Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Invrlose]

Who have basically never been found guilty of any wrong doing.

Weird.

LOL I hope you aren't serious right now

[Endus]

So you don't understand "whataboutism"... okay.

No, I do. The problem with your claim is that I'm not trying to say that Clinton's behaviour should be ignored because of Colin Powell's. That would be "whataboutism".

What I'm saying is that Clinton's behaviour has already been assessed and deemed to not have been lacking in any real, appreciable respects. So there's no attempt to distract from an issue, which is core to whataboutism. The facts are already settled in terms of Clinton's behaviour; she did nothing really wrong.

The only thing we're discussing is the hypocrisy. There's no "appeal to hypocrisy" when the entire point is that there is hypocrisy. It isn't about defending Clinton at all, because she's already been exonerated completely.

If Billy was angry that Sue cheated on him, and she said "but what about when you cheated on me with Mary", that'd be whataboutism. Instead, what happened is that someone told Billy that Sue cheated on him, but she was at her parents the entire night in question and they both back her and have photos from throughout the evening to confirm her presence there the whole time, and the guy who she supposedly cheated on is both A> gay, and B> in another city across the country entirely on the night in question. So when she asks why Billy's being such an ass to her when she didn't even cheat, when he's a cheater, that's not "whataboutism". That's "whatthehell,Billyism".

Don't crystal ball your opposition. If you want this accusation to hold any water you have to prove the mishandling of classified information violates no statutes or common law and dismiss that claim specifically and THEN you can go down the speculative route of why people are REALLY interested. Until you do that... you're deflecting disingenuously. /shrug

Don't have to "crystal ball" anything, I can take it right from the Director of the FBI; https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

They absolutely did by your insistence that when I start a hypothetical out as:

Assume A --> B

And your respond with a litany of references as to why A doesn't lead to B (rather than cannot, as if words have fixed meanings and interpretations), you not only miss the point but demonstrate clearly you cannot think logically about anything, or have so little practice as to be unable to out of pure inexperience. You and several others made the exact same error in approaching the list despite others understanding, disagreeing in part and agreeing in part, and us having a valid discussion.

Read what is there instead of desperately trying to disprove for your side, it'll do you a world of good.

If someone starts out by saying "assume a giraffe is a chicken", the only sane response is "well, it isn't a chicken. Why are you making such a ridiculous premise?"

[Invrlose]

No, I do. The problem with your claim is that I'm not trying to say that Clinton's behaviour should be ignored because of Colin Powell's. That would be "whataboutism".

What I'm saying is that Clinton's behaviour has already been assessed and deemed to not have been lacking in any real, appreciable respects. So there's no attempt to distract from an issue, which is core to whataboutism. The facts are already settled in terms of Clinton's behaviour; she did nothing really wrong.

The only thing we're discussing is the hypocrisy. There's no "appeal to hypocrisy" when the entire point is that there is hypocrisy. It isn't about defending Clinton at all, because she's already been exonerated completely.

If Billy was angry that Sue cheated on him, and she said "but what about when you cheated on me with Mary", that'd be whataboutism. Instead, what happened is that someone told Billy that Sue cheated on him, but she was at her parents the entire night in question and they both back her and have photos from throughout the evening to confirm her presence there the whole time, and the guy who she supposedly cheated on is both A> gay, and B> in another city across the country entirely on the night in question. So when she asks why Billy's being such an ass to her when she didn't even cheat, when he's a cheater, that's not "whataboutism". That's "whatthehell,Billyism".



Don't have to "crystal ball" anything, I can take it right from the Director of the FBI; https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system



If someone starts out by saying "assume a giraffe is a chicken", the only sane response is "well, it isn't a chicken. Why are you making such a ridiculous premise?"

Clinton has done nothing wrong? I want to say something right now but since you're a mod you'll no doubt get upset and infract me.

[Wells]

LOL I hope you aren't serious right now

False incredulity is boring. Links are better.

but since you're a mod you'll no doubt get upset and infract me.

Spinnin' the classics.

[Invrlose]

False incredulity is boring. Links are better.



Spinnin' the classics.

I could have a video of hillary Clinton sucking dick cheney's dick while he has $100 in his hand and he's saying "I give you, Hillary Rodham Clinton $100 for performing the sexual act of fellatio on me" and you still wouldn't accept that lol.

[Endus]

Clinton has done nothing wrong? I want to say something right now but since you're a mod you'll no doubt get upset and infract me.

Well, I'm sure she's done something "wrong" at some points in her life, like cheating on her diet, or whatever. Everyone has. But in terms of anything actionable that would disqualify her from running for the Presidency? Yes. She's done nothing that amounts to that. There's literally zero evidence of any such.

