Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What is her principles, what is she running on. Its lost on the public no one knows what her voice is other then "Arn't you ready for a woman to be president."

Here you go: http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Nah that wont work, she has not talked about any of that, someone else typed that.

You are so predictable.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nah that wont work, she has not talked about any of that, someone else typed that.

You are so predictable.

Okay, here's one of her speeches: http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/

She talks about wealth inequality, climate change, health care, affordable education, etc.

Oh wow, those are really interesting.

First you get the money, then you get the power....then you get the bitches.

Hillary wants bitches!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, here's one of her speeches: http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/

She talks about wealth inequality, climate change, health care, affordable education, etc.

Hilary has no stance other then "I have never done anything wrong, I am just shady But I'm a woman so it does not matter."

Except for all the stances she has, both in actions (my first link) and in words (my second link).

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"I have never done anything wrong, I am just shady But I'm a woman so it does not matter."

This was quoted verbatim from her diary, to which TI has access.

Clinton's a vehement career politician and former first lady, so it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that she aspires to be president and the first female president.

The better question: Why does Trump want to be president? He's a multi-billionaire who was liberal/democratic for most of his life and now he wants to be a conservative/republican president. That's like asking for massive amounts of stress when your life could be a perpetual vacation.

Hilary has not made speech on why she wants to be president. We know she wants the title, but she could care less about being a president.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary has not made speech on why she wants to be president. We know she wants the title, but she could care less about being a president.

You didn't even click on B42's link. Not surprised at all.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What is her principles, what is she running on. Its lost on the public no one knows what her voice is other then "Arn't you ready for a woman to be president."



LOL. Yep, that's the only thing that criminal socialist b**** has going for her. "I'm a woman! Aren't you tired of men running the country?".

Originally posted by Robtard
You didn't even click on B42's link. Not surprised at all.

Prove it or cede.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What is her principles, what is she running on. Its lost on the public no one knows what her voice is other then "Arn't you ready for a woman to be president."


Why does Trump? No-one knows other than "He wants to be President." He's offered much less substance than his competitors of either party. He has no stance other than "I'm rich and think I should be in charge, and will leverage my mixed business record to do so."

Jeb? "His brother and father were."

Carson? "He's a brain surgeon."


What are they running on?

And yadda yadda.


Turns out if you want to, you can use that sort of vague phrasing on anyone. Reducing people to soundbites is easy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Prove it or cede.

I can prove it in three easy steps:

-You made a false claim

-B42 posted a link showing you were incorrect

-You ignored it and repeated your false claim

#boomkilledit

Originally posted by Robtard
I can prove it in three easy steps:

-You made a false claim

-B42 posted a link showing you were incorrect

-You ignored it and repeated your false claim

#boomkilledit

Zing





I'd say it's far more she wants the influence to do the things to get the job done, with the title of president being secondary to that.

Originally posted by Robtard
I can prove it in three easy steps:

-You made a false claim

-B42 posted a link showing you were incorrect

-You ignored it and repeated your false claim

#boomkilledit

No I was right, and your just cheerleading.

While I'll be the first to second the notion that Robtard would probably enjoy dressing up like a teenage girl, he did actually have a point, which you've failed to address once again.

I've given you to much attention for the troll you are, goodbye.

Originally posted by Q99
Zing





I'd say it's far more she wants the influence to do the things to get the job done, with the title of president being secondary to that.

So you agree, Hilary has failed at everything from White Water to Benghazi.

Confront you with inconvenient truths = troll, gotcha.

TI, you are the one trolling here, and this thread was opened in bad faith. Watch your behaviour.

Re-opened on the condition that actual discussion takes place.

First time I've ever seen a closed thread re-opened on ANY forum. Didn't think mods ever did that.

I'll just repost this

http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/



So, one may think this is empty, political rhetoric, but she does talk about why she wants to be president, and what she wants to do as president from her first speech launching her campaign.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'll just repost this

http://time.com/3920332/transcript-full-text-hillary-clinton-campaign-launch/



So, one may think this is empty, political rhetoric, but she does talk about why she wants to be president, and what she wants to do as president from her first speech launching her campaign.

