Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Alydael]

What is dishonest/fraudulent in accepting donations from those interested in you winning the election?

It is not dishonest to accept money. If you claim you are a champion of women and LGBT rights then accept money from countries that subjugate women and persecute LGBT, then you are dishonest. That is what Hillary does. She does that while at the same time criticizing trump for even saying a nice thing about Putin. So Trump can't even say a nice thing about Putin while she will take money from all sorts of slanderous and underhanded parties (that have agendas that run directly counter to what she claims to stand for). That, my friend, is as dishonest as it gets. But, go ahead, support her all you want...

[LaserSharkDFB]

Lol its funny because God doesnt call for Christians to kill. He calls for Jews to because he doesnt want them to be corrupted as they are his chosen people, so killing those that try to convert Israel into other religions was or is still allowed. God does not give Christians the same commands.

This... this is not a conversation you're going to win, pal. Unless you want to say Christians are allowed to ignore the things they don't like but other religions aren't?

[Endus]

You said literally no religion, now you're backpedaling to "most Muslims". Which one is it? Is something no longer a religion (because you are the judge lulz) when it has few or minority proponents? This is just dumb. Sorry I can't give you a better word.

Unless literally all followers of that religion agree that it's what their religion calls for, that religion does not do so. By targing "Muslims", or "Islam", and ignoring that it's a subset of that group that expresses the beliefs you take issue with, you're being definitively prejudiced.

What you're confusing is that some individual religious people call for violence. That doesn't mean the entire religion and every single member does. And you're claiming the latter, if you claim it's an issue with the faith itself.

It's no different than if I took the words of a KKK member and, using that as my basis, declared that all Christians were racist against black people. Which would obviously be wrong and prejudiced of me to do. Which is why I don't make ridiculous claims like that.

[Alydael]

That money from those sources was accepted? Sure. That doesn't mean what you're slanderously accusing, though.



Sorry, I misspoke. Three Founding Fathers; Hamilton wrote most of them, but Madison and John Jay also contributed.

Still a far cry from the founding fathers as a whole. The Federalist Papers are ONE faction's desires, not the intent of the Founders.



Those people are flat-out wrong. There's a reason slavery continued for nearly another century, long after many other nations in the world had banned the practice, and it's not because the Founding Fathers secretly wanted to abolish it.

It took a straight-up Constitutional Amendment to actually abolish slavery, because nothing in the Constitution comes close to banning it, and there are sections that straight-up favor the practice.

As for accepting money. It is on the record (since meetings and donations are a matter of record) that as Sec of State she gave prime time meetings to those that gave money to her foundation. Her time, as Sec of State (which is our time, since she is working for the government) was directly for sale, as long as you donated to her foundation. That is corrupt and dishonest. This has been confirmed by people that worked in her foundation and the records of the meetings (and the "donations").

I wonder what my boss would say if he walked in while i was supposed to be "working" but instead was meeting with some guy that gave me money. Sounds eerily familiar to how Billy boy was getting his rocks off in the oval office while he was supposed to be working....... Guess the clinton's have a totally different defintion than the rest of us do when it comes to being "on the job" or "at work."

I will never defend slavery (I detest it) but, it is believed by many scholars that some of the wording in the Constitution purposefully sets the stage to abolish slavery in the future (it just wasn't a battle that could be fought at the time, since they needed unity- we would not have won the revolutionary war without the south. In fact, we only won it because of the south- we basically lost in the North and were on the run). Scholars debate this though. Who is right? We will never know- since none of us was alive at the time. All we have is speculation. Wording like "all men are created equal" set the stage for a battle they knew would be fought in the future. There are other phrases as well, it is an argument that has been debated for a long time so there is quite a history to it.

As for what we were talking about before- you seem to have no problem with hillary accepting money from countries and organizations whose agendas and beliefs run directly 180 degrees counter to her own positions. yet, she has blasted trump for even saying a nice thing about Putin. So, trump can not even say a nice thing about Putin (just words) - but Hillary can take money from all sorts of insidious countries and organizations that persecute women and LGBT community. You don't find that somehow totally dishonest? Also notice how Obama is about to veto that bill that will hold the Saudis accountable for their role in 9/11 (Hillary and Bill have both taken saudi money). yet Obama and hillary were all over El Bush for his connection to the Saudis...... hmmm, curious and curiouser.... Nothing fishy there at all. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Kraenen]

Unless literally all followers of that religion agree that it's what their religion calls for, that religion does not do so. By targing "Muslims", or "Islam", and ignoring that it's a subset of that group that expresses the beliefs you take issue with, you're being definitively prejudiced.

What you're confusing is that some individual religious people call for violence. That doesn't mean the entire religion and every single member does. And you're claiming the latter, if you claim it's an issue with the faith itself.

