Hillary Clinton

[GravitySucks]

I take this image as a joke, if a poor one. Still, this type of portrayal of politicians one opposes is sometimes half-serious and sometimes serious. At best, it's not funny, just an indication of how far into the muck people's minds have descended and what kinds of fantasies appeal to them.

Whichever candidate loses, they'll get to go home and live out their life. We don't kill our political opponents in this country.

On this matter, you and I agree. I see memes all the time that at first glance may invoke a giggle, but end up invoking a more visceral response and I just have to think to myself WTF are they thinking.

[136 or 142]

How about when you defended Hillary and the Benghazi situation.  Not biased? Really.  She made up some lie saying it was caused by a youtube video.

How about when you said that none of Clinton's cases have ever been proven in court so you can't take Broaddrick and Willey's claims seriously.  Unlike now when the same sort of accusations against Trump are good enough for you.  And you say you're not a Hill shill.  Shame on you!

I'd prefer it if you'd find my exact quotes, but I can understand that might be a challenge for you.

In the Benghazi case I wrote something like 'as far as I knew there had been no other killings in embassies/consulates other than in Benghazi whereas under the George W. Bush Administration there had been 13.'  I was corrected that there had been seven total incidents (including Benghazi) of killings in embassies/consulates.   I did look and I couldn't find this information.  Once I was told,  I admitted that similar incidents had occurred under her watch.

As to the video thing, I wrote something like "The views at the time were that both of the explanations for the embassy attack were equally plausible, though Hillary's emails on this suggested that she knew it had nothing to do with the video.  In foreign affairs there are times when foreign actors need to lie but I can't think of why that would be the case here."

So, no, I don't think either of those count as me shilling for her.

In regards to the claims of rape against Bill Clinton, I wrote that he is (or was) a serial adulterer but that the pattern of his behavior does not show to me that he forces himself on women.  I still believe that.

I also wrote that while his affair with Monika Lewinsky is regarded as consensual because she was an adult at the time, that because of the power imbalance in their relationship, that I didn't think it could be considered to be fully consensual.  Even in that case, however, there was no evidence that he 'forced' himself on her.

Unless you have proof otherwise (like 'locker room talk' from Bill Clinton where he admits to raping women) I don't think you can show that my belief is wrong.  So, again, no not shilling.

[136 or 142]

Is that what my dossier file on squid.mil indicates? Asking for a friend.

Comedy gold, Jackoff!

[GravitySucks]

I'd prefer it if you'd find my exact quotes, but I can understand that might be a challenge for you.

In the Benghazi case I wrote something like 'as far as I knew there had been no other killings in embassies/consulates other than in Benghazi whereas under the George W. Bush Administration there had been 13.'  I was corrected that there had been seven total incidents (including Benghazi) of killings in embassies/consulates.   I did look and I couldn't find this information.  Once I was told,  I admitted that similar incidents had occurred under her watch.

As to the video thing, I wrote something like "The views at the time were that both of the explanations for the embassy attack were equally plausible, though Hillary's emails on this suggested that she knew it had nothing to do with the video.  In foreign affairs there are times when foreign actors need to lie but I can't think of why that would be the case here."

So, no, I don't think either of those count as me shilling for her.

In regards to the claims of rape against Bill Clinton, I wrote that he is (or was) a serial adulterer but that the pattern of his behavior does not show to me that he forces himself on unwilling women.  I still believe that.

Unless you have proof otherwise (like 'locker room talk' from Bill Clinton where he admits to raping women) I don't think you can show that my belief is wrong.  So, again, no not shilling.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/clintonjones-chronology.html

[SciFiAuthor]

You wrote the same thing after you claimed that your hero Trump won the second debate.  How'd that work out for you?

Probably good actually. See, in this entire election I did not think Trump, or any republican, had a chance of winning. All I wanted from Trump was to tear down the Republican establishment and expose the Clintons. He accomplished that. But I never thought he could actually win. After yesterday, I now think he has a chance depending on how this unfolds.

[21st Century Man]

I'd prefer it if you'd find my exact quotes, but I can understand that might be a challenge for you.

