Hillary Clinton

[DrmDoc]

Who is the arbiter of what is true or false? I've shown that sworn testimony in a congressional hearing can be false. Sorry, the fact that it is a congressional hearing does not mean the information is factual or unbiased. I am not conflating anything here. I linked the Abby Martin video because it contains multiple issues that have been shown to be factual, regardless of the format it is presented in. Whether Abby Martin was incorrect years ago or not has no bearing on this actual information. Whether it was presented in a hearing, on a blog, or in an empire files report doesn't change whether it's accurate. That is too simplistic a metric. The only inference that can be made by the source is the probability of inaccuracy based on historical accuracy. I already told you the information is hard to get to, and I'm simply not interested in taking a long time to search it out again to show you that you are incorrect. I think you are falling prey to motivated reasoning, and are invested in maintaining your false view of Clinton. You were wrong about the definition of evidence, and you were wrong about congressional hearing sworn testimony. Your haughty responses remind me of the dunning Krueger effect. You appear to not know what you don't know and appear overconfident you are correct.

 

And I have agreed that such testimony can be false; however, as I have also stated, opinion, even in sworn testimony, isn't factual evidence. You presented an opinion piece as evidence of facts in support of your claim, which it was not. We could continue to circle the issue of congressional hearings but I think my position is clear to any reasonable and objective observer, which is there are readily available sources of reliable and factual evidence other than partisan opinion pieces like the video you supplied. If you're going to make a claim, you should be interested and willing to take whatever time is necessary to support your claim. Although you may believe otherwise, I was never wrong in presenting congressional hearings as a more reliable source of factual evidence than the politically partisan pieces you appear to fervently favor.

[iNow]

Thanks for bringing up travelgate. (...) I know. Hillary Clinton supporters are proud of her for getting away with things like trying to get innocent people sent to jail in order to service there political friends. They consider such actions as a positive character trait.

Given that honesty and integrity are apparently so paramount and downright critical to you in your preferred political candidates, it strikes me as enormously hypocritical and frankly childish that you should so consistently and passionately focus on attacking Hillary while in parallel remaining so steadfast and unwittingly tribal in consciously ignoring and dismissing similar and self-evidently more extreme examples of transgressions from Donald.

Edited September 10, 2016 by iNow

[MigL]

I think we all know the score.

Hillary Clinton is no angel. She isn't honest, and has been on the receiving end of many investigations over the years. So many, that one starts to believe the old adage about 'where there's smoke' there must be some criminality.

I was an early supporter, because I thought she had the right attributes to be able to work with Republicans and avoid the 'bogging down' that B. Obama has suffered. But she was no-one's first choice, and most on this forum would have preferred B. Sanders. Even I would have liked to see B. Sanders as a running mate for her so that some of his ideology would have influenced her.

But for some of you guys to now defend her like she's as pure as Snow White is absurd. She definitely has her faults.

 

And for some of you other guys to pretend that her level of ineptness ( just an act, she's very sharp and conniving ), dishonesty and 'sliminess' reaches the same depths as D. Trumps is equally absurd. Of the two, she's certainly the best and most qualified for the job of President

[iNow]

Some of Bernie Sanders ideology HAS already and in meaningful evidence supported ways influenced her, and more importantly has altered the entire party platform. Even Bernie himself has said so and acknowledged this.

 

Now...Who's here defending her as if she's pure as snow? Be specific, maybe even by leveraging the handy quote function offered by the forum software.

[MigL]

I don't quote, it makes posts twice as long ( I dislike re-reading things two, three or more times ).

And I don't point fingers.

 

I'm sure you've been reading all the posts like I have, iNow.

[iNow]

Indeed. Yes, I have, which made your suggestion that anyone here has been acting as if Clinton is "as pure as snow" that much more befuddling.

.

Shall we assume you're content to avoid clarifying your unclear comment? Will you retract what you posted and stipulate it was hyperbolic, or will you support what you've put forth with something specific?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

[MigL]

Well, let's see...

