton on honesty, or even worse, then you are deluding yourself.
Anna Ruthven said: »
On that last one, you made that about Hillary. I asked if you had proof Trump isn't a crook, you responded with an observation and assumption that since Trump has never held public office he hasn't done what Hillary supposedly has. Which is true, he has had different experiences but it's not proof that he isn't corrupt.
Clinton, however, has shown her corruption. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
[+]
eliroo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I'm not going to deny that. But honestly, how many of those claims have I made without providing proof?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
It was also on Trump Talk.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Are you asking if I (or anyone) personally held Trump on a lie detector test?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I can go only by what is reported by the media, and if you remove the fluff, you cannot say that Trump is a pathological liar. A liar probably, pathological, or even to Clinton's degree, no.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
If you are looking for a honest politician (or person at that), you will never find one. You can't even look in the mirror for an honest person.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
But if you are going to say that Trump is at the same level as Clinton on honesty, or even worse, then you are deluding yourself.
*according to the governor's own words
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Clinton, however, has shown her corruption.
[+]
Ever talked to an emo kid? I tried to bang an emo girl in high school, trust me...you can actually have this argument.
Incoming links talking about suspicious ties and shady dealings with no actual evidence. But emails so vote Republican.
Is there a way to quantify the amount of denial that it would take to vote Democrat this year?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Is there a way to quantify the amount of denial that it would take to vote Democrat this year?
Anna Ruthven said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Is there a way to quantify the amount of denial that it would take to vote Democrat this year?
I'm aware. I was mostly musing at how much head-in-the-sand, willful denial it takes to think that the metric crap ton of scandal that has followed the Clintons throughout the years is just simple coincidence without any merit.
[+]
You know what, you are right.
Others have shown her corruption for her.
As this one guy points out, it's not about the money
Another article points out mainly her lies
There's also Whitewater, but I'm sure you will ignore it
I don't even have to show a link to the emails, should I?
There's also Clinton Foundation, but we should (hopefully) hear about that before the election.
There's also Huma Abedem, but if you don't understand the significance of a state employee working for a private government contractor, then there's no help for you
Then there's the DNC email issue, but that's not exactly her fault. She just benefited from it.
There's also the "Pay to Play" government positions being offered
There's also Cheryl Mills, who's just as competent as Clinton
Want more? (hint: it's a rhetorical question)
Others have shown her corruption for her.
As this one guy points out, it's not about the money
Another article points out mainly her lies
There's also Whitewater, but I'm sure you will ignore it
I don't even have to show a link to the emails, should I?
There's also Clinton Foundation, but we should (hopefully) hear about that before the election.
There's also Huma Abedem, but if you don't understand the significance of a state employee working for a private government contractor, then there's no help for you
Then there's the DNC email issue, but that's not exactly her fault. She just benefited from it.
There's also the "Pay to Play" government positions being offered
There's also Cheryl Mills, who's just as competent as Clinton
Want more? (hint: it's a rhetorical question)
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Anna Ruthven said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Is there a way to quantify the amount of denial that it would take to vote Democrat this year?
I'm aware. I was mostly musing at how much head-in-the-sand, willful denial it takes to think that the metric crap ton of scandal that has followed the Clintons throughout the years is just simple coincidence without any merit.
The denial is strong in that one...
[+]
So like I thought. High on opinion and speculation, light on actual facts.
I didn't know you were Egyptian Pleebo.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Want more?
Yay, dad jokes.
Republicans have been trying to pin something on Clinton for decades and have nothing to show for it. They finally catch her on violating State department policy then proceed to drive that to the point of ridiculousness by fantasizing about perp walks and prison time. I think most people of her status have some skellies in the closet, but there's been so little of substance revealed so far that it really undercuts Republican credibility.
Then there's nominating the one candidate who could actually lose to her but that's for the other thread.
Republicans have been trying to pin something on Clinton for decades and have nothing to show for it. They finally catch her on violating State department policy then proceed to drive that to the point of ridiculousness by fantasizing about perp walks and prison time. I think most people of her status have some skellies in the closet, but there's been so little of substance revealed so far that it really undercuts Republican credibility.
Then there's nominating the one candidate who could actually lose to her but that's for the other thread.
[+]
So you have to prove that Trump isn't a pathological liar and/or crook, otherwise he is? Yet the standard is different when it's Clinton. You have to prove that she is, otherwise she isn't? And Hillary critics are the ones that are considered to be high on speculation, light on facts?
[+]
I'm not going to bother if it's going to be ignored (Kojo) or...well...ignored (Pleebo).
Uh I never said anything about Trump other than one off comment in my last post. I don't know why its so hard to stay on topic in this thread or the Trump one.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.