Off Topic - Hillary Clinton - Форум

" Jennik написал: The difference is that I trust the experts. You, on the other hand, don't believe the experts because you, somehow, know better than they do. So when a man listens to an "expert" and they tell him that the Clintons are serial murderers or that the end is nigh, they're not supposed to believe them... but when we go to your experts, we're supposed to humble ourselves at their wisdom and take their word for it? It's not about knowing better than they do. It's about knowing better than they tell me. To really vet something you need to walk the reasoning yourself; they provide the instructions for that. I found those instructions lacking. Practice what you preach. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Последняя редакция: ScrotieMcB#2697. Время: 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:23:05	Сообщение ScrotieMcB#2697 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:20:56 Цитировать это сообщение
Scrotes, what are you even talking about here? The people I'm referring to are experts on constitutional law. I'm taking their word on a matter of constitutional law. This is entirely reasonable. What experts do you have that believe "the Clintons are serial murderers" or "the end is nigh?" What are these people experts in? Murder conspiracies? "The end?" Give me a fucking break. Keep your false equivalencies to yourself. My experts and your "experts" are obviously not at all the same, and the fact that you keep saying nonsense like this should make it really obvious even to you that you're standing on the shakiest of ground. Последняя редакция: Jennik#1783. Время: 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:33:18	Сообщение Jennik#1783 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:30:21 Цитировать это сообщение
Here are some experts judging the probablity for Trump to become the GOP nominee: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/donald-trump-data-pivit-2016-election/ GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Сообщение Xavderion#3432 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:34:44 Цитировать это сообщение
" Jennik написал: " bwam написал: The problem can be summed up with something she said on camera: "We came, we saw, he died. (Laughs.)" That was Osama bin Laden. People literally cheered when they heard he died. If you're going to condemn Hillary for what she said there, how many people do you imagine you're leaving uncondemned? Hillary understands the seriousness of taking a life, which should be obvious she she's referring to a terrorist responsible for taking thousands of them. If you had paid even the tiniest bit of attention to Hillary over the years, you would know that a lack of empathy is not one of her problems. Just her words about abortion during the third debate should have disabused you of that notion. Man, you should have seen the smile on my face each time I heard a person like Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond had died, and I have so much empathy I'm fucking vegan. People who are responsible for tremendous amounts of suffering through their bigotry and hatred lose their right to my empathy. She's also not the warmonger the right (and parts of the left) believes her to be. She has taken commonly held positions in the past. She has never been a lone, or ever uncommon, voice for war. She is in favor of military intervention when military intervention appears to be the most sensible option. I'm far from a proponent of war, but you're delusional if you think she's more likely to go to war than most other politicians, and you're just plain nuts if you think she's more likely to go to war than Trump. ... That was in reference to Ghaddafi, not UBL. But either way, completely unacceptable. And you ignored what I said about Syria. - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - < <739610877-3104-376.101077-1106.75103739110792103.108-5'92.9410776.> - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - <	Сообщение bwam#7637 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:37:18 Цитировать это сообщение
Even if we accept that those people are experts on constitutional law, the Snopes folks didn't construct a full argument. The experts in Constitutional law say (paraphrased): "this law would be subject to a challenge of its constitutionality." Even if we accept that on blind faith... has such a challenge occurred yet? Are we supposed to interpret law not as written, but as we imagine the Supreme Court would overturn it in some probable future? What I read from that, assuming I agreed with the experts (and, actually, I do; I'm just astonished at the hypocrisy given Obama's shameless, Bush-esque expansion of presidential power), is this: Clinton should have been tried, found guilty, appealed, eventually reviewed by SCOTUS, and overturned citing the 8th Amendment. Edit: the "expert" part about it being moot due to trial in the court of public opinion, however, that's just undiluted bullshit. This election cycle is proof of that. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Последняя редакция: ScrotieMcB#2697. Время: 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:50:38	Сообщение ScrotieMcB#2697 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:42:21 Цитировать это сообщение
" Xavderion написал: Here are some experts judging the probablity for Trump to become the GOP nominee: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/donald-trump-data-pivit-2016-election/ This might be hard for you to wrap your head around, but 1% chances happen all the time. Trump's early numbers were pretty awful. Obviously they improved. The ridiculous thing was when, later on, Trump's numbers were huge and some people still just couldn't believe he'd win. Disagreeing with the facts doesn't look good on anybody. Nate Silver bombed particularly hard on this. The polls said Trump was going to win, but Nate just refused to accept that people were going to vote for such a tremendously unqualified and horrible person. The lesson to learn here is not that Nate Silver is an asshole or that experts are dumb. It's that disagreeing with observable evidence is fucking stupid. If you believe the particular experts quoted in the Snopes article are not to be trusted on that subject, please expound on why that is so. Explain why the people best prepared to understand this subject are, in this case at least, untrustworthy.	Сообщение Jennik#1783 27 окт. 2016 г., 16:47:35 Цитировать это сообщение
" bwam написал: ... That was in reference to Ghaddafi, not UBL. But either way, completely unacceptable. And you ignored what I said about Syria. My bad on the subject of that quote. Evidently I got it tangled in my head at some point. As for the acceptability, that's a personal view of yours that I really can't do anything about. Most of the complaints about it are just pearl clutching by people looking for any possible way to attack HRC. If you honestly have an issue with someone laughing about the death of a terrible person, that's not something I can argue you out of. I'll just disagree. As for what you said about Syria, she called her plan the "least bad option among many even worse alternatives." These are incredibly complex situations with life and death consequences for thousands of people. When you simplify it down to "arming rebels bad," you do the discussion a tremendous disservice. You may disagree with her given your overly simplistic understanding of the realities of the situation, but that in no way means she was wrong.	Сообщение Jennik#1783 27 окт. 2016 г., 17:01:12 Цитировать это сообщение
A bit off topic, but regarding 'muh conspiracy', look at what's going on in Worst Korea: https://i.sli.mg/2Su3kp.jpg GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Сообщение Xavderion#3432 27 окт. 2016 г., 17:11:26 Цитировать это сообщение
" ScrotieMcB написал: " LostForm написал: Don't forget the veritas sham of an american citizen calling up unsolicited and offering a $20,000 donation to a consultant firm, wiring the money from an account in belize, and then implying that this is proof of Clinton campaign getting donations from foreign countries. Also they pretty much undo their work from before, they explicitly show how money ends up in the coffers of this consultant company, the money being spent on Donald ducks among other things. So they show this funding trail that has absolutely no connection to the Clinton campaign, but rather from private American citizens. Good job! First paragraph: You mean Belize is in the US? Wow. [/sarcasm] I don't know how you could better prove getting money from a foreign country than, um, getting money from a foreign country. Second paragraph: You obviously don't understand campaign law at all. It was a donation from an American, wired from a bank in belize. Belize is not in America or part of America. The guy that made the donation...is in America and part of America. But ya man, they got a donation from Belize! Hey...is this thing on? Последняя редакция: LostForm#2813. Время: 27 окт. 2016 г., 17:14:21	Сообщение LostForm#2813 27 окт. 2016 г., 17:12:03 Цитировать это сообщение
" Xavderion написал: A bit off topic, but regarding 'muh conspiracy', look at what's going on in Worst Korea: https://i.sli.mg/2Su3kp.jpg Clearly you get your information from the best sources. I concede all future arguments to you.	Сообщение Jennik#1783 27 окт. 2016 г., 17:18:56 Цитировать это сообщение