You, yourself, listed off about ten things back in post # 108 ( no, I won't quote it ) that she's been accused of. The implication being that if the charges didn't stick, she must be innocent. Nothing to see here. Lets move on.

Maybe you're young and naïve, and believe the best about people, but I've come to realize that when dealing with politicians, usually 'where there's smoke, there's fire'

And then there's DrmDoc's insistence that she's been cleared of any and all wrongdoing.

And Swansont's willingness to believe that the only reason she's being attacked is because she's a woman.

She's got bigger balls than most men !

[iNow]

So, I see you decided to go with doubling down on hyperbole and misrepresentation. Fair enough.

 

If you wish to conflate my suggestion that the GOP has historically engaged in specious witch hunts and evidence-free obstruction with the strawman that I somehow personally believe Clinton to be "pure as snow" and practically Jesus incarnate, well...then I suppose that's your prerogative.

.

And bee tee dubs...DrmDoc is entirely correct. While I readily concede that reality seems to have a well know liberal bias, you should note that were your shared delusion...that bubble in which so many of my fellow primates currently exist to somehow manage to pop...were the ideological fever that has so overtaken the minds of so many of my friends and so countless many millions of my fellow citizens to miraculously break...you'd stipulate and agree that, yes. Clinton has, in fact, been cleared of any and all wrongdoing.

 

To mitigate any potential future confusion, let me also make abundantly clear: I say this while in parallel acknowledging that Clinton is obviously not "pure as snow" and I can do this because saying she'd been cleared of any and all wrongdoing is a...hmmm, what's that word again?...wait a sec, it's right on the tip of my tongue...because it's a...oh, yeah. that's right...because it's a FACT.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Your sentence has a contradiction in it. Wrongdoing is when something done is morally or legally wrong. If she is not pure as the driven snow, then she has done something which is morally or legally wrong. So cleared of any wrongdoing would make her pure as the driven snow, which you suggest she might not be.

 

Bill was impeached, but cleared of the charges. Depends on what the definition of is is. He didn't lie because nothing was going on between him and Monica, when he said there's nothing going on. No Democrat voted him guilty of perjury, so he was not found guilty of that charge. Technically correct to say he was cleared of THAT wrongdoing, but to suggest that cleared him of all wrongdoing, would be inappropriate a leap. Do you think Hilary thinks he did nothing wrong?

 

Getting off does not mean you are innocent of all wrongdoing.

 

Regards, TAR

Means there was not enough evidence to prove you guilty of what you were suspected of doing wrong. Or in the case of Bill, doing a wrong thing with a cigar in the Oval office that did not legally mean he should be removed from office, for doing it. If Hilary admits, she made a mistake, she is admditting she did something wrong. So how can you say it is a fact that she is innocent of any wrongdoing. Oh, you just said she was "cleared" of any wrongdoing, which might be true in a technical sense, that she was not charged and prosecuted, but do you really believe everything she did, regarding Benghazi and her e-mail servers and White Water, and the futures trades and the other situations you listed as Republican failed witch hunt items was morally and legally right?

Do you think Trump winning a court case filed against him, clears him of any wrongdoing regarding the case?

Edited September 11, 2016 by tar

[iNow]

Morality is not absolute. It is instead context dependent and subjective. Said another way, morality is just another of your far too easily moved goalposts.

 

Legally, Clinton has been cleared. Whether you like that or not, agree or disagree, that's what most reasonably intelligent, intellectually honest, internally consistent rational human beings label as a fact.

 

The contradiction is neither with me nor my position, but is instead found within the inconsistency with which you and many like you appear to approach these candidates and these issues.

[tar]

So answer my question. Is Trump cleared of any wrongdoings concerning a case, when he wins the case?

Many like me? Oh, you mean deplorable people? People that disagree with you? What?

[MigL]

And I see you decided to give everyone an example of hyperbole and misrepresentation...

 

It is NOT a fact that she's been cleared of any and ALL wrongdoing, because investigators couldn't examine all the evidence.

How many e-mails are still unaccounted for ?

 

With her penchant for telling fibs, I wouldn't be surprised if they start calling her 'Slick Hilly' soon ( like her husband Slick Willy).

