Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ...
6
14
15
16
17
18
... LastLast
  1. #301
    Banned A dot Ham's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    America, you great unfinished symphony.
    Posts
    6,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Nope, am talking about the months preceding it, with Ken Starr gathering evidence, from your link:
    I love these cute little fucks that think they are presenting some stellar argument by breaking it up disputing it point by point. Ultimately the time leading up to charges actually being filed. Is irrelevant. Because again as I trying to point out the American people are dumb. The issue regarding Bill's impeachment (which is what he and his wife share) is that he/they lied under oath. The issue the general public cared about was the actual BJ... right or wrong is/was irrelevant. To this day people don't understand why he was impeached. It had NOTHING to do with the BJ, and everything to do with the fact that he lied about. But just as Hilary's popularity has grown in the polls despite damning information against her. It wasn't until recently that she even dipped in the polls. Because there are a few of us (clearly very few) that recognize while the FBI chose not to recommend criminal prosecution. She did indeed have confidential information in her e-mails, and she lied about it. She also had prior knowledge of the Benghazi thread... another fact she lied about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    What you are suggesting, is similar to claiming Hillary has not had hearings and investigation into her email, until the point where they didn't persecute.
    *Prosecute*



    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    WTF? It's increasing and culminated with a record breaking 75%+ approval in 1999.


    YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK! You are literally just making shit up. Do you not know how to read graphs or what. I mean it says RIGHT FUCKING THERE... HIGHEST of 73% ending in 1998? Why did it drop? Because the charges being brought (for people with a brain) proved undeniably that he had in fact lied, and if he is willing to lie about something so inconsequential, what else is he willing to lie about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    You are accusing gallop of forging polling data, because it doesn't meet your opinion? I covered that already...
    In a thread about Bernie... I don't really have to defend this. Recent events are enough to at least throw suspicion on the authenticity or whether or not it is free of fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Uhm... The entire event took place during a time we had dial-up and AIM. If you need high speed internet access to permit an polling data, your personal opinion doesn't even have dialup...
    The point being twofold:
    (1) Websites like this may not have even been fully established at that point. Meaning this information was likely compiled after the fact. Since it is a .com website aka for profit. There is potential for bias. A person compiling said data may have ulterior motives.

    (2) Polling was done quite differently back in 1999, then it is now. You can bet your ass if in 2016 they are presenting polling results inaccurately/fraudulently that they were back in 1999. We just weren't able to catch them on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Which is a false narrative in both, the evaluation of general opinion in 1998/1999 and the assment of the email scandal.
    Its not a false assessment. It was front page news for over year. Everyone had an opinion about it.

    Whereas this e-mail scandal no one cares about. How is that a false assessment. Not one Hillary supporter in this thread has even validated it as a real issue. Head in the sand....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    The only thing using Benghazi as evidance that the email scandal caused deaths helps in you not lying, is you conflating the two scandals into one. Your choice... Lying or confused...
    They are not mutually exclusive. They are connected events.

    One cannot PROVE without a reasonable doubt that the "leaked" e-mail directly influenced the events at Benghazi. But given the crucial and specific information in those e-mails and the specific sequence of events that occurred in Benghazi. It is likely that one influenced the other. But I will concede that is speculation, pretty damn good speculation. If you are simply willing to write it off... well again you know where your head is at.

    The e-mails DO prove that she had prior knowledge of the threat of attack, and that she CHOSE not to act on that knowledge.

    She lied about that critical piece of information being there to begin with.

    As such, the e-mails both prove that she is incompetent and a liar.
    Last edited by A dot Ham; 2016-07-13 at 09:08 PM.

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    As in reference to being a candidate and taking endorsements? Not the same thing, but I am sure he is not innocent of such stuff of under the table pat on the back before he was a candidate. But the point I was making was Bernie should have stuck to his principles and not bowed down to the Queen of lies. Some of the GOP primary candidates are also guilty of it however. Namely Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal to name a couple.
    So you are saying that he should stick to his principles and hand the election to Trump. How would that help the ideals that he is fighting for? No candidate would match his ideals identically. If there was one then he wouldn't have run in the first place. He is being pragmatic and picking the closest one to him. The alternative is like the person from a gang town sticking to his principles and testifying against the gang leader. It's nice in fairy tales but in reality, the gang leader wipes out his whole family. Bernie has sat back and looked at all of the options and decided what he thinks is best for his ideals. The best way to get them realized.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    The refusal to challenge that argument when its the exact same argument others make reveals yourself to be little more than a partisan hack for your candidate and of zero substance on any issue. You are by definition "With Her," because you don't seem to give a shit what her positions are.

