2016 Democratic National Convention - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - July 25-28

[Deleted]

I believe it's the Republican's candidate that's on the records for saying, that sticking to one's opinion is a bad thing when it shows how that would be a wrong opinion.

Theres nothing wrong with a politician changing their minds now and then... But Hillary has changed her mind on almost every single view shes ever held. You could NEVER point at Hillary and know exactly what she stands for. Even she doesnt know what she stands for ffs!!!!

And I actually agree with him on that.
Flip Flopping isn't the same as evolving a stance.
Flip flopping = I say "the sky is always purple" today. And "the sky is always green" tomorrow.
That is flip flopping. Because that's changing a statement on the fly, contradicting oneself with a days period.

Evolving an opinion:
Making a statement today, and progressively changing it over a medium or long range of time. Several month, or years.
That is not flip flopping. That is intelligent human behavior.

All of this is simply clutching at straws!!!! LMAO

Hillary has an appalling record on holding political positions. She used to be a Goldwater girl ffs!!!!!

For those of you who dont know, that means she was supporting racist, right-wing extremism. Seperating blacks from whites because blacks are inferior... how the fukk can she be taken seriously as a Liberal/Leftie!?!?!?!

[Wildtree]

Theres nothing wrong with a politician changing their minds now and then... But Hillary has changed her mind on almost every single view shes ever held. You could NEVER point at Hillary and know exactly what she stands for. Even she doesnt know what she stands for ffs!!!!





All of this is simply clutching at straws!!!! LMAO

Hillary has an appalling record on holding political positions. She used to be a Goldwater girl ffs!!!!!

For those of you who dont know, that means she was supporting racist, right-wing extremism. Seperating blacks from whites because blacks are inferior... how the fukk can she be taken seriously as a Liberal/Leftie!?!?!?!

Well then, if you are so certain..
Produce a list of changes, along with the time stamps.
Then let's look at it point for point. Compare it with the evolution of changes in the laws and societal majority opinion.
Put the money where the mouth is. Prove it, all of it.

[Deleted]

Well then, if you are so certain..
Produce a list of changes, along with the time stamps.
Then let's look at it point for point. Compare it with the evolution of changes in the laws and societal majority opinion.
Put the money where the mouth is. Prove it, all of it.

Here are the accusations...



And ofc none of them are proven because shes never been taken to court... BECAUSE SHES PROTECTED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.

And u cannot prove that shes innocent of any of these accusations! LOL

[Wildtree]

Here are the accusations...

LOL really?
Sorry, I was willing to discuss with you.
But you've just lost every little bit of credibility. Can't take you serious any longer.
Keep wearing that tinfoil hat. Be careful with lightning though.

[Deleted]

LOL really?
Sorry, I was willing to discuss with you.
But you've just lost every little bit of credibility. Can't take you serious any longer.
Keep wearing that tinfoil hat. Be careful with lightning though.

Answering within 2minutes proves u havent even looked at the very long list of accusations... i cannot take someone seriously if they refuse to do any research.

Ur a shining example of a gullible voter.

[Deleted]

She used to be a Goldwater girl ffs!!!!!

What a pathetic argument. She was born in 1948 and brought up in a staunch Republican household. She was a Goldwater in high school in 1964, aged 16. She switched in college due to the civil rights issue, among others and voted Democrat in 1968, aged 20.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hil...for-goldwater/

I take the opposite implication from the facts - it shows she has independence of thought and courage of her convictions, to break away from her family's position. That she did so over civil rights only furthers my estimation of her.

By way of comparison, I was brought used to be a Christian and meateater. I became an aetheist around age 15 and veggie at 18 once I left home and could cater for myself. I'm now 51, but of course am just a flip-flopping atheist and vegetarian because of what I uncritically believed in my youth.

[Breccia]

Well Hillary did sold 20% of US uranium market to Russia aka Putin.

False and alarmist.

Clinton didn't sell anything. She allowed a sale of a privately-held company to continue, aka "the free market". She was also part of a committee of other govt officials, and the NRC had to approve everything.