Yep. It turns out people come out and say why they're running for president.



Nope. Heck, why do you even try on the Benghazi thing? It just makes you look bad and desparate, trying to attack on something where she was repeatedly found to have done no wrongdoing by your own party.

It also makes you look desperate to jump subjects off of what I said in order to make a weak attack.

I know you don't like Hillary, but trying to leap to everything as an attack makes it look like you don't actually have any real, solid attacks, just throwing stuff at the wall without rhyme or reason and hoping it sticks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/12/10/democrats-biggest-blame-shifter-hillary-clinton/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/

No offense since we all know TI is biased and emotional but you frequently come across as a Hilary/Obama apologist.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Re-opened on the condition that actual discussion takes place.
Good man. I like your level headed approach.

Originally posted by Q99
Why does Trump? No-one knows other than "He wants to be President." He's offered much less substance than his competitors of either party. He has no stance other than "I'm rich and think I should be in charge, and will leverage my mixed business record to do so."

Jeb? "His brother and father were."

Carson? "He's a brain surgeon."


What are they running on?

And yadda yadda.


Turns out if you want to, you can use that sort of vague phrasing on anyone. Reducing people to soundbites is easy.
Ben Carson for Surgeon General.

Originally posted by psmith81992
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/12/10/democrats-biggest-blame-shifter-hillary-clinton/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/

No offense since we all know TI is biased and emotional but you frequently come across as a Hilary/Obama apologist.


Look, if you're accusing me of being an apologist for stuff that even Republican investigates agree does not include the wrongdoing that many try to accuse her of, that really makes me question your bias.

While it is possible for her to have done something, what she did do was 'use the same security setup that multiple prior administrations have used and the US has used for a long time.' Could things have been done better? Yes, and she admitted it, and accepted blame because it's under her watch, and everyone agrees on that, myself included. I am in no way saying that's not the case- and btw, this flies right in the face of the statement of your first linked opinion piece there above deflecting blame, since, well, she took the blame for the stuff she was actually responsible for.

Are the attempts to blow it up into Hillary ignoring an attack and yadda yadda all the other accusations completely blown up? Also yes. At the end of the day, the security was handled on a level much lower than hers and was a problem that went back some time, and no decision she made on that day could've changed things.


I don't buy your 'you must blame Hillary/Obama for everything they're accused of else you're an apologist,' POV. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you have to buy in to all the attacks, and it doesn't mean that someone defending them is in the wrong in doing so.

If people make up a whole lot of exaggerated or flat-BS attacks, then yes, of course people are gonna defend them a lot, the attacks are exaggerated or even complete BS! Trying to paint someone as wrong for doing that is just another attack tactic.

You dont buy into the blaming Hilary/Obama, but I have seen you buy into blame Bush. While Bush does deserve blame, as does anyone else, he is still blamed 7 years later.

You remain critical of him, while dismissing Obama/Hilary faults.

The purpose I made the thread was to really understand why she wants to be president. I believe as well as 100 million other people she is not trust worthy and she has a record to prove it. I would be happy to hear arguments on what her record of success, the senate seat was given to her, and Obama gave her secretary to take her out of the last election with the promise he would support her in this one, which he has not. He has her under investigation.

Now that is not attacking her, that is the facts.

That doesn't show bias though. It's perfectly reasonable to blame Bush for things he caused that still affect us, and not give Obama blame for things he didn't cause or that are exaggerated. There's no need to give 50-50 blame to the two, one was worse than the other.

Also, I don't buy that you made this thread in good faith, since you dismissed and ignored any posts that point out why she says she wants to be president or her what she stands for and her track record.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Re-opened on the condition that actual discussion takes place.

