Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Breccia]

Nope, just the sheer volume, lack of honest framing, and hostility.

Lack of honest framing? You can back that up, right?

I'll 100% grant you volume and hostility. The first inspired the second. I can't think of the sheer amount of provable lack of knowledge, or provable factually false statements, made by any candidate in either party since I gained the right to vote.

I'm not super busy but I can't sit here all day reading and fact checking people who don't at the very least appear to be genuine.

Well that sounds like an assumption that I'm posting false things, that you don't care to back up with proof but instead feelings and lack of energy. Trump supporter, you say?

Trumps monetary loss at the beginning of a recession is unimportant, and without framing inside his wealth at the time the number is essentially meaningless.

It'd be nice if we saw his tax returns, huh?

Bear in mind, by the best estimate, he's worth $3.7 billion now. So he lost 25% of that in one year. Far more realistically, he didn't have $3.7 billion in 1995. He probably had less, and therefore, lost a higher percent.

"Veterans are weak" wasn't something he said, and the phrase mischaracterizes his speech regarding the need for better mental health services for veterans.

He mangled his statement to the point it was easy to misinterpret. He deserves to get credit for mangling his statement, but that's all.

I don't know anything about the bogus rape case honestly,

The bogus rape case has only one useful feature: it is good to have around to demonstrate that accusations are not guilt, and are not fact. If anyone says "Clinton was accused of XXX" the immediate response, currently legally valid, is "Trump is accused of raping a child".

Trumps statement on the war was "Sure, I guess so" at about 3:44 https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeedandre...n-sept-11-2002.

Trump said he opposed the war. "Sure" is the opposite of proof for such. Just because he's not enthusiastic doesn't magically change "sure" to "no". There are a lot of non-enthusiastic people about to vote for Clinton, but it still counts as a vote for Clinton.

As a fun aside, in another prewar Iraq interview Trump recommends waiting for the UN.

Fun aside, "perhaps" isn't a recommendation to wait. It is a lack of decision at all. As such, it is not opposition to the war despite his claims. Sorry, but one "sure" and one "maybe" is a net affirmative, but more importantly, flat-out rejects Trump's claim he was against it. Because there's no evidence he opposed it, and as your paired statements show, he had the opportunity to do so publicly. He did not. If he's going to claim something, he needs better proof than "I told Hannity behind closed doors". Otherwise he should have long ago said what basically everyone else said, "I was lied to by Bush". Trump didn't like Bush much. He doesn't now, either. This would have been completely viable. It would have cost him "Clinton voted for the war" but look at his results now. He's lost that point anyhow. All he has is proof he lied about it.

There is no way you can take his statements on the record as proof he was against the war. You have a "sure" and a "perhaps we should wait". He's the one that brought it up and damaged his own credibility with it. He cannot defend himself on it, and he's given you nothing to defend him with. You have nothing. Give this point up, it's lost, and since he was never elected into any office, his point of view on it was pretty damned unimportant anyhow.

I imagine a number of his fans wouldn't like to hear this. Though it's comforting to me of course.

Maybe? I honestly think he could have gotten a relevant number of moderates if he'd just been more honest from the get-go. People's opinions change. You don't say "I was always against/for XXX" when your statements on the record contradict that. You explain your change of heart -- exceptionally easy with the Iraq War, where he's hardly alone on his change of opinion -- and move on, learning from past experience and won't make the same mistake twice.

But Trump doesn't admit he makes mistakes very often, and he doesn't like to admit he lost. So now, you have someone who tried "I never said that" five times in the first debate, and once after the debate, about something he said during the debate. Would you like to know how many times he lied when he said "I never said that"? Or would you call this dishonest phrasing, that you don't have the energy to check?

- - - Updated - - -

Why doesn't the corporate media bring up issues like this when discussing Clinton?

Why doesn't the Trump campaign bring stuff up like this? This would be a much better attacking point than Bill's infidelity.