[tar]

iNow,

 

As an aside. On this moving of goalposts business. I think your admission that morality is subjective and dependent on context and other factors, shows that many a discussion concerning people and their behavior and their wants and desires and hopes and dreams, cannot be parsed correctly and completely based on the "facts". As the same facts can be framed differently depending on person and perspective. If I take another perspective, does not mean I moved any goalposts. What is true, what is fact will remain so, no matter what I say about it, or you say about it.

 

Regards, TAR

Besides, if wrongdoing is something done that is either morally or legally wrong and morality is subjective and not definable in terms of the facts, then "cleared of wrongdoing" has two potential meanings. One, cleared legally of the charges. And two, cleared in everybody's eyes of moral transgression. So factually you can claim Hilary is cleared of legal transgression, but that does not even come close to saying she is cleared of moral transgressions in everybody's eyes. Maybe in yours, but others might disagree. Like with Bill, I think what he did in the Oval office was morally reprehensible and a slight against the dignity of the Oval office, and a slight against his wife. I have not cleared him of wrongdoing. Nor forgiven him.

and that's a fact

[iNow]

Love how morality is being used as your chosen cudgel in support of another candidate whosemorals are unsubjectively and unabashedly repugnant.

 

Ban all Muslims. Torture their families. Separate millions of Mexican parents from their children. Call them rapists and murderers. Turn the dreams of dreamers into the nastiest of nightmares. Screw our treaties with allies, abandon NATO, embrace oligarchical dictatorial imperialistic human rights abusing tyrants. Sing their praises. Prop up white supremacists, withered mysoginists, and vapid propagandists. Lie and spew falsehoods with every third word, deny saying something despite video and audio evidence confirming over and over again that you did, but then in parallel accuse the "other"...the opponent as being the most dishonest person or candidate ever or since Nixon...the first to release his tax returns...while then refusing to release your own. Never volunteer to help. Repeatedly breach contracts with those who built your properties, destroy the families of those who laid your foundations, use bankruptcy to escape your commitments, drive every business into the ground while claiming to be a business wizard, mislead the masses, suggest eating a Tex-mex taco shows respect for a celebration of Mexican independence, say that you'd like to bang your daughter, scream about others for supporting the ouster of Gaddafi despite supporting it yourself, claim you were against the Iraq war while being on record as in support, mock the parents of fallen soldiers, mock and disrespect heroes who themselves survived for years and with honor as POWs all while suggesting our generals are ignorant, that you gave a secret plan to decimate ISIS that involves waiting 30 days for generals to submit their plans...and doing all of this while partnering with the mafia to exploit the underprivileged, engaging in corruption of the sort your staff are attacking others for, and then...just for shits and giggles...driving long dormant racial wedges between millions of people, suggesting that the 2nd amendment should be used to terminate an opponent and....just for funsies...suggesting rape in the military is okay and to be expected, making fun of reporters who are handicapped, and saying you'd pay the legal bills of anyone who brutalizes people who disagree at rallies.

 

Are you fucking kidding me, tar? Morality is the reason you are against Clinton and this is the attack that resonates with you most!

 

Orwell would be proud.

[MigL]

To be fair...

 

You accuse him of constantly moving goalposts.

You just went and moved to a whole other playing field !

 

What exactly does D. Trump have to do with H. Clinton's trustworthiness ?

Does the fact that he's a scumbag allow you to ignore her shortcomings ?

[Willie71]

Morality is not absolute. It is instead context dependent and subjective. Said another way, morality is just another of your far too easily moved goalposts.

Legally, Clinton has been cleared. Whether you like that or not, agree or disagree, that's what most reasonably intelligent, intellectually honest, internally consistent rational human beings label as a fact.

The contradiction is neither with me nor my position, but is instead found within the inconsistency with which you and many like you appear to approach these candidates and these issues.

The fact is that she was cleared, not that she didn't do anything wrong. Guilty people are cleared, and innocent people are convicted. The verdict is often detached from truth, especially at the extreme ends of the socioeconomic spectrum.

