FBI reviewing emails found on devices used by Weiner/Abedin
- Thread starter sazzy
- Start date
- Status
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Already saw this the last time you posted it in this thread.
We get it. You really like her. That's great. Not everyone feels the same. She makes a lot of mistakes and not all of her criticisms are the result of some GOP smear effort. Shit like hiring DWS to an honorary position will make me not vote for her and that's 100% on her. Not clarifying what was going on immediately when she fainted, refusing to release her Wall Street speeches (even though we later find out they are pretty mild), she has trouble seeming natural and not robotic, saying single payer was never ever going to happen, etc.
She has a lot of unforced errors. You might be too close to see this - but not 100% of the hate directed at Hillary is unwarranted.
I have never posted that e-mail before to my knowledge. Can you link me to the post? It's possible I forgot I did, but not very likely. So I guess you saw someone else and you can't even parse the person responsible?
I don't give a good fuck if you like her or not. I give a fuck about dripping, unironic LIES about her being the lesser of two evils or that we have two even remotely close to as equally bad candidates at the top of tickets. I am putting to rest the lie her unfavorables are due to her being a bad candidate - polling doesn't show that to be the case. I am fighting against anti-intellectual nonsense disguised as someone's "just asking questions" opinion.
Please, don't vote for her. But if you don't vote for her and you decide to sit around saying Hillary and Trump are both equally corrupt or that there is any hard evidence of much wrongdoing, you'll be called out on it.
I mean look at how you grasp for straws. Wow, she didn't want voters to know she had pneumonia. And FDR didn't want people to see him in a wheelchair. This is the garbage idealism you grasp onto in order to hide your views? You gonna have to try harder to convince people.
PROTIP: Every candidate you have ever voted for, liked, or admired in history has lied, and almost certainly worse than Hillary. But, in actual fact, Hillary is one of the most honest politicians ever to run for office in America.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Things are heating up.
Edit: removed twitter post linking to banned website.
Chaffetz tweeted a story about Chaffetz asking an FBI official to recuse kind of validates the fact that Chaffetz asked an FBI official to recuse.
Edit: removed twitter post linking to banned website.
Chaffetz tweeted a story about Chaffetz asking an FBI official to recuse kind of validates the fact that Chaffetz asked an FBI official to recuse.
Dude Abides
Banned
I'd say that's mostly on you for caring about something so silly.
Team Alucard
Banned
Clinton's lead down to +1.7 on RCP.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
...you're posting a tweet from Jason Chaffetz linking to a Daily Mail article.
Seriously, try harder.
1: Hah, RCP.
2: National polls are pretty much meaningless at this point. You have to look at the electoral map and the state-by-state results.
3. Good luck with that. "There are no American tanks in Baghdad", etc.
Back on the Trump wagon? You are trying too hard again.
Such an overblown story. McAuliffe, a Clinton friend, but also the governor of Virginia, gave a contribution to McCabe's wife (not to mention to various other Democratic candidates), who was running for the Virginia House in a year when it seemed possible for the Democrats to retake a majority. Do you not think that a Democratic governor might have some vested interest in having a concurrent Democratic house majority? Oh no, instead it has to be some conspiracy!
Why do you hate powerful women so much?
Don't post crap from sites that are banned on gaf due to making up news frequently, even if you are posting the article from a proxy like a twitter post.
Daily Mail is blacklisted here for a reason: having a large number of exclusive reports that end up being bogus
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
Wasn't aware that source was banned. Is there a list of banned sources somewhere? Or is this just tribal knowledge one is expected to have?
Also isn't Chaffetz tweeting a story about Chaffetz asking an FBI official to recuse kind of validating the fact that Chaffetz asked an FBI official to recuse?
dave is ok
aztek is ok
You are entitled to that opinion, just like I'm entitled to my vote
Post it in here and then preview your post:
You linked article becomes: http://www.*****************/news/a...d-email-probe-Congress-turn-heat-Clinton.html
Once you hit preview and see that it is banned, do us all a solid and hit the back button instead of the post button.
Haha absolutely, and you are also judged for your vote or arguments. Take responsibility for your actions and deal with what you are.
Chezzymann
Member
I agree with you as I think Hillary is a good candidate, but I think the problem is that the status of if a candidate is good or bad is determined by the people that they're governing. So even if you think the people who view her as unfavorable are wrong, that doesn't mean she isn't an unfavorable candidate. To me, opinion is reality in these situations as if it isn't you have to say that one person's opinion is worth more than the other.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Ok, let's look at your hard facts:
1. Hillary does not even rank in the top 30 of most corrupt Presidential Candidates.
2. She expresses genuine empathy and concern about the plight of constituents.
3. She has wonderfully genuine friendships with her confidants.
4. Her speeches in Wall Street in some ways made her MORE liberal.
5. Even a mentally challenged individual could figure out would be in debates.
6. She is the single most unfairly scrutinized and attacked candidate in modern American history.
7.She is amazingly kind and competent.
Note: All of these facts may actually be opinions.
What am I? A monster? Because Hillary hasn't earned my trust or my vote?
No we can actually show an evidenciary trail for all those except maybe two. And i have, with plenty of direct links.
Unless you think someone who never thought her emails would be public was somehow faking the hundreds of emails we have of her desperately trying to help her constituents, just to use one example from your list.
We have plenty of examples of aspects of her Wall Street speeches being more liberal, like her open borders dream. More facts.
Listen, dave, it may be time to accept you are miserable at this.
Unless you think someone who never thought her emails would be public was somehow faking the hundreds of emails we have of her desperately trying to help her constituents, just to use one example from your list.
We have plenty of examples of aspects of her Wall Street speeches being more liberal, like her open borders dream. More facts.
Listen, dave, it may be time to accept you are miserable at this.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
Eh...I think there's more to it than that.
Do we mean "bad candidate" as in "has large unfavorables that interfere with their ability to get elected" or do we mean "bad candidate" as in "lacks the qualifications and knowledge to do the job"? Because people use "bad candidate" to mean both of those things.
I think it's fair to say that Clinton is not a great campaigner and has significant unfavorables, so in that respect, sure, she's a bad candidate. I think trying to argue that she's a bad candidate by the other metric is...a stretch.
And people are entitled to their own opinions, but they aren't entitled to their own facts. The problem in these discussions is that people often mistake the latter for the former.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Yeah, maybe the part about her laughing at the idea of taxpayer funded college or healthcare makes her more liberal too if you twist your mind around hard enough.
Maybe it's time for you to read this
That link would make sense if someone wanted to change their mind. You obviously don't and consistently post to that effect.
Chezzymann
Member
To me opinions and facts aren't much different when it comes to politics. The only conclusion you can make about what the facts are is what the American people think. People on both sides think their opinion of a candidate is supported by facts and come to dramatically different conclusions. Yes I know I said "both sides".
excelsiorlef
Member
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Well thats just happens to be the URL I picked. My point is that Amirox is too emotional to have to a discussion with. (which has consistently been the case here for the last decade or so)
Dude Abides
Banned
Vote for whoever you want. Since you seem to care a lot about personality and drama, Kim Kardashian might be a good write-in candidate.
ShironRedshift
Member
Not for a bit actually. That was true around the time of the primaries but Hillary's favorables have been climbing up ever since to be about a wash at this point, whereas Trump's remain abysmal. And considering that Hillary's numbers are fine while she is in office and only tend to dip when she's running for office, I suspect that we'll continue to see a similar trend.
No, your point is that you want to be able to post as much as you want about how you won't vote for Hillary but don't want people to argue with you about it.
You can post whatever you want and that's your prerogative but you should expect arguments.
Agreed. I have issues with Clinton, but they are the same issues I have basically had with every American President. Trump has the same issues plus about a 100 more, and half of those are unprecedented.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Why should I expect arguments? My vote is my vote, I get to do what I want with it. I would never argue with other people about theirs.
I was about to go with Hillary when the Donna Brazile emails leaked and I remembered that her presidency will still be plagued with cronyism issues that have seemed to follow the Clintons around for decades. I wanted a true liberal or at least someone with the charisma of an Obama if I couldn't get that this cycle. I got nothing close.
Amirox might be emotional, and I'd agree that he's too heated sometimes, but he brings up facts. All you're doing is repeatedly saying "lol you're biased" while not bringing up facts. It's not a discussion if you just continuously deflect with "But she's corrupt" and "Stop pestering me about my vote.
RustyNails
Member
On the contrary, You just want to stay inside your comfort bubble and not have any of your notions about evil corrupt shillary challenged.
Amirox may be emotional and has a right to be so. Cannot believe a self-proclaimed rapist, tax dodging 14 year old fucking bully is running to be the commander in chief. Doesn't that make you livid?
Your vote is your vote, you posting about your vote is voicing your opinion and opinions can be argued and will be, for any candidate.
If you can't handle that, don't post in threads about the election and just go vote when it's time. Else anything and everything that can be, will be put to argument.
Yup. Dave consistently misrepresents facts because he has no firm grasp of them. Like for example, I said the Wall Street speeches made her more liberal in some ways and he discusses health care as this demonstrating it wrong. Well no, some means some, not all. And secondly, he is not even accurate about that:
Hillary Clinton said:
Sure sounds like she is laughing at the idea of taxpayer funded health care!
Like most Hillary haters, bring rational and correctly interpreting facts or even the simple mechanics of governance is labyrinthine to their brains.
???
How can you say you want a true liberal but then go out and vote for someone so far to the right they're teetering towards fascism. Mind boggling.
You speak as if you're personally owed that. Then spend the rest of your time whining about it.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
This is just more emotional bullshit. I'm not a Trump guy just like I'm not a Hillary guy so it allows me to see him be found guilty of every alleged offense (come on, you really think that 14 year old lawsuit is going to go anywhere? He never self proclaimed to be a rapist as far as I know) while Hillary gets the benefit of the doubt in any situation. It goes both ways. Just report things fairly or not at all. It actively hurts your side to make him out to be this larger than life super Satan.
He's just some shitty guy who would be a shitty president if he won but most likely won't.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
No. The idea that there's no difference between facts and opinions is incredibly dangerous. It's part of how we ended up where we are.
The fact that many people have little regard for facts does not mean that those facts don't exist. That many people come to different conclusions based on those facts does not somehow make those facts irrelevant, and the fact that "both sides" believe something does not mean "both sides" are correct.
I'm not angry and that ban was correctly reversed within 2 hours!
A link doesn't make a statement a fact. It's trivially easy to take things out of context or interpret them in ways other than intended.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Can this get the Alanis Morrisette Award of Irony this year?
Hillary gets the benefit of the doubt?
Being accused of killing your long time friend is a benefit of the doubt? Whitewater? The numerous investigations into the Foundation? Being attacked for Bill's infidelities? Being held to a different standard then other politicians when it comes to transparency? Being the target of the Benghazi investigation longer then the Watergate investigation?
These are all benefits?
If you think Amirox has taken something out of context, read his links and find out what it is.
Edit: Beaten.
Single payer isn't free, neither is taxpayer funded education.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
And yet, there are only two people with any chance of ending up as president, and your "principled stand" or however you like to think of it won't change that. Instead, you've basically decided to forego any say in how that contest turns out. I sincerely don't get it.
Granted, I don't HAVE to get it, but the whole "voting as means of self-expression" thing is just weird to me. It's a secret ballot and the likely outcomes are what they are. It's like some people have never heard of game theory.
I don't think anyone would accuse amirox of being a low effort poster
DeviantBoi
Member
If this were in a TV show like House of Cards, you just know that someone has Comey by the balls and forced him to make that statement.
- Status