Honestly, it's not a great issue to raise at a debate. This wasn't a huge news item even when it happened in the US, and Clinton has a defense on the topic. Especially in a town hall debate, I doubt you'll see it raised. Which means Trump would have to spend advertising money to make this into an issue, but since he's cutting his advertising spending I don't see that happening.

[DeadmanWalking]

What is this burner account shit? DeadManWalking makes some baseless accusation, with absolutely no proof to back up his accusation, and you people then repeat it and treat it as truth? Like I said, opinions are like assholes....

It is so sad that you pretend like this, we know who you really are. Only one person responds to others as "ranting" when they are confronted with some opinion they cAnt handle. We're not as stupid as you like to imagine.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, this is awesome. Just like when Louisiana was flooding and BHO couldn't be bothered to postpone his golf game, he has decided to go do some fundraising in the Democratic run city (run by his best buddy Rahmbo Emanuel) with the most murders (largely black-on-black) while the most dangerous hurricane in 10 years bears down on the SE coast. So nice that the US taxpayers get to fund his partisan jaunt to Chicago. Meanwhile, the candidate he backs is "resting comfortably" and is nowhere to be found.

Obama lands in Chicago today, home for the entire weekend

You are so wrapped up in your political bias that you don't seem to understand the lesson learned in the last storm, that presidents and politicians should not visit disaster zones as the disaster is happening or ending as they pull resources for their safety away from first responders who need to be out there saving people. Obama has done all he can do in declaring national disasters to open up funds for helping people in devastated areas. You are at the point of no return where no matter what Obama does it is the worst thing ever but if Trump did the same thing he would be awesome. You have completely lost any sense of objectivity in your head.

[hrugner]

Lack of honest framing? You can back that up, right?

Certainly, but you provide the evidence well enough in your posts I needn't bother to point you back to your own drippings.
-The lack of Trump's worth in the year we know he didn't pay taxes does not automatically make his worth low enough for that value to be an obscene or unmanageable loss. It simply isn't enough information. Blaming Trump for the inability of others to read through a whole thought is also rather small.
-sure is non-committal, and he follows that up with criticisms. His comments elsewhere at the time also show he didn't support the war. For most people "yeah sure" would be pretty neutral, but it's a glaring lack of hyperbole for Trump.
-I don't support Trump, I actually think he's a pretty bad choice over all. I think the media is focusing on non-issues that drive distrust in more serious complaints against Trump such as his use of planned bankruptcy and his common struggles to reverse the national sovereignty of nations he's developing in. By news outlets pushing easily fact checked misinterpretations, they water down criticism and drive people away from their sites.

I get that you really really want to buy into the over the top description that he's this subhuman shambling turd, but he's really just sort of a shitty self interested rich guy who plays the system, shirks laws, and has no respect for anyone other than other elites. Those complaints would make it hard to differentiate him from his opponent though.

As to him being dishonest, I think the problem is slightly different than that. I'm pretty sure he doesn't intend to lie as much as he can't seem to recall the truth, his often derailed off the cuff speaking and repeated phrases also support the theory that there's something really wrong with him.

[Breccia]

Certainly, but you provide the evidence well enough in your posts I needn't bother to point you back to your own drippings.

That sounds like a "no" to me.

The lack of Trump's worth in the year we know he didn't pay taxes does not automatically make his worth low enough for that value to be an obscene or unmanageable loss. It simply isn't enough information.

First of all, yes there is.

Second of all, maybe if he released his tax returns there would be. These things are 20 years old. They can't possibly be under audit anymore. If he intentionally chooses to withhold the information, I see zero reason to give him any benefit of any kind of doubt.

Second of all, again, even if he was worth then what he's worth now -- HIGHLY unlikely -- that's a 25% loss. You need to come up with a plausible reason he was worth more in 1995 than he is today to lower that percent -- and then after that, defend him as a good businessman for making zero or less money in 21 years.