In the Benghazi case I wrote something like 'as far as I knew there had been no other killings in embassies/bases other than in Benghazi whereas under the George W. Bush Administration there had been 13.'  I was corrected that there had been seven total incidents (including Benghazi) of killings in embassies/bases.   I did look and I couldn't find this information.  Once I was told,  I admitted that similar incidents had occurred under her watch.

As to the video thing, I wrote something like "The views at the time were that both of the explanations for the embassy attack were equally plausible, though Hillary's emails on this suggested that she knew it had nothing to do with the video.  In foreign affairs there are times when foreign actors need to lie but I can't think of why that would be the case here."

So, no, I don't think either of those count as me shilling for her.

In regards to the claims of rape against Bill Clinton, I wrote that he is (or was) a serial adulterer but that the pattern of his behavior does not show to me that he forces himself on unwilling women.  I still believe that.

Unless you have proof otherwise (like 'locker room talk' from Bill Clinton where he admits to raping women) I don't think you can show that my belief is wrong.  So, again, no not shilling.

Of course Bill forced himself on women. If you deny that, you have some sort of inner bias predisposed to believing Clinton. Of course that is only my opinion.

I believe both Bill and Trump are exactly the same when it comes to how they treat women.  The fact that Hillary protects Bill at all costs makes her even worse.  Again, only my opinion.

[136 or 142]

Probably good actually. See, in this entire election I did not think Trump, or any republican, had a chance of winning. All I wanted from Trump was to tear down the Republican establishment and expose the Clintons. He accomplished that. But I never thought he could actually win. After yesterday, I now think he has a chance depending on how this unfolds.

I think Trump exposed himself as an unhinged believer in loony conspiracy theories and did nothing to 'expose the Clintons.'  Hillary Clinton's increase in her lead shortly after the second debate would seem to back that up.

As to his tearing down the Republican establishment.  We'll see where that ends up, it's far too soon to say where that will lead. 

If it leads to the Republican Party splitting in two ensuring centrist leaning Democratic majorities in Congress for as far as the eye can see, I'd be mostly pleased with that.

[136 or 142]

Of course Bill forced himself on women. If you deny that, you have some sort of inner bias predisposed to believing Clinton. Of course that is only my opinion.

I believe both Bill and Trump are exactly the same when it comes to how they treat women.  The fact that Hillary protects Bill at all costs makes her even worse.  Again, only my opinion.

You can have any opinion you like. But, we have Trump admitting on tape that he does that in a way that people said about him for years before the tape became public.  There is nothing similar with Bill Clinton. This isn't a bias towards the Clinton's on my part, this is a bias of me going where the best evidence leads.

The 'fact' that Hillary protects Bill is also incredibly thin, except in your right wing echo chambers where all sorts of false quotes of her defending Bill Clinton are routinely made up.

So, can you find a single case of me shilling for Hillary Clinton or not?  So far you've come up with nothing.

[SciFiAuthor]

I think Trump exposed himself as an unhinged believer in loony conspiracy theories and did nothing to 'expose the Clintons.'  Hillary Clinton's increase in her lead shortly after the second debate would seem to back that up.

As to his tearing down the Republican establishment.  We'll see where that ends up, it's far too soon to say where that will lead. 

If it leads to the Republican Party splitting in two ensuring centrist leaning Democratic majorities in Congress for as far as the eye can see, I'd be mostly pleased with that.

That's the beauty of it all. See, if Hillary wins, she'll tear down the Democratic Party establishment. She already basically has with the Bernie affair and all the crookedness WikiLeaks and Veritas exposed, all of which Trump brought up. I literally squealed with glee when Wasserman-Shultz resigned. But in office Hillary will be the source of constant, unrelenting, scandal. If she wins, hers will be a one-term presidency that she probably won't even finish that sends the Democrats out into the cornfield for 2 or 3 cycles. If she loses, then Donald Trump is president. I'll happily take either outcome, I just hope Hillary doesn't try to deflect from her scandals with a nuclear war. I still can't believe that she pulled that "blame the Russians" thing. That was unethical as hell.   