Thanks for that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That doesn't show bias though. It's perfectly reasonable to blame Bush for things he caused that still affect us, and not give Obama blame for things he didn't cause or that are exaggerated. There's no need to give 50-50 blame to the two, one was worse than the other.



Exactly, you don't parcel out how much blame everyone has to get, you look at what specifically they did and you only give credit or blame for things that they've got responsibility for, and in proportion to how much they did.

Now, there's still that two people can view in different lights, like one person can count ACA as a positive and another a negative, but in a good deal of cases, the person most at cause is known, so credit can be assigned and then one can personally rate that. Someone can have the exact view of what a person did as another person, but those two judge it quite qualitatively different. Like, I give positive credit to Bush for the TARP. The Tea Party gave Bush negative credit to the same thing- neither me nor a Tea Party person is misrepresenting that Bush signed and supported it, we just weigh it different.



Psmith, I don't really buy into his saying 'apologist' seriously, because he doesn't count 'unemployment numbers stop going up exactly when Obama's policies start, start going down before long, never stop going down,' as something Obama should be given credit for. So he's unreliable in the credit game- his unwillingness to give credit even for the most blatant stuff makes him shaky.


Time, well, he'll always side with the Republicans and is open about it. We'll both qualitatively judge the same actions way different, and he also has a tendency to exaggerate minor bad things into major ones.

And you always side with the liberals so well quantify that into your mindset as well.

I give credit exactly where credit is due. You on the other hand make excuses anytime Obama or Hilary are mentioned. Not once have you criticized them for anything (unlike I've done with Bush). I mean I've read what you would consider criticism but it's more of "meh" than anything else. My bias or lackthereof has nothing to do with you being an apologist. You claimed not even democrats blame Hilary for Benghazi, I gave you links that state the opposite. What is the excuse this time?

No wrongdoing for Benghazi.... Riiiiiight. Keep telling yourselves that, libs.

According to everyone here besides 3 people, Hilary has never done anything wrong and everything is a vast right wing conspiracy, even though Obama has her under investigation.

You're going to still be yelling "WHAT ABOUT BENGHAZI!!!!" long into Hillary's 2nd term if it ends that way

Originally posted by Robtard
You're going to still be yelling "WHAT ABOUT BENGHAZI!!!!" long into Hillary's 2nd term if it ends that way

Just like you been yelling "Bush" for the past 7 years, and if Hilary is elected, 8 more.

For every time I say "Bush", you say "Clinton" or "Obama" 37 times.

Originally posted by Robtard
For every time I say "Bush", you say "Clinton" or "Obama" 37 times.

When is the last time Bush was in office or relevant? Oh yea 8 years ago, and when is the last time Clinton or Obama where relevant, oh yea. The past seven and current.

Originally posted by Robtard
For every time I say "Bush", you say "Clinton" or "Obama" 37 times.

You must say Bush very often then.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
When is the last time Bush was in office or relevant? Oh yea 8 years ago, and when is the last time Clinton or Obama where relevant, oh yea. The past seven and current.

Today you blamed B. Clinton and claimed he gave NK nukes. When did Bill leave office? Was it 15ish ago?

Originally posted by psmith81992
You must say Bush very often then.

Nice double-zinger, actually.

Originally posted by Robtard
Today you blamed B. Clinton and claimed he gave NK nukes. When did Bill leave office? Was it 15ish ago?

Someone here blamed bush for north korea getting nukes.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I give credit exactly where credit is due.

No, you don't. I present you with articles, numbers, and charts supporting my views.

You disagree with them, present a different conclusion that seemed to actively contradict the presented numbers (five years of not helping, you claimed), I ask where it comes from, and get nothing- either an acknowledgement of the numbers I posted and Obama's role in them, or even support for your view that something different happened.

If you view that as giving credit where credit is due, then you seem not to view "basic and heavily supported numbers of a situation with evidence of who caused them and how," as sufficient to gain 'due credit'. At which point I must conclude your standards of what's due credit are not particularly fact-based ones.



That'd be more believable if I hadn't done so with Hillary and her *actual* failings in Benghazi in this page of this thread.

