Hillary Clinton

xav, I thought we learned our lesson from voting for the president 'you'd want to drink a beer with' in W.

"

Jennik написал:

"

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.

Here's a better summary about what happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/korea/comments/59bgx6/primer_on_latest_president_park_scandal/

"

Jennik написал:

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.

Overly simplistic? How about accurate. But your condescension and dismissiveness make it clear that engaging any further is a waste of time, so forget it.

"

Jennik написал:

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.

I answered this in my previous post.

"

bwam написал:

Overly simplistic? How about accurate. But your condescension and dismissiveness make it clear that engaging any further is a waste of time, so forget it.

"Your honor, she wouldn't even feed her child an apple. What kind of horrible mother would refuse to feed an apple to her starving son?"

"The apple was rotten. You're blatantly ignoring aspects of the situation in order to craft a false narrative and make my client looks bad. Your description of events is overly simplistic and has led you to an unsound conclusion."

"Overly simplistic? How about accurate!"

Yes, bwam, there was an apple and there was a starving child. There was also a good reason the apple went uneaten. Those reasons are lost when you grossly simplify the situation as you have, though. You can't reasonably ignore 95% of the facts about the situation, focus on one aspect that angers you (arming bad guys!), and condemn her completely for that. It's intellectually dishonest to do so.

You can be accurate while also being overly simplistic and wrong at the same time. Look at the rest of the situation, bwam. The apple was rotten.

Here's an excerpt from a post I just saw on Reddit discussing Hillary's controversies. It's worth reading the full comment and the responses.

"

People have this perception that Hilary is corrupt because all they've heard for the past twenty years is how corrupt she is...even though nothing ever seems to come of it.

If I had the ability to hold press conferences and tell the national press every week that my next door neighbor "might be" a child molester...I never actually have to prove it, because after enough "just asking questions", people will start to believe.

So think back, everyone: how many times has Hillary actually been indicted or found guilty of anything? Look at what's going on with Chris Christie, or Laura Richardson (the Democratic Representative who was found guilty and ordered to pay a huge fine for ethics violations). See those two? There are plenty more examples: no fewer than nine federal high-ranking politicians, five Republicans and four Democrats, have been indicted and tried under the Obama administration. There were twelve under Bush II.

"

Jennik написал:

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.

Reasonable, if you trust the source. Experts on constitutional law argue for both sides of cases in front of the Supreme Court, and it is doubtful that both are always both correct.

I have no reason to either doubt or trust the "experts", however, Snopes has failed to deliver the same level of accuracy as Wikileaks, especially on several recent items.

What people can do, is read up on the 2 Supreme court cases that were cited in the Snopes article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

After reading those two, it seemed pretty clear to me that what was said in the Snopes article (about the law most likely being ruled unconstitutional) is almost a certainty.

The House of Representatives could impeach her the minute after she took the oath, but a law (no matter how well intentioned) doesn't have the authority from preventing the people's choice from being president.

"

DalaiLama написал:

What people can do, is read up on the 2 Supreme court cases that were cited in the Snopes article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

After reading those two, it seemed pretty clear to me that what was said in the Snopes article (about the law most likely being ruled unconstitutional) is almost a certainty.

The House of Representatives could impeach her the minute after she took the oath, but a law (no matter how well intentioned) doesn't have the authority from preventing the people's choice from being president.

That's an even better strategy than what I said. There's no double jeopardy if she's never been tried.

As I've already said, it seemed unconstitutional to me too. But that's for the Supreme Court to decide, not the Department of Justice.

------

I downloaded and read the free sample of Democracy Incorporated from Amazon. Yeah, I'm cheap. But I liked what I read. It's refreshing to go back to those Bush years and reminisce; it reminds one that expansion of government power and corruption are truly bipartisan enterprises.

"

Jennik написал:

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.

The evaluation of her campaign team seems to agree with Bwam:

"As for ISIS, the mathematically worst place for her to be is co-owner of the Obama-Clinton policy.

"But at the least she should not be branding and infecting herself with Obama's policy towards Syria and ISIS .... this strategy could be a death ray to her candidacy in a general election."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31987#efmAzOA5j

From what we have seen so far in the Wikileaks
100% accuracy, emails verifiable using DKIM
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/10/720250-dnc-chair-claims-damning-leaked-emails-were-doctored-a-cyber-security-expert-just-demolished-her-cop-out/

Hillary's mideast actions may have been guided as much by personal financial gain as by anything else.

We have Bill Clinton getting 1 million dollars for a 5 minute meeting with the people funding ISIS

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786646253358768128

And we have 20-25+ million going to the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia (another ISIS sponsor according to Wikileaks), as well as nearly a Billion dollars in Arms sales to Qatar
(750 million $$$KACHING$$$) which was a fourteen fold increase over previous administrations sales to them, and plenty of others.

Hillary isn't just a warmonger, according to what we see out of Wikileaks and other official email releases, she's a war profiteer.





On the plus side, we know Hillary's strategies (unless they involve ducks) will be thoroughly crafted. As proof of this we have

"It Took 12 Clinton Staffers 12 Hours And 10 Drafts To Write One Tweet"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/27/chuck_todd_it_took_12_clinton_staffers_12_hours_to_write_one_tweet.html

DL, I had a response partially typed up, but your Gish Gallups, conspiracies, and the ridiculous levels of dishonesty in your post are so repulsive that I deleted it. Please try to be better in the future. As of now, you're just not worth interacting with.