[21st Century Man]

You can have any opinion you like. But, we have Trump admitting on tape that he does that in a way that people said about him for years before the tape became public.  There is nothing similar with Bill Clinton. This isn't a bias towards the Clinton's on my part, this is a bias of me going where the best evidence leads.

The 'fact' that Hillary protects Bill is also incredibly thin, except in your right wing echo chambers where all sorts of false quotes of her defending Bill Clinton are routinely made up.

So, can you find a single case of me shilling for Hillary Clinton or not?  So far you've come up with nothing.

You protect her regarding Benghazi and you protect her right now.  You may not be aware of it.  I guess it is possible.  I have other things to do  besides going through 111 pages of your posts.  We can let our peers on Bellgab have their say.  If they agree with me, I won't apologize.  If they don't, I will. 

Voting starts now and we can keep this open for a week.  I'll try to keep a tally.

Question

Is 136 or 142 an apologist for Hillary Clinton?

[136 or 142]

You protect her regarding Benghazi and you protect her right now.  You may not be aware of it.  I guess it is possible.  I have other things to do  besides going through 111 pages of your posts.  We can let our peers on Bellgab have their say.  If they agree with me, I won't apologize.  If they don't, I will. 

Voting starts now and we can keep this open for a week.  I'll try to keep a tally.

Question

Is 136 or 142 an apologist for Hillary Clinton?

That was more or less my exact quote on Benghazi.  How was that me shilling for her?

Again, if you're going by the polls, hardly any American believes Trump when he lies that his admission was just 'locker room talk.'

[Kidnostad3]

Is that what my dossier file on squid.mil indicates? Asking for a friend.

We're coming to get you Jack.  Don't leave town.

[136 or 142]

That's the beauty of it all. See, if Hillary wins, she'll tear down the Democratic Party establishment. She already basically has with the Bernie affair and all the crookedness WikiLeaks and Veritas exposed, all of which Trump brought up. I literally squealed with glee when Wasserman-Shultz resigned. But in office Hillary will be the source of constant, unrelenting, scandal. If she wins, hers will be a one-term presidency that she probably won't even finish that sends the Democrats out into the cornfield for 2 or 3 cycles. If she loses, then Donald Trump is president. I'll happily take either outcome, I just hope Hillary doesn't try to deflect from her scandals with a nuclear war. I still can't believe that she pulled that "blame the Russians" thing. That was unethical as hell.

Most of this is speculation about the future that obviously can't be easily debated one way or the other.

However:
Bloomberg Politics ✔ @bpolitics
How experts traced the DNC hack to Russian spies

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/how-experts-traced-the-dnc-hack-to-russian-spies?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics

I think your shilling for Putin is unethical as hell.

[21st Century Man]

That was more or less my exact quote on Benghazi.  How was that me shilling for her?

Again, if you're going by the polls, hardly any American believes Trump when he lies that his admission was just 'locker room talk.'

So you say.  Of course those polls are weighted unevenly.  I am skeptical of any msm poll.

[Value Of Pi]

On this matter, you and I agree. I see memes all the time that at first glance may invoke a giggle, but end up invoking a more visceral response and I just have to think to myself WTF are they thinking.

Images like this are usually designed to evoke a visceral response, just as certain types of rhetoric is. You can see the danger at Trump rallies when Trump goes from "draining the swamp," which is just colorful rhetoric, to "Let's put Hillary in jail" -- with the crowd enthusiastically shouting ""Lock her up!"

I guarantee that nobody participating is thinking about due process, rule of law or any other moderating factor. It's about vigilante justice and fhe ends justifying the means. In the 1960s, the radicals making these kinds of statements were on the left and they were just as bad. The difference is, they never succeeded in getting a candidate for POTUS on the ballot.

[136 or 142]

So you say.  Of course those polls are weighted unevenly.  I am skeptical of any msm poll.

I don't think skeptical is the right word.  Mindlessly regurgitating Trumptard talking points is more accurate. 

2012's unskewedpolls.com

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/25/the_website_where_mitt_romneys_winning_in_a_landslide/

As I wrote previously, the poll (there may have been more than one poll) on this was that at least 60% of Americans believed Trump was genuinely admitting to being a serial sexual assaulter and around 15% believed Trump's explanation that it was just 'locker room banter.' 