I'm going to make this really simple: even if it is a minority, why do you think they are not religious? Are you really just basing this on your own definition of Islam, thinking it trumps that of true believers', even if other muslims don't agree (you basically say since ISIS isn't majority, then they aren't Muslims, which is again, stupid)? Why do you need to talk about most muslims or islam when we're talking about a religious sub-sect of Islam? Seems like you're the one connecting the extremists to 'most muslims' in this case, in order to argue against a perceived prejudice you need in order to "win" the argument.

I mean again, so what if ISIS isn't "most muslims"? They are religious, that is the main point from this whole discussion.

[Orbitus]

I'm going to make this really simple: even if it is a minority, why do you think they are no longer religious? Are you really just basing this on your own definition of Islam, thinking it trumps that of true believers', even if other muslims don't agree? Why do you need to talk about most muslims or islam when we're talking about a religious sub-sect of Islam? Seems like you're the one connecting the extremists to 'most muslims' in this case.

I mean again, so what if ISIS isn't "most muslims"? They are religious, that is the main point from this whole discussion.

So by your metric, we should ban ALL of Christianity, simply because there are these cults in the US that have had their own brushes with killing people and whatnot? Because you are saying that ALL of Islam is bad, based on a tiny minority of it. You are saying the same BULLSHIT xenophobic shit that Trump has and he will never get accomplished. Not because he can't get it passed, but because it is unconstitutional and he will never be president.

[Kraenen]

So by your metric, we should ban ALL of Christianity, simply because there are these cults in the US that have had their own brushes with killing people and whatnot? Because you are saying that ALL of Islam is bad, based on a tiny minority of it. You are saying the same BULLSHIT xenophobic shit that Trump has and he will never get accomplished. Not because he can't get it passed, but because it is unconstitutional and he will never be president.

Um... wow. I'm sorry to post without much content but... apparently you can't even read.

[Orbitus]

Um... wow. I'm sorry to post without much content but... apparently you can't even read.

I can read just fine. You are saying exactly what Trump is saying. Basing an entire religion based on less than 1% of 1%.

Endus was saying that MOST of the religion doesn't condone what the extremists like ISIS are doing, but everyone bases their feelings about the religion because of the extremists. That is xenophobia and needs to be removed. Everyone that are thinking like Trump by denying them based on that feeling, are what is wrong with this country.

[Endus]

I'm going to make this really simple: even if it is a minority, why do you think they are not religious?

I don't.

I'm just aware that many other Muslims don't share that same belief. So the beliefs of that minority are not the beliefs of all of Islam. So prejudicially attacking every member of that faith is irrational and wrongheaded.

[xskarma]

This thread is not about religion. Get on topic please.

[Kraenen]

[/B]
I don't.

I'm just aware that many other Muslims don't share that same belief. So the beliefs of that minority are not the beliefs of all of Islam. So prejudicially attacking every member of that faith is irrational and wrongheaded.

Sooooo they are religious, and their religious views imply a religion that they (not all muslims! gasp!) follow.

You first said "literally no religions". Are you saying you were wrong? Or are you going to bury your head in the sand and declare Islam this one monolith of a religion?

Not sure why you keep thinking I'm attacking every muslim, or why you bring that up, when we're talking minority religions in islam.

edit: Fine. Endus "wins" again, lol. Just silly how he drags a thread off-topic with outlandish claims ("there are literally no religions that call for death") and then when he's proven wrong, "that's a wrap folks, thread's off-topic!".

[Crissi]

This thread is not about religion. Get on topic please.

quoting the warning so its not lost at the bottom of the page.

[Spectral]

Stripping out some religious references to focus on an odd sentence:

Unless literally all followers of that [philosophy] agree that it's what their [philosophy] calls for, that [philosophy] does not do so.

Do you actually believe this? It's pretty ridiculous and basically prevents discussing any philosophy at all, since adherents of philosophies, world-views, political positions, and religions obviously don't all agree on any point.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Stripping out some religious references to focus on an odd sentence:

Do you actually believe this? It's pretty ridiculous and basically prevents discussing any philosophy at all, since adherents of philosophies, world-views, political positions, and religions obviously don't all agree on any point.

This is something that can't really be responded to without involving the forbidden subject - religions really aren't the same as philosophies - so please don't do this.

[LilSaihah]

This is something that can't really be responded to without involving the forbidden subject - religions really aren't the same as philosophies - so please don't do this.

What would you prefer? Not All Feminists? There is no fundamental difference between the arguments.

[Spectral]

This is something that can't really be responded to without involving the forbidden subject - religions really aren't the same as philosophies - so please don't do this.