There is no good way to frame a $916 million dollar loss.

sure is non-committal

Sure is affirmative.

and he follows that up with criticisms.

Granted. Changes nothing about being affirmative. Remember, Trump is trying to say he was against the war. A conditional and/or hesitant "yes", is still a "yes". And it's not a "no".

His comments elsewhere at the time also show he didn't support the war.

So you can cite one? The USA invaded March 19, 2003. You need something before that, that somehow, Trump's team, FOX News, and Breitbart all missed. Oh, and Politifact of course. Good luck, but I'm not holding my breath.

For most people "yeah sure" would be pretty neutral, but it's a glaring lack of hyperbole for Trump.

That's still bullshit. Just because it wasn't emphatic doesn't make it any less a yes, regardless of who says it. Trump doesn't get to change the laws of the English language. It definitely doesn't make it the "no" he claims it was.

By news outlets pushing easily fact checked misinterpretations, they water down criticism and drive people away from their sites.

I'll grant you that fact-checking someone with "liar, liar, liar" can get boring, but...how does the direct refuting of someone water down the criticism? Is there any harsher criticism than "you're wrong, here's proof"?

I get that you really really want to buy into the over the top description that he's this subhuman shambling turd, but he's really just sort of a shitty self interested rich guy who plays the system, shirks laws, and has no respect for anyone other than other elites. Those complaints would make it hard to differentiate him from his opponent though.

I'm just going to grab that defense by the pussy.

As to him being dishonest, I think the problem is slightly different than that. I'm pretty sure he doesn't intend to lie as much as he can't seem to recall the truth, his often derailed off the cuff speaking and repeated phrases also support the theory that there's something really wrong with him.

...he can't recall the truth, and somehow, that's not a 100% vote killer for you? I know you said you don't like him, but isn't what you just said possibly the biggest possible reason to vote for literally anyone else?

[Ghostpanther]

You're actually asking for the President to walk into a hurricane? Do you think he can stop it?

Why isn't Trump in Flordia?

And keep in mind, Lousiana ASKED FOR TRUMP TO STAY AWAY. So much for state's rights, rite?

But then later the governor said he was glad ( appreciated ) Trump had come down.

[Rukh]

So Clinton's speeches were leaked today. Turns out she's for single-payer healthcare and green energy. The horror.

[KrazyK923]

So Clinton's speeches were leaked today. Turns out she's for single-payer healthcare and green energy. The horror.

LOCK HER UP
LOCK HER UP
LOCK HER UP

Don't worry somehow the conspiracy tards will find something to sperg about.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

So Clinton's speeches were leaked today. Turns out she's for single-payer healthcare and green energy. The horror.

Green is an ugly color and a lot of lizards are green. I think this confirms that Hillary is a subterranean reptilian overlord and I have to vote for the Donald. I can't let those subhuman reptiles take over my democracy and fail future generations of Americans.

So whose the Trump account guy, I want to bet my money on luftmangle but not sure haven't really being keep track of the shills.

[Felya]

LOCK HER UP
LOCK HER UP
LOCK HER UP

Don't worry somehow the conspiracy tards will find something to sperg about.

She said that only Wallstreet can fix Wallstreet, which is already being spun as her releasing any reigns from Wallstreet to do what ever they want.

- - - Updated - - -

So whose the Trump account guy, I want to bet my money on luftmangle but not sure haven't really being keep track of the shills.

Rh something, at least someone called him that in a threat somewhere.

[Jimmy Woods]

So Clinton's speeches were leaked today. Turns out she's for single-payer healthcare and green energy. The horror.

Read the wikileak emails that are supposedly the most scandalous ones and there's nothing there. There's a reason lots on the left supported Bernie Sanders, it was because of her stances on trade and fracking. So I don't see who's mind is being changed by these emails except people that were never paying attention to being with. You also know the email story is very weak when the MOST SHOCKING EMAIL IS FAKE and not released by wikileaks it is just made up by Trump supporters. The email has Clinton calling people a "bucket of losers" and predicting an "insurgent candidate would take over the Republican party". How fucking stupid do people have to be to believe that lie???!? OH wait Megyn Kelly reported on it as if it was fact. Well she's a dumb lying bitch so makes sense she'd report it was true.