That would have to be one seriously biased poll to not accurately reflect the general sentiment of the American public on this.

[Kidnostad3]

Comedy gold, Jackoff!

No, see Jackoff was going after me on that one.  You need to keep your arguments straight. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Most of this is speculation about the future that obviously can't be easily debated one way or the other.

However:
Bloomberg Politics ✔ @bpolitics
How experts traced the DNC hack to Russian spies

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/how-experts-traced-the-dnc-hack-to-russian-spies?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics

I think your shilling for Putin is unethical as hell.

The Russian link has never been proven any more than Julian Assange is a Russian spy. It was a deflection.

As far as shilling for Putin, I'm not running for public office.

[21st Century Man]

Images like this are usually designed to evoke a visceral response, just as certain types of rhetoric is. You can see the danger at Trump rallies when Trump goes from "draining the swamp," which is just colorful rhetoric, to "Let's put Hillary in jail" -- with the crowd enthusiastically shouting ""Lock her up!"

I guarantee that nobody participating is thinking about due process, rule of law or any other moderating factor. It's about vigilante justice and fhe ends justifying the means. In the 1960s, the radicals making these kinds of statements were on the left and they were just as bad. The difference is, they never succeeded in getting a candidate for POTUS on the ballot.

You make some good points, Pi and GS.  I probably shouldn't have posted that.  I get a little too enthusiastic about tearing down Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine.  I desperately want to see her fail but I went too far, I think.  You see this shit all over and one gets caught up in the groupthink aka mob mentality.

[136 or 142]

The Russian link has never been proven any more than Julian Assange is a Russian spy. It was a deflection.

As far as shilling for Putin, I'm not running for public office.

Not conclusively proven no.  Putin shill/enabler.

After Hillary Clinton is elected President, I suggest you move to Russia.

[Kidnostad3]

Images like this are usually designed to evoke a visceral response, just as certain types of rhetoric is. You can see the danger at Trump rallies when Trump goes from "draining the swamp," which is just colorful rhetoric, to "Let's put Hillary in jail" -- with the crowd enthusiastically shouting ""Lock her up!"

I guarantee that nobody participating is thinking about due process, rule of law or any other moderating factor. It's about vigilante justice and fhe ends justifying the means. In the 1960s, the radicals making these kinds of statements were on the left and they were just as bad. The difference is, they never succeeded in getting a candidate for POTUS on the ballot.

Exactly which radicals are you referring to here?

[21st Century Man]

I don't think skeptical is the right word.  Mindlessly regurgitating Trumptard talking points is more accurate. 

2012's unskewedpolls.com

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/25/the_website_where_mitt_romneys_winning_in_a_landslide/

As I wrote previously, the poll (there may have been more than one poll) on this was that at least 60% of Americans believed Trump was genuinely admitting to being a serial sexual assaulter and around 15% believed Trump's explanation that it was just 'locker room banter.' 

That would have to be one seriously biased poll to not accurately reflect the general sentiment of the American public on this.

For what it is worth, I put no more faith in the Rasmussen poll than I would let's say an NBC poll.  Both are heavily biased in their own ways.

[136 or 142]

For what it is worth, I put no more faith in the Rasmussen poll than I would let's say an NBC poll.  Both are heavily biased in their own ways.

Most polling firms don't intentionally bias their polls but they do use different methodologies.  This is why the generally best way to consider these polls is to throw out the handful of intentionally biased polls and to add all the remaining polls together into a meta poll.  Prior to this latest email thing, Hillary Clinton had a 7-8% lead in these meta poll.

Of course, even here there is a bit of dispute about the best way to combine the polls into a meta poll.  Nate Silver weights the surveys on a ranking that he uses based on the firm's past performance (or the past performance of the methodology the poll uses) while others add all the polls in equally.

[Value Of Pi]

Exactly which radicals are you referring to here?

All the ones calling for revolution against the Establishment, no matter how bloody it needed to be. There were groups as diverse as SDS and the Black Panthers, each of which had a political manifesto and a strategy of confrontational, non-peaceful protest.