And I have agreed that such testimony can be false; however, as I have also stated, opinion, even in sworn testimony, isn't factual evidence. You presented an opinion piece as evidence of facts in support of your claim, which it was not. We could continue to circle the issue of congressional hearings but I think my position is clear to any reasonable and objective observer, which is there are readily available sources of reliable and factual evidence other than partisan opinion pieces like the video you supplied. If you're going to make a claim, you should be interested and willing to take whatever time is necessary to support your claim. Although you may believe otherwise, I was never wrong in presenting congressional hearings as a more reliable source of factual evidence than the politically partisan pieces you appear to fervently favor.

What a bunch of nonsense. Did you even read what I posted? This response seems to suggest you didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

[swansont]

 

And Swansont's willingness to believe that the only reason she's being attacked is because she's a woman.

 

 

Straw man. I said no such thing. This (and elsewhere in the thread) is the very kind of dishonest hyperbole that pisses me right the hell off.

[iNow]

The fact is that she was cleared, not that she didn't do anything wrong.

Fine. Cleared of any and all wrongdoing for which she's been actively investigated over the last three+ decades. Better?

[mp][/mp]

 

What exactly does D. Trump have to do with H. Clinton's trustworthiness ?

Does the fact that he's a scumbag allow you to ignore her shortcomings ?

There are two viable candidates from which we must choose in this election. It's extremely hypocritical and frankly ignorant to use as the basis of ones rejection of Clinton the issues of morality and trustworthiness given how relative to her opponent she's much more exemplary in those domains (despite not herself being perfect).

[tar]

iNow,

 

First, you are putting words in my mouth, and thoughts in my head, concerning who I excuse morally for their conduct. I am not for Trump and I am not for Hilary, and think I have no good choice in November.

Second, the list of charges you bring against Trump are all the talking points used in the commercials of Hilary, to paint him as an person unfit for the presidency, based on our moral indignation at his tone and gestures and what saying a thing means to us about his deplorable nature. Just being morally outraged, does not, in regards, to our current point of contention, convict him of wrongdoing. So if he has broken the law and made restitution, the thing is behind us, in the legal sense of wrong doing. What remains is the moral sense, which you say is not factual and we should get over in the case of Hilary, but should convict on the basis of, in the case of Trump.

Thirdly you did not answer my question. Does the fact that Trump called somebody a name, or showed somebody disrespect, or rented to a white guy, or made fun of somebody, convict him of wrongdoing in the legal sense, of wrongdoing, or does it violate your sense of decency?

 

If the answer to the third is that it violates your sense of decency, then you have to allow something that Hilary does to potentially violate someone else's sense of decency, and not use your moral standards to set the objective standards, of decency. You can forgive who you want of what you want to forgive them for, but NOT suggest Hilary was cleared of wrongdoing by the FBI director, after his listing of everything she did wrong.

 

Regards, TAR

Delta1212,

 

Earlier in the thread I got a neg rep for suggesting that Hilary was petrified by what she was seeing on the screen. I was convicted of being bias against her, and sexist and had no right or evidence to suggest she was horrified at the scene when the pose she took was a natural pose of concentration, and thinking otherwise was evidence that I was sexist and bias against Hilary, in having some misgivings about her ability to be commander in chief.

 

Except she was horrified at what she was seeing on the screen. Nobody backed off their defense of Hilary on this. I am expecting a reassessment on a couple people's part of the picture, based on the fact that she was horrified, and not just concentrating.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 11, 2016 by tar

[DrmDoc]

What a bunch of nonsense. Did you even read what I posted? This response seems to suggest you didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

 

Did you? Didn't you submit a video opinion piece in support of your posted comments? Are opinion pieces facts or just opinion? Are there better, more reliable sources of fact than opinion pieces? As you should know, there are no penalties for lying in unsworn videos, which is opposite of sworn testimony and facts. Therefore, which would you genuinely prefer, opinion in video or facts delivered under penalty of law (e.g., sworn testimony)? Given your previous responses, you will likely ignore my questions or not answer any of them honestly; however, as I previously wrote, "I think my position is clear to any reasonable and objective observer, which is there are readily available sources of reliable and factual evidence other than partisan opinion pieces like the video you supplied. If you're going to make a claim, you should be interested and willing to take whatever time is necessary to support your claim." ​Otherwise, withdraw your claims or don't make claims you don't have time or intend to support.