And note, I believe you can criticize Bush. It's your ability to give credit to Hillary and Obama I doubt.

Also your ability to properly acknowledge the level of credit/blame I give Hillary and Obama. If I acknowledge stuff regularly but you dismiss it because I'm not angry about it / view it as outweighed by other stuff, then that's your problem.



Ok, so your problem with me is now that I acknowledge stuff, but I don't get angry about it.

That's no longer about me giving credit where it's due, that's about me not feeling the same about it as you- which is another matter entirely. I have different priorities than you, I view some stuff as important that you don't, and you view some stuff as important that I don't. That's not a factual bias, that's a difference of opinions.

If someone acknowledges fault, but simply doesn't view it as a major fault that they care about, or the same with credit, then they're being honest.

I *don't* see you as doing this with Obama and Hillary's successes- you deny successes, rather than saying, "Sure, he did this, but I'm much more concerned about that." Which is a reasonable stance to take.


If your definition of 'bias' is 'acknowledges problems but often doesn't care about them,' then that's just not liking what I say because I disagree with you.

That's not bias or apologism, that's me not being on your side, and if you want to weasel-word around that and try and attack my credibility rather than my point or my facts, well, that's a problem on your end.





Hm? I certainly said nothing of the kind, and definitely not in the post you responded to with your links.

What I said- and often say- was Republican investigations found no wrongdoing. Which is what the investigations actually concluded. They did find that actions could've presented to it- which Hillary copped to and I also acknowledged.

Do you really think when I used the phrase "Your own party" that I meant Democrats?




That you're clearly misrepresenting me in order to present me as saying something that I didn't.


This is also why I don't buy your claims of 'you're an apologist.' It doesn't help your case or credibility when you accuse me of it for things I didn't say.

Originally posted by Q99
No, you don't. I present you with articles, numbers, and charts supporting my views.

You disagree with them, present a different conclusion that seemed to actively contradict the presented numbers (five years of not helping, you claimed), I ask where it comes from, and get nothing- either an acknowledgement of the numbers I posted and Obama's role in them, or even support for your view that something different happened.

If you view that as giving credit where credit is due, then you seem not to view "basic and heavily supported numbers of a situation with evidence of who caused them and how," as sufficient to gain 'due credit'. At which point I must conclude your standards of what's due credit are not particularly fact-based ones.



That'd be more believable if I hadn't done so with Hillary and her *actual* failings in Benghazi in this page of this thread.

And note, I believe you can criticize Bush. It's your ability to give credit to Hillary and Obama I doubt.

Also your ability to properly acknowledge the level of credit/blame I give Hillary and Obama. If I acknowledge stuff regularly but you dismiss it because I'm not angry about it / view it as outweighed by other stuff, then that's your problem.



Ok, so your problem with me is now that I acknowledge stuff, but I don't get angry about it.

That's no longer about me giving credit where it's due, that's about me not feeling the same about it as you- which is another matter entirely. I have different priorities than you, I view some stuff as important that you don't, and you view some stuff as important that I don't. That's not a factual bias, that's a difference of opinions.

If someone acknowledges fault, but simply doesn't view it as a major fault that they care about, or the same with credit, then they're being honest.

I *don't* see you as doing this with Obama and Hillary's successes- you deny successes, rather than saying, "Sure, he did this, but I'm much more concerned about that." Which is a reasonable stance to take.


If your definition of 'bias' is 'acknowledges problems but often doesn't care about them,' then that's just not liking what I say because I disagree with you.

That's not bias or apologism, that's me not being on your side, and if you want to weasel-word around that and try and attack my credibility rather than my point or my facts, well, that's a problem on your end.





Hm? I certainly said nothing of the kind, and definitely not in the post you responded to with your links.

What I said- and often say- was Republican investigations found no wrongdoing. Which is what the investigations actually concluded. They did find that actions could've presented to it- which Hillary copped to and I also acknowledged.