[InventiveMeasures]

We'll see if this will show up in mainstream media but TYT Politics' Jordan Chariton covered Wikileak's release of Hillary's Wall Street speeches.



https://twitter.com/wikileaks

[mvaliz]

We'll see if this will show up in mainstream media but TYT Politics' Jordan Chariton covered Wikileak's release of Hillary's Wall Street Speeches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D04HQjiFqU

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

I'm not watching 30 minutes of speculation.

For Fuk's sake... Either straight-up tell us specifically what's so controversial that's revealed in the emails, or leave. Don't just pull a Donald Dump and throw links saying "MOAR EMAILS" and not follow up what is so damning about them.

Or, let me translate this for you: If you're too god damn lazy to tell us what's so "controversial" that's revealed in these emails, why the hell should the Mainstream media give a damn?

[Rukh]

She said that only Wallstreet can fix Wallstreet, which is already being spun as her releasing any reigns from Wallstreet to do what ever they want.

- - - Updated - - -

Rh something, at least someone called him that in a threat somewhere.

Actually she didn't say that at all. She said they know Wallstreet best and called on them to action.

"Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn’t want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that’s increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt’s square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.”

[InventiveMeasures]

I'm not watching 30 minutes of speculation.

For Fuk's sake... Either straight-up tell us specifically what's so controversial that's revealed in the emails, or leave. Don't just pull a Donald Dump and throw links saying "MOAR EMAILS" and not follow up what is so damning about them.

Or, let me translate this for you: If you're too god damn lazy to tell us what's so "controversial" that's revealed in these emails, why the hell should the Mainstream media give a damn?

Ignorance is amusing. You quoted the video and the twitter link yet you're going on a tirade about not receiving cliff notes because you can't sit through a half hour video. That's your problem. You were presented with information. The 2nd link exists for a reason.

[mvaliz]

Ignorance is amusing. You quoted the video and the twitter link yet you're going on a tirade about not receiving cliff notes because you can't sit through a half hour video. That's your problem. You were presented with information. The 2nd link exists for a reason.

I went to your bullshit twit link... it has a bunch of lengthy articles with a ton of hyperbole and NOTHING specific.

Just fuking tell us what's so god damn damning in there, you coward.

[Breccia]

I'm not watching 30 minutes of speculation.

CNN has a TLDR version. Also, the campaign has the ability to hide behind "the documents are fake" because, well, prove otherwise.

Unlike Trump's taxes, for which there is a very specific signed federal form.

[NED funded]

We'll see if this will show up in mainstream media but TYT Politics' Jordan Chariton covered Wikileak's release of Hillary's Wall Street speeches.



https://twitter.com/wikileaks

Is there something bad on those leaked speeches? I gave it a quick read and I found nothing wrong about it. Perhaps it being too liberal for conservatives, but aside from that it's pretty normal.

[Rukh]

Is there something bad on those leaked speeches? I gave it a quick read and I found nothing wrong about it. Perhaps it being too liberal for conservatives, but aside from that it's pretty normal.

It's mostly the same publicly available speeches that have been around for years.

From reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co...intons/d8ilm69

There you go. Surprise. It's a big fat nothingburger.

[mvaliz]

It's mostly the same publicly available speeches that have been around for years.

From reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co...intons/d8ilm69

There you go. Surprise. It's a big fat nothingburger.

I guess Ignorantmeasures is right - his own ignorance is very amusing. ^_^

[InventiveMeasures]

I guess Ignorantmeasures is right - his own ignorance is very amusing. ^_^

Aw that's adorable, did you come up with that all by yourself? You have time to throw cornball insults but not enough time to read information and come up with your own conclusions. Precious... bless your little heart.