Edited September 11, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Phi for All]

Straw man. I said no such thing. This (and elsewhere in the thread) is the very kind of dishonest hyperbole that pisses me right the hell off.

 

It's the fear talking. People who call their entire political outlook "conservative" seem to have strong emotional filters that misrepresent most rational arguments. You can state your case precisely, in a limited and reasoned way, and it will get twisted and misshapen by the frustration, hatred, and fear you're trying to get through.

 

You say it's a factor? Well, they heard you say it's the only reason.

[Willie71]

And I see you decided to give everyone an example of hyperbole and misrepresentation...

 

It is NOT a fact that she's been cleared of any and ALL wrongdoing, because investigators couldn't examine all the evidence.

How many e-mails are still unaccounted for ?

 

With her penchant for telling fibs, I wouldn't be surprised if they start calling her 'Slick Hilly' soon ( like her husband Slick Willy).

And yet somehow, she isn't guilty of destroying evidence or obstruction. Whether the e-mails themselves were a big deal, and I personally don't think they were, except any that might have showed pay to play, is seaparate from how the evidence was handles. I think those are the ones still missing. Don't forget the purgery thing, where she claimed there were no classified e-mails, and that she turned over all of the e-mails. That is verifiable fact that she lied. No security risk? The Russians hacked her? Hmmmm..... Who believes the stupid excuses or the lies. The e-mails seen so far suggest the possibility/probability of pay to play, but that's not the issue.

Fine. Cleared of any and all wrongdoing for which she's been actively investigated over the last three+ decades. Better?

---

Merged post follows:

[/mp]

There are two viable candidates from which we must choose in this election. It's extremely hypocritical and frankly ignorant to use as the basis of ones rejection of Clinton the issues of morality and trustworthiness given how relative to her opponent she's much more exemplary in those domains (despite not herself being perfect).

Bush and Cheney weren't convicted as war criminals either. The elite rarely are held accountable.

Fine. Cleared of any and all wrongdoing for which she's been actively investigated over the last three+ decades. Better?[mp]

There are two viable candidates from which we must choose in this election. It's extremely hypocritical and frankly ignorant to use as the basis of ones rejection of Clinton the issues of morality and trustworthiness given how relative to her opponent she's much more exemplary in those domains (despite not herself being perfect).

Bush and Cheney weren't convicted as war criminals either. The elite rarely are held accountable.

It's the fear talking. People who call their entire political outlook "conservative" seem to have strong emotional filters that misrepresent most rational arguments. You can state your case precisely, in a limited and reasoned way, and it will get twisted and misshapen by the frustration, hatred, and fear you're trying to get through.

 

You say it's a factor? Well, they heard you say it's the only reason.

 

To be fair to Swansort, she did say "largely" not "only." However largely implies the majority, and that is hyperbolic in itself.

[tar]

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-situation-room-photo-2012-4

 

is the article I could not link before

 

It says nothing about covering a cough or concentrating intensely and looks to be very possibly the covering of a gasp.

[DrmDoc]

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-situation-room-photo-2012-4

 

is the article I could not link before

 

It says nothing about covering a cough or concentrating intensely and looks to be very possibly the covering of a gasp.

 

 

According to your link, Mrs. Clinton said "that's how I usually look when my husband drags me to an action movie" and she also said it was "an extraordinary experience and a great privilege to be part of." Although I'm not sure what position you're addressing here, I appreciate your submission of an article about Mrs. Clinton that isn't primarily partisan opinion.

Edited September 11, 2016 by DrmDoc

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

Concurrently I appreciate your acknowledgement that it is possible for her to be covering a gasp with or without me being deplorable to suggest it.

 

Regards, TAR