Do you really think when I used the phrase "Your own party" that I meant Democrats?




That you're clearly misrepresenting me in order to present me as saying something that I didn't.


This is also why I don't buy your claims of 'you're an apologist.' It doesn't help your case or credibility when you accuse me of it for things I didn't say.

So all that and no Hilary criticism.

And you just said you were not bias.

Its all about her successes, yet what are they again?

LOL@all the people still upset that Hillary is still rightfully being blamed for Benghazi. NO matter how many times all the libs cry "She did nothing wrong!" will change the fact that she did and people will never forget what that b**** did. ESpecially considering the true story about Benghazi is set to come out next year right before the elections.

Originally posted by Q99
No, you don't. I present you with articles, numbers, and charts supporting my views.

You disagree with them, present a different conclusion that seemed to actively contradict the presented numbers (five years of not helping, you claimed), I ask where it comes from, and get nothing- either an acknowledgement of the numbers I posted and Obama's role in them, or even support for your view that something different happened.

If you view that as giving credit where credit is due, then you seem not to view "basic and heavily supported numbers of a situation with evidence of who caused them and how," as sufficient to gain 'due credit'. At which point I must conclude your standards of what's due credit are not particularly fact-based ones.



That'd be more believable if I hadn't done so with Hillary and her *actual* failings in Benghazi in this page of this thread.

And note, I believe you can criticize Bush. It's your ability to give credit to Hillary and Obama I doubt.

Also your ability to properly acknowledge the level of credit/blame I give Hillary and Obama. If I acknowledge stuff regularly but you dismiss it because I'm not angry about it / view it as outweighed by other stuff, then that's your problem.



Ok, so your problem with me is now that I acknowledge stuff, but I don't get angry about it.

That's no longer about me giving credit where it's due, that's about me not feeling the same about it as you- which is another matter entirely. I have different priorities than you, I view some stuff as important that you don't, and you view some stuff as important that I don't. That's not a factual bias, that's a difference of opinions.

If someone acknowledges fault, but simply doesn't view it as a major fault that they care about, or the same with credit, then they're being honest.

I *don't* see you as doing this with Obama and Hillary's successes- you deny successes, rather than saying, "Sure, he did this, but I'm much more concerned about that." Which is a reasonable stance to take.


If your definition of 'bias' is 'acknowledges problems but often doesn't care about them,' then that's just not liking what I say because I disagree with you.

That's not bias or apologism, that's me not being on your side, and if you want to weasel-word around that and try and attack my credibility rather than my point or my facts, well, that's a problem on your end.





Hm? I certainly said nothing of the kind, and definitely not in the post you responded to with your links.

What I said- and often say- was Republican investigations found no wrongdoing. Which is what the investigations actually concluded. They did find that actions could've presented to it- which Hillary copped to and I also acknowledged.

Do you really think when I used the phrase "Your own party" that I meant Democrats?




That you're clearly misrepresenting me in order to present me as saying something that I didn't.


This is also why I don't buy your claims of 'you're an apologist.' It doesn't help your case or credibility when you accuse me of it for things I didn't say.

And I present facts to you, where your response is akin to it's "Bush's fault". Claiming I didn't provide evidence means you ignored said evidence. So there's bias right there. You then proceeded to ignore my evidence against your claim of "Democrats don't even blame hillary for benghazi". So to call you biased and an apologist is pretty accurate considering everything you choose to overlook.


Trying to use semantics to deny my proof is weak. Both parties blamed her for benghazi.

I really would listen to someone list Hilary's sucesses.

These do not include being the first lady, as she was already married before she became first lady.

This does not include her being a jr senator which was given to her.

And this does not include Obama taking her out of the race by giving her Sec position.

What are her actual successes in the offices that she was given?

Tell me your achievements, but you can't name any of your achievements.

Originally posted by Robtard
Clinton's a vehement career politician and former first lady, so it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that she aspires to be president and the first female president.