The current sympathy in some quarters for the Russians is somewhat reminiscent of Vietnam protesters flying North Vietnamese flags -- just another way to demonstrate opposition to the system.

[SciFiAuthor]

Not conclusively proven no.  Putin shill/enabler.

After Hillary Clinton is elected President, I suggest you move to Russia.

And get nuked by Hillary when she needs to deflect away from a scandal? Hell no.

I wonder if she'll make it to the inauguration before getting indicted ...

[21st Century Man]

Most polling firms don't intentionally bias their polls but they do use different methodologies.  This is why the generally best way to consider these polls is to throw out the handful of intentionally biased polls and to add all the remaining polls together into a meta poll.  Prior to this latest email thing, Hillary Clinton had a 7-8% lead in these meta poll.

Of course, even here there is a bit of dispute about the best way to combine the polls into a meta poll.  Nate Silver weights the surveys on a ranking that he uses based on the firm's past performance (or the past performance of the methodology the poll uses) while others add all the polls in equally.

You know, 136.  I'm going to lay off the heated rhetoric.  It doesn't do any good and only promotes disharmony. It is not good for me.  I still have my beliefs but I think you are basically a good soul trying to do the right thing.  We have deep disagreements but I'm going to try to let them slide.  We'll see what happens.  I do think you have integrity and try to approach things from what you perceive as an unbiased point of view. Maybe it is. 

You are undoubtedly to my left but there is room for all sorts of viewpoints in this world.  I am deeply concerned about the direction of this country and the corruption under both Republicans and Democrats bothers me tremendously.  I get passionate about it and sometimes  I get caught up in the more negative aspects of argument.

Anyway, peace.  I'm out for now.

[Dr. MD MD]

The Russian link has never been proven any more than Julian Assange is a Russian spy. It was a deflection.

As far as shilling for Putin, I'm not running for public office.

Dude's always on a witch hunt to lay his heavy moral judgements on posters at Bellgab.  :

[136 or 142]

And get nuked by Hillary when she needs to deflect away from a scandal? Hell no.

I wonder if she'll make it to the inauguration before getting indicted ...

The first comment is idiotic, Dunning Kruger.

The second comment: that won't even happen if your alternate fantasy universe.  Getting impeached by the Republican House before inauguration, possibly, but not indicted by an actual neutral legal body.

[GravitySucks]

All the ones calling for revolution against the Establishment, no matter how bloody it needed to be. There were groups as diverse as SDS and the Black Panthers, each of which had a political manifesto and a strategy of confrontational, non-peaceful protest.

The current sympathy in some quarters for the Russians is somewhat reminiscent of Vietnam protesters flying North Vietnamese flags -- just another way to demonstrate opposition to the system.

The only confrontational, non-peaceful protests I have seen have still been from the left. And now more and more evidence is being brought forward that it comes from Soros and the DNC.

Groups like BLM, New Black Panthers and La Raza, and their financial backers, are a bigger threat to our country than anyone attending a Trump rally.

While I hope for a Trump victory, I do have fear for what will happen in some of our larger cities, most of which have been run by Democrats for decades and many of which have established themselves as sanctuary cities.

[Kidnostad3]

Most polling firms don't intentionally bias their polls but they do use different methodologies.  This is why the generally best way to consider these polls is to throw out the handful of intentionally biased polls and to add all the remaining polls together into a meta poll.  Prior to this latest email thing, Hillary Clinton had a 7-8% lead in these meta poll.

Of course, even here there is a bit of dispute about the best way to combine the polls into a meta poll.  Nate Silver weights the surveys on a ranking that he uses based on the firm's past performance (or the past performance of the methodology the poll uses) while others add all the polls in equally.

The L.A. Times/USC poll has Trump leading by 2.4 as we speak.  Neither institution can by any stretch be considered right leaning and the methology the poll employs  includes a larger sampling and more frequent updating of data.  Even liberals recognize it's superiority to more traditional methodology. What's your take on this.  Wait, let me guess, it's just another outlier, right.