    I could go back and copy paste Skroe's rantic screeching about How Hillary will revive the Conservative movement or whatever and retell it back to you and you'll have a damn heart attack but If someone says it in praise of her, as a positive, you pay no mind to it? Its as if you yourself know your candidate is full of shit and lying to someone, but you don't care because that's just not what your in it for.

    The fact that I can argue the exact same point as him, but only I'M the bad evil cunt for it is telling, you don't really give a shit what her positions are or might be or what her character is do you? Her character is whatever you wish it to be based on whatever person is criticizing her next.

    When people start making angry posts calling her a damn dirty communists you'll be their singing her conservative or moderate praises.

    There is just no consistency with you, much like Hillary Clinton.
    You don't seem to understand what is actually worth arguing about. Why the hell would I get into a pissing match with someone who supports the same candidate as I? Answer the question instead of deflecting. And it wouldn't be an argument about her positions because you are contending that Skroe doesn't believe she will go through with what her stated position is. It is an absolute waste of time to argue with someone about whether someone is lying about something they will do in the future.

    Feel free to go back and paste these "rantic screech[es]," as you put it. You are going to find it isn't as ridiculous as you have been going on about. And it is not even close to what you are doing. There is a difference between saying someone is lying about something they will do in the future vs. saying they lied about a decision they made in the past. One has all this empirical evidence you can point to to find the validity of the claim, they other, well you may as well be arguing about whether there is an invisible flying elephant in the room.

    I don't think you are bad or evil and I certainly wouldn't call you or anyone else a "cunt" (the only exception being the last person who killed me in Overwatch and that was muttered under my breath). I care about her positions and I care about her character, and I think you purposefully distort both. I'm a little amazed you think it is a problem to defend a person against ridiculous claims from either side. Yes, I was defend Clinton from being called Hitler by pointing out all the ways she is not, just like I'd defend against her being called Marx by pointing out all the ways she isn't a communist... Is that really a difficult thing to understand?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Partysaurus Rex View Post
    It didn't take Obama 2 terms to get his health care passed.

    It won't take her more than 1 term to hand over the US to the UN.
    Jesus Christ, who let John Bolton sign up for an account?

  4. #304
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Partysaurus Rex View Post
    I love these cute little fucks that think they are presenting some stellar argument by breaking it up disputing it point by point. Ultimately the time leading up to charges actually being filed. Is irrelevant. Because again as I trying to point out the American people are dumb. The issue regarding Bill's impeachment (which is what he and his wife share) is that he/they lied under oath. The issue the general public cared about was the actual BJ... right or wrong is/was irrelevant. To this day people don't understand why he was impeached. It had NOTHING to do with the BJ, and everything to do with the fact that he lied about. But just as Hilary's popularity has grown in the polls despite damning information against her. It wasn't until recently that she even dipped in the polls. Because there are a few of us (clearly very few) that recognize while the FBI chose not to recommend criminal prosecution. She did indeed have confidential information in her e-mails, and she lied about it. She also had prior knowledge of the Benghazi thread... another fact she lied about.
    Uhm... You used the BJ in your example. You might also want to say we, when speaking about American people being dumb, unless you are not American. Then, having issues with me addressing every point you made, line by line, is a pretty strange. I want you to address everything I say... I'm not afraid...

    *Prosecute*
    i don't see how correcting my spelling helps you here. It's against forum rules...

    YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK! You are literally just making shit up. Do you not know how to read graphs or what. I mean it says RIGHT FUCKING THERE... HIGHEST of 73% ending in 1998? Why did it drop? Because the charges being brought (for people with a brain) proved undeniably that he had in fact lied, and if he is willing to lie about something so inconsequential, what else is he willing to lie about?
    When did Ken Starr star submit his documents and impeachment proceedings began? What month and year is listed for the spike to 73%?

    In a thread about Bernie... I don't really have to defend this. Recent events are enough to at least throw suspicion on the authenticity or whether or not it is free of fraud.
    No, you only have to defend the claims you make... You know, their info is irrelevant because dialup and AIM...

    The point being twofold:
    (1) Websites like this may not have even been fully established at that point. Meaning this information was likely compiled after the fact. Since it is a .com website aka for profit. There is potential for bias. A person compiling said data may have ulterior motives.
    No, they compiled the info and then posted it. You are accusing gallop of posting polls with ulterior motives, with justification that it doesn't match your opinion. Silly enouph, at the same time that you claim it proves your point.

    2) Polling was done quite differently back in 1999, then it is now. You can bet your ass if in 2016 they are presenting polling results inaccurately/fraudulently that they were back in 1999. We just weren't able to catch them on it.
    The alternative is you saying "trust me", which I already pointed out is bullshit.

    Its not a false assessment. It was front page news for over year. Everyone had an opinion about it.
    Her emails leading to the death of those in Benghazi is not an opinion... It's a downright lie... Which ever front page you were reading, circle back to it and post. I want to see their evidance...