The structure of the argument remains the same and essentially prevents critiques of any philosophical system. I have no interest in discussing this in the context of religions - apply it to politics or moral philosophy instead. A claim that "unless literally all Republicans/Democrats/Consequentialists/Deontologists believe X, Republicans/Democrats/Consequentialists/Deontologists don't believe X" is obviously ridiculous on its face.

That aside, I don't know who you are and I give zero shits about your admonishments.

[Endus]

Stripping out some religious references to focus on an odd sentence:

Do you actually believe this? It's pretty ridiculous and basically prevents discussing any philosophy at all, since adherents of philosophies, world-views, political positions, and religions obviously don't all agree on any point.

It's pretty blatantly true. The alternative to that is literally the definition or prejudice.

It doesn't "prevent discussing" anything, it just requires that you discuss those who actually believe in whatever thing you take issue with, rather than prejudicially presuming that every member who shares a different belief somehow shares that particular belief.

Some people who believe in democracy are also KKK members, or bomb abortion clinics. Does that mean "democracy" and all those who believe in it believe in that stuff? Of course not. It means those particular people do. So blaming "democracy" would be both prejudicial and wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

The structure of the argument remains the same and essentially prevents critiques of any philosophical system. I have no interest in discussing this in the context of religions - apply it to politics or moral philosophy instead. A claim that "unless literally all Republicans/Democrats/Consequentialists/Deontologists believe X, Republicans/Democrats/Consequentialists/Deontologists don't believe X" is obviously ridiculous on its face.

That's not what I said.

I said "not all X believe Y, therefore blaming all forms of X for Y is false."

As above, not all politically democratic (as opposed to big-D Democratic) people believe in bombing abortion clinics. But SOME do. So take issue with those who do, rather than blaming "democracy".

[Spectral]

It's pretty blatantly true. The alternative to that is literally the definition or prejudice.

It doesn't "prevent discussing" anything, it just requires that you discuss those who actually believe in whatever thing you take issue with, rather than prejudicially presuming that every member who shares a different belief somehow shares that particular belief.

Some people who believe in democracy are also KKK members, or bomb abortion clinics. Does that mean "democracy" and all those who believe in it believe in that stuff? Of course not. It means those particular people do. So blaming "democracy" would be both prejudicial and wrong.

Let's try an example that you're less personally invested in.

If I say that Democrats tend to favor higher taxes on the wealthy and someone finds a Democrat that does not favor that, must I immediately rescind the comment?

- - - Updated - - -

I said "not all X believe Y, therefore blaming all forms of X for Y is false."

As above, not all politically democratic (as opposed to big-D Democratic) people believe in bombing abortion clinics. But SOME do. So take issue with those who do, rather than blaming "democracy".

You said:

Unless literally all followers of that [philosophy] agree that it's what their [philosophy] calls for, that [philosophy] does not do so.

Don't lie now!

I realize it'll be hard to pass on a good opportunity to call someone a bigot or something though.

[Endus]

Let's try an example that you're less personally invested in.

If I say that Democrats tend to favor higher taxes on the wealthy and someone finds a Democrat that does not favor that, must I immediately rescind the comment?

You must at least acknowledge that the Democratic platform does not mandate higher taxes on the wealthy, and that this is just a view of some members of the Party.

Rather than saying Democratic beliefs make people want to increase taxes on the wealthy. That's the form of argument that cropped up earlier.

You said:

Don't lie now!

Yes, what I just said paraphrases the prior statement in slightly more clear language. It's the same thing.

"Not literally all followers of X" is "not all X". "Agree that it's what their philosophy calls for" is "believe Y". Therefore, "that philosophy does not do so", is "blaming all forms of X for Y is false".

It's the same argument.

If you want another example, take a sports riot, because Team A lost, and some of its fans start rioting. The "philosophy" is "fans of Team A". Does this mean being a fan of Team A makes you riot? No. That's ridiculous. And yet, that's the argument you folks keep trying to make. Being a fan of Team A isn't the issue. Rioting is the issue. So take issues with rioters, not fans of Team A.

[May90]

It is not dishonest to accept money. If you claim you are a champion of women and LGBT rights then accept money from countries that subjugate women and persecute LGBT, then you are dishonest. That is what Hillary does. She does that while at the same time criticizing trump for even saying a nice thing about Putin. So Trump can't even say a nice thing about Putin while she will take money from all sorts of slanderous and underhanded parties (that have agendas that run directly counter to what she claims to stand for). That, my friend, is as dishonest as it gets. But, go ahead, support her all you want...

This is wrong, sorry. You can champion women and LGBT rights, and at the same time have some common goals with some people from a country in which women and LGBT people are oppressed. I don't "support" her, I don't support any candidate on these elections - it doesn't make these pathetic attacks any less funny though. Both this and Trump megathread are pretty much handbooks on ignoring logic and believing in lizardfolk.