The US produces very little Uranium, about 2% of the world market. and imports more than they export.

Also, Putin can't export US Uranium out of the US. Basically, the only thing that changed was who gets the money that we were going to spend when we bought the Uranium anyhow. So everything you said is a mix of disingenuous and false.

Now, maybe you don't like that US money is going to Russia, and that's fine. But Trump has been doing this for years, and more and more reports are coming out that Trump might literally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to Russian investors.

I'm sure she wouldn't push the nuclear button even if Putin is at the White House beating Bill and the Russia Army standing on the front lawn.

And now you're spouting hyperbole.

[Wildtree]

Answering within 2minutes proves u havent even looked at the very long list of accusations... i cannot take someone seriously if they refuse to do any research.

Ur a shining example of a gullible voter.

No, hardly.. I can discard material based on the source, and based on the request that was stated..
I clearly said prove it. Then you present me some conspiracy nonsense of one of the many so called official Anonymous channels.
And along you already say, none of that is proven.
As well as:

And u cannot prove that shes innocent of any of these accusations! LOL

I don't have to prove her innocence.
That is not how it works. You have to prove the guilt.

[Deleted]

False and alarmist.

Quoting politifact that can't even connect three dots and is paid by democrats. Totally. I guess corruption in US is legal, oh I'm sorry it's not corruption it's just lobby and "coincidences" that keep repeating when it comes to the Clinton's and their pseudo-Foundation!

Must be nice to view democrat sources like the Bible and the word of God while being atheists and "open minded".

[Wildtree]

Quoting politifact that can't even connect three dots and is paid by democrats. Totally. I guess corruption in US is legal, oh I'm sorry it's not corruption it's just lobby and "coincidences" that keep repeating when it comes to the Clinton's and their pseudo-Foundation!

Must be nice to view democrat sources like the Bible and the word of God while being atheists and "open minded".

Since when is PolitiFact a democrat source?

Since 2009, PolitiFact.com has declared one political statement from each year to be the "Lie of the Year".

2011
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year for 2011 was a statement by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) that a 2011 budget proposal by Congressman Paul Ryan, entitled The Path to Prosperity and voted for overwhelmingly by Republicans in the House and Senate, meant that "Republicans voted to end Medicare".

2012
For 2012, PolitiFact chose the claim made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that President Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs

2013
The 2013 Lie of the Year was President Barack Obama's promise that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it".

2014
PolitiFact's 2014 Lie of the Year was "Exaggerations about Ebola", referring to 16 separate statements made by various commentators and politicians about the Ebola virus being "easy to catch, that illegal immigrants may be carrying the virus across the southern border, that it was all part of a government or corporate conspiracy". These claims were made in the midst of the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa when four cases were diagnosed in the United States in travelers from West Africa and nurses who treated them.

2015
PolitiFact's 2015 Lie of the Year was the "various statements" made by 2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Politifact found that 75% of Trump's statements that they reviewed were rated "Mostly False," "False" or "Pants on Fire"

Yup... looks a lot like a Democrat source to me too...

For your own sake, stop embarrassing yourself.

[Breccia]

Must be nice to view democrat sources like the Bible and the word of God while --

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh...oh...that was precious. Thanks.

I tell you what. Why don't you take the Politifact article I quoted, which cites their sources by the way, and point out the things they got factually wrong?

No rush. We'll wait. Take your time.

[Deleted]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh...oh...that was precious. Thanks.

I tell you what. Why don't you take the Politifact article I quoted, which cites their sources by the way, and point out the things they got factually wrong?

No rush. We'll wait. Take your time.

No thanks, I'm not interested in joining your cult. Keep reading politifact like the Bible, you'll never see when Hillary sells you out! That ofc if you don't get killed by a thug that was racial motivated by racebaiting democrats for years! I mean how was he supposed to get himself thru college, if he doesn't rob you!

