Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Zolaris192]

So? That doesn't mean that all bias is created equal.

- - - Updated - - -



That or you've never heard of Africa of US history prior to like 1970.


Says the kid who was just posting about how bad all dem moooselmen are.

Oh wait how could I forget to mention!

"Christianity has done bad stuff" IS NOT an argument against why we shouldn't allow mass migration of military aged "refugees" from violent Islamic countries!

So try again kid

[Orbitus]

Sounds like the heresay mafia rhetoric I hear from other kids at my college

You have a lot of pent up aggression towards Christianity that is largely unwarranted you should try clearing out all that bigoted hatred in your heart before arguing any points

No, it is completely warranted. But I am not going to get into that because it goes largely off-topic and is in the forbidden topics section.

It isn't bigoted hatred when I have literally seen them do these atrocities.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh wait how could I forget to mention!

"Christianity has done bad stuff" IS NOT an argument against why we shouldn't allow mass migration of military aged "refugees" from violent Islamic countries!

So try again kid

The fact that you called him kid, just made you lose the argument, while destroying your own. Switch Islam with Christianity in your quotes, and it is the same fucking argument. Especially since we really aren't letting in "military aged refugees from violent Islamic countries".

I will let Factcheck.org destroy your tiny little argument, HANDILY.

[Wells]

Oh wait how could I forget to mention!

"Christianity has done bad stuff" IS NOT an argument against why we shouldn't allow mass migration of military aged "refugees" from violent Islamic countries!

So try again kid

I see no reason to discriminate against men so long as refugees are screened. Ours are very heavily so.

[Orbitus]

I see no reason to discriminate against men so long as refugees are screened. Ours are very heavily so.

And Trump keeps telling them that they aren't. Which is why they believe it. They think everyone else is lying to them and that Trump is telling the truth. When not in Bizarro world, Trump is the one that is lying and the process takes 18-24 months before they are even considered being sent over here. Or that we are getting HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of them, like Trump says 250,000 are coming here, when in reality, we have laws that say we can only take 10,000.

[Damajin]

So? That doesn't mean that all bias is created equal.

Rofl, there's really no more that needs to be said than quoting this and just laughing. The shades of bias argument is so flawed, so faulty it refutes itself.

[Wells]

Rofl, there's really no more that needs to be said than quoting this and just laughing. The shades of bias argument is so flawed, so faulty it refutes itself.

If you didn't have an actual retort you should have saved yourself the time. The regular and moderate media bias towards spectacle and narrative is one thing. Drudge is clearly another.

[Merkava]

I see no reason to discriminate against men so long as refugees are screened. Ours are very heavily so.

Seriously, how can we screen them when we have no diplomatic relations with the country they're coming from?

[Wells]

Seriously, how can we screen them when we have no diplomatic relations with the country they're coming from?

Burden of proof is on them is how. Cousin you can't prove isn't a terrorist? House you said was destroyed but have no evidence of? Dead family member you can't prove died? Work at the same business as someone who brings up a red flag? All of that can result in a rejection.

Now none of this is to say that someone couldn't theoretically get through both the UN screening and then our notoriously tight screening as well, but at that point we're talking about basically the hardest possible way to enter the US.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So you didnt give a source and instead went to the typical 'google it by yourself'
I see a pattern here

I've said it many times before...

"Well, the Feels is what gives a conservative his power. It's an energy field created by strong sentiments of conspiracy. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the right together."

The Feels is what is referred to when they have no proof of crime/corruption or something else, but they just "know" it's true, and insist that if you think hard enough, you will feels the same truth that they do. With the Feels, you can basically accomplish anything, as long as you think hard enough. You could make your mom guilty of a crime if you Feels it hard enough.

Also, for instance, if you can easily look up what Hillary's position policy is based on her previous voting history or her personal statements, they can Feels that away as well. Hillary is anti-TPP? NOPE. The Feels says it is not so. So she is now pro-TPP.

The Feels is the ultimate conservative power force.