    Whereas this e-mail scandal no one cares about. How is that a false assessment. Not one Hillary supporter in this thread has even validated it as a real issue. Head in the sand....
    How does no one care about something that took years to reach a conclusion? You are confusing disagree, with 'no one' care... That's called hyperbole...

    They are not mutually exclusive. They are connected events.
    Yeah, they can. By simply checking dated on when she used the server and seeing that Benghazi was 3 years later. Don't try to prove Bigfoot exists...

    One cannot PROVE without a reasonable doubt that the "leaked" e-mail directly influenced the events at Benghazi. But given the crucial and specific information in those e-mails and the specific sequence of events that occurred in Benghazi. It is likely that one influenced the other. But I will concede that is speculation, pretty damn good speculation. If you are simply willing to write it off... well again you know where your head is at.
    What year did she stop using the server? What year was Benghazi attack? Let's see if your 'connot PROVE' holds water...

    The e-mails DO prove that she had prior knowledge of the threat of attack, and that she CHOSE not to act on that knowledge.
    3 years after she stopped using it?

    As such, the e-mails both prove that she is incompetent and a liar.
    Apply your Bigfoot defense here...
    Last edited by Felya; 2016-07-13 at 10:46 PM.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  5. #305
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    So you are saying that he should stick to his principles and hand the election to Trump. How would that help the ideals that he is fighting for? No candidate would match his ideals identically. If there was one then he wouldn't have run in the first place. He is being pragmatic and picking the closest one to him. The alternative is like the person from a gang town sticking to his principles and testifying against the gang leader. It's nice in fairy tales but in reality, the gang leader wipes out his whole family. Bernie has sat back and looked at all of the options and decided what he thinks is best for his ideals. The best way to get them realized.
    Considering what he preached as he campaigned, he sure should.

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Considering what he preached as he campaigned, he sure should.
    If sticking to your principles causes the country to move even further away from your principles, then I would argue that you actually betrayed your principles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post
    There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redditor
    can you leftist twits just fucking admit that quantum mechanics has fuck all to do with thermodynamics, that shit is just a pose?

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    I feel like he sold out, too. I know he was courted pretty heavily by the Green Party camp. I think he was encouraged to support Clinton in order to ensure Trump doesn't take office, it was a wise decision but I would have preferred that he ran third party or independent instead.
    What would that have accomplished?

    Try and put some percentages to it and you will see that the upside has something like a 2% chance of happening. The other 98% chance has Trump winning and 20-30 years of GOP SCOTUS.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Goradan View Post
    Yeah because Bernie Seems to be someone that would stand against republican even if it seems somewhat irrational. Personally I think that Hillary is not a good candidate for the presidential election and Trump would be better as he is not the one that would make america better, but someone that could set it up for the next president to improve the conditions in the U.S
    How will the next president fix a 5-2 majority in SCOTUS for the next 20-30 years?

  8. #308
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Considering what he preached as he campaigned, he sure should.
    He has preached the complete opposite of Trump. Why wouldn't he endorse the candidate of the party he was running for and one that represents his values far closer to Trump. If he did what you are saying, it wouldn't be consistency, but spite...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    What would that have accomplished?

    Try and put some percentages to it and you will see that the upside has something like a 2% chance of happening. The other 98% chance has Trump winning and 20-30 years of GOP SCOTUS.
    It would have pushed progressive values. I don't think Sanders' decision to endorse Clinton matters enough for hardcore Sanders fans, interest in the Green Party is up considerably among millennials for the last couple of weeks.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/jill-stein-campaign-surge/

    Not addressing some of the crazy talk about the Green Party being home to leftist wackjobs, the party platform and values are nearly identical to what Sanders was espousing.

  10. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Considering what he preached as he campaigned, he sure should.
    Considering one of his main principles was to make sure no GOP candidate especially Trump is to become President of the US, siding with Hillary who is also closer to him politically than anything the GOP can throw out is standing by said principles.

  11. #311
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    He has preached the complete opposite of Trump. Why wouldn't he endorse the candidate of the party he was running for and one that represents his values far closer to Trump. If he did what you are saying, it wouldn't be consistency, but spite...
    Then he should not have said she was not qualified to be President. Ether he was lying or he does not care about his own standards.