[Deleted]

No, hardly.. I can discard material based on the source, and based on the request that was stated..

So u would disregard 'news' from all of those media outlets who are funding Hillary too right? Because theyre obviously biased.

Ofc u wont because they reinforce your biased opinion.

But u will disregard a video from an online collective that fights for Liberal values across the world... hmmm a true Liberal right there! lol

[Breccia]

No thanks, I'm not interested in joining your cult

You said something that was factually false.

I linked a source disproving your claim. One that won a Pulitzer, by the way.

You questioned the source.

I asked you to defend your accusation.

You said I belonged to a cult.

Yeah, I don't think I'm the one being unreasonable here.

[Deleted]

So u would disregard 'news' from all of those media outlets who are funding Hillary too right? Because theyre obviously biased.

Ofc u wont because they reinforce your biased opinion.

But u will disregard a video from an online collective that fights for Liberal values across the world... hmmm a true Liberal right there! lol

It's like they don't understand how the circlejerk works. You fund every mainstream media, then you get the so called "objective" guys to quote set bias media articles and poof, you get "impartial and objective" journalism!

[Deleted]

It's like they don't understand how the circlejerk works. You fund every mainstream media, then you get the so called "objective" guys to quote set bias media articles and poof, you get "impartial and objective" journalism!

Hillary is being funded by almost every media company in the US... obviously it follows that we cant trust all of these media outlets regarding Hillary right? lol

And yet the gullible will trust that corporate/mainstream media above the alternative media...

U will never get 100% impartial media but recent years have shown that the mainstream media is dangerously biased.

[Wildtree]

It's like they don't understand how the circlejerk works. You fund every mainstream media

which again shows how you have no idea how the USA functions.

- - - Updated - - -

U will never get 100% impartial media but recent years have shown that the mainstream media is dangerously biased.

While that is true, that bias is not applicable to one side.
Claiming that Clinton owns all mainstream media is proof that the one making such a claim has no idea.
Plus, despite the existing bias, there's still plenty of sources that are not.
But then, I let you figure that out for yourself.. Since it seems how you guys who aren't even on this side of the planet, know it all better anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

So u would disregard 'news' from all of those media outlets who are funding Hillary too right? Because theyre obviously biased.

Ofc u wont because they reinforce your biased opinion.

But u will disregard a video from an online collective that fights for Liberal values across the world... hmmm a true Liberal right there! lol

See, you assuming that I am American.. I am NOT..
I am as you a European, but unlike you I live over here in the US and don't have to draw my information exclusively from the internet, like you guys.

[Deleted]

which again shows how you have no idea how the USA functions.

Correct the Record, Hillary's PAC to spam, troll and promote her online just got a raise in budget to 6M. I guess she knows she's losing the battle. Guys go check your bank accounts, the ones on her payroll, I think you might got a raise!

[Deleted]

See, you assuming that I am American.. I am NOT..
I am as you a European, but unlike you I live over here in the US and don't have to draw my information exclusively from the internet, like you guys.

Wherever you garnish your information it looks like you dont understand what Hillary actually is and what she really stands for. She is probably the most Establishment candidate ever put forward. Shes been groomed and controlled by the establishment for her entire career. She doesnt give a flying fukk about the people, she answers to her funders. Add to this the fact shes as crooked as fukk and u have a VERY dangerous President.

If u want to vote for the Establishment and keep everything exactly the same then vote Hillary.

If you want things to change (who knows if itll be better or worse) then vote Trump.

[Wildtree]

Correct the Record, Hillary's PAC to spam, troll and promote her online just got a raise in budget to 6M. I guess she knows she's losing the battle. Guys go check your bank accounts, the ones on her payroll, I think you might got a raise!

What is that showing other than the atrocity Citizens United poses.
A republican result btw. Until Scalia died, the SCOTUS had a 5:4 Republican weight.
Those pacs are the result of the CU SCOTUS ruling. The Dems want to kill it btw. It's part of Clinton's program. Part of the democratic ballot program.