So unless you mean you're holding her to an impossible standard that everyone would fail, you don't actually have an argument against Clinton, specifically.

[Fasc]

No, I do. The problem with your claim is that I'm not trying to say that Clinton's behaviour should be ignored because of Colin Powell's. That would be "whataboutism".

What I'm saying is that Clinton's behaviour has already been assessed and deemed to not have been lacking in any real, appreciable respects. So there's no attempt to distract from an issue, which is core to whataboutism. The facts are already settled in terms of Clinton's behaviour; she did nothing really wrong.

The only thing we're discussing is the hypocrisy. There's no "appeal to hypocrisy" when the entire point is that there is hypocrisy. It isn't about defending Clinton at all, because she's already been exonerated completely.

So you're just kicking rocks about mean ol' Republicans being hypocrites? Okay then... carry on with pointless banter. It neither absolves Hillary (see Errors of Impunity) nor squares your obsession with bringing up Powell, Republicans, etc. So people are hypocrites... congrats? Welcome to politics? Water is wet?

If Billy was angry that Sue cheated on him, and she said "but what about when you cheated on me with Mary", that'd be whataboutism. Instead, what happened is that someone told Billy that Sue cheated on him, but she was at her parents the entire night in question and they both back her and have photos from throughout the evening to confirm her presence there the whole time, and the guy who she supposedly cheated on is both A> gay, and B> in another city across the country entirely on the night in question. So when she asks why Billy's being such an ass to her when she didn't even cheat, when he's a cheater, that's not "whataboutism". That's "whatthehell,Billyism".

Those are some SPECTACULAR redefining of what has transpired... I'm in awe of your delusions.

Don't have to "crystal ball" anything, I can take it right from the Director of the FBI; https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

/whoosh goes the point yet again Endus.
You're crystal balling the secret intents of your opposition by assuming because Comey said "meh" that no wrong doing happened, it is a closed case, and therefore all opposition is truly just in it as a witch hunt. A lot of unsubstantiated conjecture there...

If someone starts out by saying "assume a giraffe is a chicken", the only sane response is "well, it isn't a chicken. Why are you making such a ridiculous premise?"

/facepalm
Don't ever take logic, higher mathematics, law, philosophy, etc. You'll be utterly mystified why the teacher forces you through counter-factuals at all to understand concepts.

Actually, stay away from linguistics as well since you seem to struggle with the variable usage of words given your terrible analogy.

I swear you act obtuse on purpose but I'm not entirely sure just yet, you may very well be unable to approach the topic at all.

[Endus]

I could have a video of hillary Clinton sucking dick cheney's dick while he has $100 in his hand and he's saying "I give you, Hillary Rodham Clinton $100 for performing the sexual act of fellatio on me" and you still wouldn't accept that lol.

But you don't have that video, or anything else at all. And when called on to provide any such, you pull stuff like this, making it seem unfair that we ask that you actually be able to back your claims up with something approaching real evidence.

[jakeic]

I could have a video of hillary Clinton sucking dick cheney's dick while he has $100 in his hand and he's saying "I give you, Hillary Rodham Clinton $100 for performing the sexual act of fellatio on me" and you still wouldn't accept that lol.

and do you have this video? if not, what's the point of this comment other than to excite the masses?

[Damajin]

Read the link if you want to talk about the subject. Literally every question is answered in there.

Here's another one though:

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

12% overhead.

You're just making this shit up as you go.

We already went over this kid. Throwing Democratcheck.org at me and expecting me to take it seriously is a fucking joke. I'll throw a Fox News link at you and see how quickly you swill it down, oh wait you won't so we're fine standing at that particular impasse.

Charitywatch was the one that wouldn't rate them, yet they're doing a pretty good job of providing cover here with all the info that would be necessary to rate them. Seems like their line about 'well this was broken off and this was added' is the bullshit you're alluding to, not anything I'm saying. But hey, you want to turn the Hillary thread into the 2nd Trump thread so I can't really expect you to approach anything here from a consideration of malfeasance, so go on and keep tooting that Hillary horn man and hope she actually makes it to election day.

[Invrlose]

Well, I'm sure she's done something "wrong" at some points in her life, like cheating on her diet, or whatever. Everyone has. But in terms of anything actionable that would disqualify her from running for the Presidency? Yes. She's done nothing that amounts to that. There's literally zero evidence of any such.

So unless you mean you're holding her to an impossible standard that everyone would fail, you don't actually have an argument against Clinton, specifically.

How about conspiring against Bernie Sanders in collaboration with the DNC, taking political donations (read bribes) from big money interests like wall Street, etc.

It's funny you bring up an unfair standard, because they lowered the fucking standards for Hillary. She was being reckless with classified information on a server that literally had less security than Gmail, but since she isn't literally a Russian spy we can just let that go. Meanwhile Edward Snowden and Chelsea manning leak classified info about the government doing fucked up things, and Chelsea is locked up in a cage while Edward is exiled. Hillary walks free and she gets dishonest people defending her for it.

Saying hillary has done absolutely zero wrong politically gives me two choices. Either you're ignorant, or dishonest. Which one is it?

[jakeic]

We already went over this kid. Throwing Democratcheck.org at me and expecting me to take it seriously is a fucking joke. I'll throw a Fox News link at you and see how quickly you swill it down, oh wait you won't so we're fine standing at that particular impasse.

Charitywatch was the one that wouldn't rate them, yet they're doing a pretty good job of providing cover here with all the info that would be necessary to rate them. Seems like their line about 'well this was broken off and this was added' is the bullshit you're alluding to, not anything I'm saying. But hey, you want to turn the Hillary thread into the 2nd Trump thread so I can't really expect you to approach anything here from a consideration of malfeasance, so go on and keep tooting that Hillary horn man and hope she actually makes it to election day.

Provide the evidence.

[Orbitus]

Did you just say the Clinton Foundation is a "fluff front"?

Do you have any evidence that the Clintons are siphoning off Foundation money for their own pockets?

Of course he does, obviously he can find something that the FBI, the DoJ, and the jobs of people like CharityWatch.org hasn't. So obviously they are guilty of something. He just won't say it. Which is what Trump says ALL THE TIME. You know, how he had people in Hawaii that found damning evidence about Obama and then now, he supposedly is saying he is a US citizen. At least through his surrogates like Guilliani.

[Endus]

Those are some SPECTACULAR redefining of what has transpired... I'm in awe of your delusions.

For someone so free to complain about others' use of logical fallacies, warranted or not, you're awfully free with ad hominems and the like.

/whoosh goes the point yet again Endus.
You're crystal balling the secret intents of your opposition by assuming because Comey said "meh" that no wrong doing happened, it is a closed case, and therefore all opposition is truly just in it as a witch hunt. A lot of unsubstantiated conjecture there...

Since Comey's task was to determine whether anything wrong happened, and he and his staff were the only ones with full access to the information, it's pretty darned silly to claim that you have some magic understanding that Comey and his staff lacked that would justify ignoring his "meh" ruling.

You don't get to invent unicorns and then blame Clinton for murdering them. You want us to believe you that she did something heinous, you're gonna be required to provide solid, conclusive evidence. No unicorn corpse with Clinton's fingerprints all over it, we're just going to assume you're being silly.

/facepalm
Don't ever take logic, higher mathematics, law, philosophy, etc. You'll be utterly mystified why the teacher forces you through counter-factuals at all to understand concepts.

Actually, stay away from linguistics as well since you seem to struggle with the variable usage of words given your terrible analogy.

I swear you act obtuse on purpose but I'm not entirely sure just yet, you may very well be unable to approach the topic at all.

See? Ad hominems galore.

Here's a tip; pure logic is a tool. We're talking about applied logic. Objective reality is a concrete refutation of any premise that contradicts it. Your argument is like a physics 101 student complaining that it's "unfair" that wind perturbations and air resistance are affecting the trajectory of the baseball they're throwing. That you oversimplified things to learn the basic tools does not mean that you can use that oversimplification in discussing the real world accurately.

[Fasc]

But you don't have that video, or anything else at all. And when called on to provide any such, you pull stuff like this, making it seem unfair that we ask that you actually be able to back your claims up with something approaching real evidence.

You and others consistently treat some information as entirely immutable while other information is mere conjecture as it suits you. You never support why, you just shift as necessary to maintain your position unaffected. You don't even discuss basic "if/then" with any sort of good faith because to even try to be on agreeable terms is anathema, so out of frustration someone makes an obviously hyperbolic statement and you get high and mighty about it.

You don't discuss or argue in good faith whatsoever. There is no value to be had here aside from those random posters who aren't ideologically driven to lockstep with the chosen narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

For someone so free to complain about others' use of logical fallacies, warranted or not, you're awfully free with ad hominems and the like.


Since Comey's task was to determine whether anything wrong happened, and he and his staff were the only ones with full access to the information, it's pretty darned silly to claim that you have some magic understanding that Comey and his staff lacked that would justify ignoring his "meh" ruling.

You don't get to invent unicorns and then blame Clinton for murdering them. You want us to believe you that she did something heinous, you're gonna be required to provide solid, conclusive evidence. No unicorn corpse with Clinton's fingerprints all over it, we're just going to assume you're being silly.



See? Ad hominems galore.

Here's a tip; pure logic is a tool. We're talking about applied logic. Objective reality is a concrete refutation of any premise that contradicts it.

You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem fallacy is vs an ad hominem argument.

Protip: One is perfectly valid and I'm employing exactly that.

Also "applied logic" dictates that you aren't swayed by hypocrisy when determining wrong doing, that would be the definition of not applying logic and allowing fallacy dressed as such sway you. Further, an individual testimony with facts in contention does not objective reality make. Comey's testimony is only that, any fact finding (ie determining of objective reality) was simply foregone. Nolle prosequi.

Like I said... you are incapable of arguing in good faith.

[Invrlose]

But you don't have that video, or anything else at all. And when called on to provide any such, you pull stuff like this, making it seem unfair that we ask that you actually be able to back your claims up with something approaching real evidence.

Except I have provided evidence pages back and people just use bullshit Republican arguments like "well, there's no quid pro quo. We don't have a video of hillary Clinton saying word for word "if you give me money I will give you political favours in the fork of x y and z" so therefore threshold no shady business going on." When people reject evidence, at a certain point it becomes pointless to even bother trying to give evidence any more.

[Orbitus]

Why do people respond in ways that makes me believe you have no clue what you're talking about? I have zero feelings towards Colin Powell as he is irrelevant to any discussion of wrongdoing on Clinton's part. If we want to make a separate thread about Colin Powell's sins we can, but he matters not one iota in this context.

Seriously: If you don't understand what fallacies are at play with "whataboutism" please read up on them before responding like this. One can be critical (I'm not outraged about anything as Hillary is largely a boring individual) of one person while not critical of another.

No, you aren't going to sidestep this. Obviously you should be outraged at the hypocrisy of the Republicans for looking into Hillary and finding literally nothing, but not even batting and eyelash when it comes to someone who deleted ALL of their emails. While we don't know how many he had, but he deleted ALL of them. He even admitted to it.

We aren't trying to dismiss what Clinton did, we are just saying that you are being outraged and not showing outrage over EVERYONE that did it.

[Endus]

How about conspiring against Bernie Sanders in collaboration with the DNC, taking political donations (read bribes) from big money interests like wall Street, etc.

For the former, the DNC is a private organization, and they're free to "collaborate" to elect whoever they like to the leadership of their party. There's literally nothing illegal or shady about it. Sanders was an Independent (and is back to being an Independent) who ran as a Democrat just for his candidacy; it's not surprising they wanted a long-time Democrat instead of the guy who'd only joined for the race. And that's from someone who was pro-Sanders.

As for the latter; donations aren't "bribes". You're just being deliberately ridiculous.

[Wells]

I could have a video of hillary Clinton sucking dick cheney's dick while he has $100 in his hand and he's saying "I give you, Hillary Rodham Clinton $100 for performing the sexual act of fellatio on me" and you still wouldn't accept that lol.

I'd settle for some evidence of an indictment for the crimes alleged.

When people jump straight to accusing the other guy of being biased when asked for evidence its 99% of the time because they know they hav eno evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

We already went over this kid. Throwing Democratcheck.org at me and expecting me to take it seriously is a fucking joke. I'll throw a Fox News link at you and see how quickly you swill it down, oh wait you won't so we're fine standing at that particular impasse.

Charitywatch was the one that wouldn't rate them, yet they're doing a pretty good job of providing cover here with all the info that would be necessary to rate them. Seems like their line about 'well this was broken off and this was added' is the bullshit you're alluding to, not anything I'm saying. But hey, you want to turn the Hillary thread into the 2nd Trump thread so I can't really expect you to approach anything here from a consideration of malfeasance, so go on and keep tooting that Hillary horn man and hope she actually makes it to election day.

Waiting for you to do anything to actually defend your claim that the highly rated charity with the completely reasonable overhead is actually a slush fund that the clintons are illegally siphoning money from.

[Orbitus]

We already went over this kid. Throwing Democratcheck.org at me and expecting me to take it seriously is a fucking joke. I'll throw a Fox News link at you and see how quickly you swill it down, oh wait you won't so we're fine standing at that particular impasse.

Charitywatch was the one that wouldn't rate them, yet they're doing a pretty good job of providing cover here with all the info that would be necessary to rate them. Seems like their line about 'well this was broken off and this was added' is the bullshit you're alluding to, not anything I'm saying. But hey, you want to turn the Hillary thread into the 2nd Trump thread so I can't really expect you to approach anything here from a consideration of malfeasance, so go on and keep tooting that Hillary horn man and hope she actually makes it to election day.

Hand wave, hand wave it all away. It will go away right? DENY DENY DENY.