[Merkava]

Burden of proof is on them is how. Cousin you can't prove isn't a terrorist? House you said was destroyed but have no evidence of? Dead family member you can't prove died? Work at the same business as someone who brings up a red flag? All of that can result in a rejection.

Now none of this is to say that someone couldn't theoretically get through both the UN screening and then our notoriously tight screening as well, but at that point we're talking about basically the hardest possible way to enter the US.

I'm talking about people whose past crimes are unknown to us. I'm not certain how the process works exactly, but when someone from, say, France, wants to apply for citizenship to the United States, I'm assuming at some point in the process someone in the US government calls someone in the French government and we say something to the effect of, "hey can you vouch for this guy?" And I'm going to assume that we're going to get an honest answer. In the case of Syria, who do we call?

I agree that we're probably a lot better than I would imagine at weeding out known threats. But my point is that I'm afraid that we only know who we know, if you'll excuse the tautology. I'm concerned that there's a huge possibility for people who want to do us harm, but have yet to show up on our radar, to slip through.

And I know we've had this discussion to death before. That's all I wanted to say. Nothing really new. You can have the last word. Thanks.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Except he wasn't and I don't know how any random could get that impression unless they're specifically looking for things to take the wrong way. I don't even like the guy and I didn't find what he said as calling for her assassination. Especially since his whole rally is about getting people to vote for him.

Yeah man, how could anyone possibly get the impression that he was calling for someone to shoot her when he said...

Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.

...

... Oh...

So uh, what could a "second amendment person" do to Hillary after she's elected and before she picks judges that would allow them to stop her from picking judges? Aim a gun at her until she's frightened into a coma?

[truckboattruck]

What edited speech are we talking about? What was edited?

first was bills interview where they edited out him saying she "frequently" had those episodes
next was the editing of hillary calling the bombings in new york and new jersey instead of "random unknown explosions" all the while attacking trump for calling it a bomb lol

and now this
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...16984319471617

why is this news to you guys?
its been covered by many news outlets all over

whether or not you admit it or not
the real propaganda is coming from the left, and she's not gonna win
the ship is sinking.

[Wells]

I'm talking about people whose past crimes are unknown to us. I'm not certain how the process works exactly, but when someone from, say, France, wants to apply for citizenship to the United States, I'm assuming at some point in the process someone in the US government calls someone in the French government and we say something to the effect of, "hey can you vouch for this guy?" And I'm going to assume that we're going to get an honest answer. In the case of Syria, who do we call?

I agree that we're probably a lot better than I would imagine at weeding out known threats. But my point is that I'm afraid that we only know who we know, if you'll excuse the tautology. I'm concerned that there's a huge possibility for people who want to do us harm, but have yet to show up on our radar, to slip through.

And I know we've had this discussion to death before. That's all I wanted to say. Nothing really new. You can have the last word. Thanks.

IDK, we have a functionally perfect record with regard to refugee screening. Seems like the system of cross examination, intelligence checks, record requirements, and personal examinations is up to the task. Sure someone might have stolen a car at some point in Syria and then gotten in but I'm not particularly concerned by that. And its not like Syria was a total backwater prior to the war. While Syrians might not have their hands on records I'd be surprised if our intelligence agencies didn't.

At the end of the day we're talking about a lengthy and incredibly involved process that can take 3+ years. Its basically the hardest possible way to get into the US. If we're really worried about this stuff we should be ramping up screening for tourist visas, studen visas, under screened shipping vessels and the 38 nations categorized as visa waivered for entering the US.

[Edge-]

first was bills interview where they edited out him saying she "frequently" had those episodes

Not uncommon at all during interviews to edit out speaking mistakes on behalf of the one being interviewed. Especially if it's an ex president.

next was then editing out hillary calling the bombings in new york and new jersey instead of "random unknown explosions" all the while attacking trump for calling it a bomb lol

Sauce?

and now this
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...16984319471617

So...they wrote what he was really talking about. I'm not seeing the issue here.

why is this news to you guys?
its been covered by many news outlets all over

I try to stay away from the internets best news source, /r/The_Donald, unfortunately. So I miss a lot of the conspiracy theories.

whether or not you admit it or not
the real propaganda is coming from the left, and she's not gonna win

K.

the ship is sinking.