  12. #312
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Then he should not have said she was not qualified to be President. Ether he was lying or he does not care about his own standards.
    It's why he said 'if'......
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanknasty View Post
    I'm not quite sure where I stated anywhere that I equate Bernie to Gary. My point was that the Democratic and Republican nominees are dumpster fires and I don't subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" thought process.
    The problem is that it is a race of the lesser of two evils. One of those two will be elected. The third parties won't win but they can effect the outcome of the fight so by voting for a third party, you are effecting the outcome unless you are in a true blue or true red state. There is an argument for disgruntled Republicans to vote for Gary Johnson if they think Clinton is better than Trump but can't stomach voting for her. If they think Trump is better than they should vote that way. I battle to see the argument that progressives are making for voting for Trump, Gary Johnson or Stein unless they think that Trump is a better choice than Clinton. If not then it's a stupid vote because you are indirectly supporting the person who you think is the worst. For progressives SCOTUS should be enough of a reason. You don't have to like her or even agree with her all that much but you should really look at what is best for your ideals in the long run.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    It would have pushed progressive values. I don't think Sanders' decision to endorse Clinton matters enough for hardcore Sanders fans, interest in the Green Party is up considerably among millennials for the last couple of weeks.
    I agree that it would have pushed progressive values but at what cost? A conservative SCOTUS would do far more damage.

    I also agree that the greens have seen a surge. A lot of that is in part because of the feeling that Bernie was robbed where in reality, it was demographics that cost him. Not election fraud or MSM bias.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Then he should not have said she was not qualified to be President. Ether he was lying or he does not care about his own standards.
    That was a mistake from him that I think hurt him badly in NY. I think he got caught up in things. How many things has Trump said and then gone back one, BTW?

  14. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by Draeth View Post
    This is an incredibly tired argument that shows a complete lack of understanding of our electoral system.

    A third-party candidate will never, I repeat, never win the general election in the US until we have a massive electoral reform.

    There are three possible outcomes of third-party votes in our system as it is designed:
    1. Most likely: No one notices that you wasted your vote. Congratulations.
    2. Y2K repeats itself: The moron Republican candidate wins because a small but statistically significant percentage of the liberal demographic votes for a spoiler candidate.
    3. Least likely: A third-party candidate gets a large enough percentage of the vote that there are actually three competitive candidacies, and none of them surpass the 50%-of-total-votes mark. The Electoral College vote is disregarded, and the House of Representatives (currently heavily slanted towards Republican) coronates whoever they want as President with no regard for the popular vote, at all.

    Please learn our laws before you spout nonsense.
    This right here is so extremely important, and also why Bernie wouldn't run 3rd party. Option 3 was, in all honesty, the most likely outcome Clinton v Sanders v Trump and Trump has a scarily real chance of winning that vote.

  15. #315
    Deleted


    Bernie may have endorsed Hillary, but there are a lot of people out there who will not. I have a feeling a lot of people are overestimating the amount of unity on that side of the aisle.

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by Sydänyö View Post
    Bernie may have endorsed Hillary, but there are a lot of people out there who will not. I have a feeling a lot of people are overestimating the amount of unity on that side of the aisle.
    That's pretty much my stance. I don't vote to keep a candidate out (i.e. Trump or Clinton), I vote for who I want in as president. Simple.
    The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.

  17. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    You realize he is only a Democrat in this election, right? He was always Independent before, since he is left of Mao.
    No he is a democrat now, and will be going forward, he has said so. I voted for Bernie in the primary but if you believe that Bernie is some kind of exception to the way our government works you havent been following politics very closely.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Goradan View Post
    It's not the fact the he hasn't become a republican. but the fact he was vigorously campaigning against the people in wall street and their spokespeople like hillary, only to make a deal with them, espacally when Hillary has a history of coping others ideas and make them her own while bastardizing them
    Correct, people made a bad assumption that Bernie was the second coming, I saw him as a politician with some views I agreed with. In the end, Bernie did what had to be done, otherwise throw the election to Trump.

  18. #318
    Herald of the Titans Pterodactylus's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Partysaurus Rex View Post
    As such, the e-mails both prove that she is incompetent and a liar.
    Sure they do...
    “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass." - President Donald Trump

  19. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Matter View Post
    What would that have accomplished?

    Try and put some percentages to it and you will see that the upside has something like a 2% chance of happening. The other 98% chance has Trump winning and 20-30 years of GOP SCOTUS.
    Sadly true. While I think no change will ever come if people don't start voting differently, the critical mass is just not there. I went back and took a look at a few of the previous election results. Even in the 90's with 20% for other parties not a single state was actually not red/blue. That system is just fucked up from beginning to end. You have to go back to pretty much the 1800's to find elections where there was a bit more diversity.

  20. #320
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanknasty View Post
    I know this is hard to believe, but some people vote for who they think is best suited to run our country, not the train wreck or the shit bomb. Saying that vote for a 3rd party candidate is a waste of a vote is asinine and utterly ridiculous.
    I don't disagree, but you also can not dismiss the potential consequences of a third party resulting in a Trump whitehouse.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •