Hillary Clinton, the next POTUS

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
Lying in order to build a vicious, paranoid rant about people you hate is exactly unacceptable.
Hillary Clinton, the next POTUS

From ABC News:
The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.

Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.

Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”

The chapter advised that to truly delete emails may require a special rewriting program “to make sure that it’s not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable.” But Shipley and Schwalbe warn that deleting emails could lead to future legal troubles.
Click to expand...
LOL

Didn't this chicks' Progressive Socialist Feminist's husband get busted for repeatedly jamming his cigar into his high school intern while he ate a pizza? Oh, but wait - free. She's going to give us free stuff. Free free free. A Murican's never saw something free that they didn't like stealing from someone else.

I think she'd make a PERFECT president of the USSA. PLEEEASE ... do the right thing Murika, vote Oligarchy.... errrr, Hillary. Seriously, I truly want Hillary to win - two or three terms is exactly what America deserves. Let's sink this bad boy. Free free free. 18T schmate-teen-T. Go for 50T. 100T. 1000T. Load this bad boy up.
 
[quote="michael] Didn't this chicks' Progressive Socialist Feminist's husband get busted for repeatedly jamming his cigar into his high school intern while he ate a pizza? [/quote] You are never going to bother finding out what "Socialist" means, are you. Or "Progressive"

Capitalist NAFTA Bill's intern was a 22 year old college graduate - at least, the one we know about. But hey - that's just, you know, details.
 
Michael:

What's the purpose of this thread? Your first post sounds like you're just blowing off some steam because you don't like the Clintons. It kind of makes you sound like a fanatic.

The whole Lewinski thing should never have made the news, let alone let to the fiasco that followed. Why Bill Clinton's sex life was supposed to be at all relevant to his capacity to govern the country is a mystery. This was all pre-9/11, when American life was more carefree, I guess.
 
So disliking a presidential candidate makes one a fanatic? But an entire thread devoted to bashing conservative presidential candidates is not? Now that's some fine liberal double-think there.

Perhaps even better double-think is left-wingers blaise attitude towards Bill Clinton's infidelity, and him having sex with a subordinate who was working for him at the time. OK, OK, you can try and claim that this was his personal life (although I doubt that excuse for pass muster for a manager who fornicated with his subordinate at work), but surely you don't condone the man's poor treatment of both his wife, and his co-worker? For people who are almost instantaneously condemn conservative politicians for even the whiff of misogyny (be it just an errant comment ), you're all strangely defensive of a man who betrayed his wife's trust and took advantage of his superior position to obtain sexual favours from a co-worker. Cheating on your wife = OK, but Calling a fat woman a pig = Blatant misogyny. Double-think unplus badgood much?

Then there's the dismissal/ignorance of the mysterious deletion of thousands of emails while she was Secretary of State. The left-wingers I know have always been quick to dox and demand personal details from others, but when their golden cow attempts to hide/remove personal correspondence, it's not a big deal.
 
tali89 said:
So disliking a presidential candidate makes one a fanatic? But an entire thread devoted to bashing conservative presidential candidates is not? Now that's some fine liberal double-think there.
Perhaps even better double-think is left-wingers blaise attitude towards Bill Clinton's infidelity, and him having sex with a subordinate who was working for him at the time. OK, OK, you can try and claim that this was his personal life (although I doubt that excuse for pass muster for a manager who fornicated with his subordinate at work), but surely you don't condone the man's poor treatment of both his wife, and his co-worker? For people who are almost instantaneously condemn conservative politicians for even the whiff of misogyny (be it just an errant comment ), you're all strangely defensive of a man who betrayed his wife's trust and took advantage of his superior position to obtain sexual favours from a co-worker. Cheating on your wife = OK, but Calling a fat woman a pig = Blatant misogyny. Double-think unplus badgood much?
Then there's the dismissal/ignorance of the mysterious deletion of thousands of emails while she was Secretary of State. The left-wingers I know have always been quick to dox and demand personal details from others, but when their golden cow attempts to hide/remove personal correspondence, it's not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Except, no one has said or even hinted, disliking a candidate makes one a fanatic. Two, Bill Clinton's infidelity isn't relevant. That infidelity occurred almost two decades ago. And guess what, Bill Clinton isn't running for POTUS. And no one on the left has dismissed Clinton's infidelity, but unfortunately for you Republicans it isn't a high crime or misdemeanor. You Republicans had your impeachment hearing and you lost, get over it. Monica never accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. Three, the poor abused Republican meme plays well in Republican echo chambers where rational thought, evidence and reason are not needed nor wanted, but unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans (i.e. so called conservatives), it doesn't play as well in the real world.

Republicans have spent tens of millions, imprisoned an innocent person for years because she wouldn’t lie and started infamous rumors and defamations against the Clintons and after more than two decades of investigations and tens of millions of public funds spent in addition to millions of private funds spent on fruitless investigations, Republicans have absolutely NOTHING to show for it, not one piece of incriminating evidence. I don't suppose you recall Republican allegations the Clintons committed murder without an iota of evidence. Fourth, there is nothing mysterious about deleted emails. Hillary Clinton provided copies of all relevant materials to the State Department before deletion. Additionally, she has voluntarily surrendered her email server to the DOJ. Further, her email server was at all times under Secret Service and State Department Security protection. And any relevant email from her private server entered the government realm when she sent the emails. So unfortunately for you and your fellow so called conservatives, this is just more wishful thinking and irrational red meat for the dittoheads.

So called liberals, (i.e. traditional liberals) are almost an extinct group in American politics. I don’t think you can honestly call the current crop of Democrats “liberal” in the traditional sense of the word. They are actually a pretty conservative group. The Clintons are actually fairly conservative in their ideology if traditional values and norms are applied. They aren’t the Democrats of the 80’s or 70’s. Today Democrats are a pretty moderate group where facts and reason do matter. Yeah, you do have a few like Iceaura who are pretty out there on the liberal end of the political spectrum. But as a whole, Democrats really are a pretty moderate group. We really have two parties in America today, the moderate party (i.e. Democrats) and the radical right (i.e. Republicans).
 
tali89:

tali89 said:
So disliking a presidential candidate makes one a fanatic?
Click to expand...
No. But a fanatic may dislike a presidential candidate.

As you will recall, though, I only mentioned that a certain post made a certain poster sound like a fanatic. Here are some pointers:

Posting a stream-of-consciousness rant makes one sound like a fanatic.
Posting as your only comment on a news story the acronym "LOL", followed by a rant about extraneous matters, makes one sound like a fanatic.
Referring to a former senator and Secretary of State of the USA as "this chick" makes one sound like a fanatic.
Referring to the United States as "Murika" in the course of a stream-of-consciousness rant makes one sound like a fanatic.
Referring to all Americans as thieves makes one sound like a fanatic.
Posting in ALL CAPS makes one sound like a fanatic.
Posting a political rant in a way that makes it sound like you're in a drug-fueled rage makes one sound like a fanatic.

We could discuss your issues with "left-wingers" in a separate thread, but knowing you that is unlikely to be very productive.

---
P.S. In case you're wondering, I did not close this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top