Good thing I always have water wings and a noodle around. I should be good in case it sinks, but everyone else is on their own!

[Merkava]

IDK, we have a functionally perfect record with regard to refugee screening. Seems like the system of cross examination, intelligence checks, record requirements, and personal examinations is up to the task. Sure someone might have stolen a car at some point in Syria and then gotten in but I'm not particularly concerned by that. And its not like Syria was a total backwater prior to the war. While Syrians might not have their hands on records I'd be surprised if our intelligence agencies didn't.

At the end of the day we're talking about a lengthy and incredibly involved process that can take 3+ years. Its basically the hardest possible way to get into the US. If we're really worried about this stuff we should be ramping up screening for tourist visas, studen visas, under screened shipping vessels and the 38 nations categorized as visa waivered for entering the US.

Maybe it can take 3+ for some, I've read it's 18 months to 2 years on average. And it has a functionally perfect record only up until it's doesn't. I think you're giving hostage to fortune with a statement like that. You could have said the same thing about our visa program's record in regards to terrorists on Sept 10, 2001. What I'm saying is that program should be evaluated on it's own merits, not merely on the results.

But I don't disagree with your other points.

- - - Updated - - -

Not uncommon at all during interviews to edit out speaking mistakes on behalf of the one being interviewed. Especially if it's an ex president.

That's sort of a journalistic standard? I never heard of that.

[Wells]

Maybe it can take 3+ for some, I've read it's 18 months to 2 years on average.

Syrians are on the extra scrutiny track. Their experience won't be the same as someone from Generic Shithole A.

[Merkava]

Syrians are on the extra scrutiny track. Their experience won't be the same as someone from Generic Shithole A.

That's fair, and probably true. The source I had was this

The U.S. resettled 1,682 Syrians in fiscal year 2015 and only 105 in 2014. So far this fiscal year, Michigan, California and Illinois have been the top three recipients of Syrian refugees.

Due to security checks, it takes about two years for a refugee to be admitted to the U.S. Typically, the vetting includes several interviews of family members, together and apart, background checks, fingerprinting and iris scans, among other things.

The increase in arrivals “does not represent a curtailment, in any way, of our comprehensive and robust security screening,” said the State Department spokesman. “Syrian refugees are subject to even more scrutiny” than other refugees, he added.

It was from a WSJ article, and it didn't specify Syrian refugees. It could have been referring to an average of refugees worldwide.

[truckboattruck]

Not uncommon at all during interviews to edit out speaking mistakes on behalf of the one being interviewed. Especially if it's an ex president.



Sauce?



So...they wrote what he was really talking about. I'm not seeing the issue here.



I try to stay away from the internets best news source, /r/The_Donald, unfortunately. So I miss a lot of the conspiracy theories.



K.



Good thing I always have water wings and a noodle around. I should be good in case it sinks, but everyone else is on their own!

you do know that you cant ADD or REMOVE shit from something someone says and call it honest reporting right?
thats not journalism, its activism

but you will accept any level of dishonesty if it supports leftist narrative
the left needs corruption and misinformation...or else it has no platform
so feel free to stay on the ship

[Deleted]

you do know that you cant ADD or REMOVE shit from something someone says and call it honest reporting right?
thats not journalism, its activism

but you will accept any level of dishonesty if it supports leftist narrative
the left needs corruption and misinformation...or else it has no platform
so feel free to stay on the ship

these are the Bernie people they belive anything like free colege from Clinton ,all Bernie wanted is to be a millionaire and a billionaire

[Venant]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...precedented-s/

Pretty big get for Hillary, she was just endorsed by George H.W. Bush