The better question: Why does Trump want to be president? He's a multi-billionaire who was liberal/democratic for most of his life and now he wants to be a conservative/republican president. That's like asking for massive amounts of stress when your life could be a perpetual vacation. uh... cause he wants to make this country great again. duh?

unlike hillary who is most likely a reptilian shape-shifter that just wants to keep this country firmly under the control of the reptilian illuminati

that's why she has so much trouble picking an accent. that's not a human problem. that's a reptilian-trying-their-hardest-to-mimic-a-human problem.

Viewed by whom exactly?

Originally posted by psmith81992
And I present facts to you, where your response is akin to it's "Bush's fault".

One, I often note that Bush helped with the crash via the Tarp. You bring that up a lot when I point out a lot of the high numbers in Obama's term, even though it is literally in direct opposition to what I said.

Two, noting 'the numbers were high in his early years,' is, one, duh, and two, is not establishing causation.

It's like you're operating on a binary. "If Q isn't blaming Obama for the crash numbers... he MUST be blaming Bush!"

You can't push your opinions on to me in place of my own.

And, yea, presidents can and do stuff that have effects that last for years and years, so there is stuff that prior presidents are the cause of during Obama's term, even multiple presidents back, but you insist on trying to push that as being my view even when I'm outright saying the opposite.

That doesn't fly, psmith.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that if you can say that Bush didn't do something, that I must accept that it's Obama's fault, which, one, doesn't even make sense, two, assumes that I'm blaming Bush in the first place, and three, assumes that the former president of the united states who was around for two terms had no effect on the following president.

"You're just blaming Bush," is not a good argument, because if you're talking about, say, "Why is Iraq such a mess?", he's involved, and if we're talking about, say, the economic crash, then he may not be the cause, it's just something that happened during his watch and he had a relatively good response to, but that sure is heck doesn't make someone who didn't take office until after it started the cause. That's absurd.

Bush is not automatically involved, he is not automatically uninvolved, he did what he did and didn't do what he didn't do, and similarly, Obama is not automatically the cause of anything that happened that Bush didn't do.






Considering I repeatedly asked for articles and numbers on your 'evidence' that Obama did nothing for the first five years, and presented numbers that indicated he did, and got no numbers supporting it, even after multiple times, I'm going to have to say 'no.'

You provided your opinion. That's not the same thing. You did not back your opinions with evidence.

Here's another shot: You've said several times that Obama didn't help in his first several years.

I've noted- with charts and graphs- that the unemployment that was rising when he took office, leveled off shortly after the stimulus hit, that the stimulus is responsible for saving 3.3 million jobs according to sources I showed you, and then the jobs continued to fall consistently ever since to a tune of 3 million jobs per year.

Again, all shown with precise checkable numbers.

Indeed, These numbers, right here, covering everything from job growth to wages rising ("And job growth has been impressive: The U.S. is adding jobs at a pace of about 3 million per year.". The ones you assert are wrong.


You've still yet to provide evidence with what is supposed to be wrong about those numbers, and you still insist that I'm 'biased' for think Obama did well for presiding and playing a large role in a stable recovery- which I have heavily documented to you in the past. Disagreeing that that's the case is not the same as providing evidence.





...?

Why are you lying about what I said? It's not like my post is going to retroactive go back and change itself to fit.




Look, trying to overwrite what I said when not only am I the one you're talking to, but the original post is still right there and we can both look at, doesn't work.





And, hello, I never said everyone of *any* party didn't blame her. I said investigations.


And the difference between 'investigations' and 'everyone' is more than a semantic argument, it's a deliberate re-write on your part, and a significant one.


I said " investigations cleared her of wrongdoing." Which is, gasp, factually true, a Republican-lead investigation found the incident was preventable but there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

You took for this to mean 'all democrats don't blame her'? Really? That's not even close in either parts of the sentence. It's changing the subject I'm talking about and the specific. If you are replacing every noun in a sentence with ones that mean different things and aren't synonyms, then hey-oh, you are in the linguistic wrong.


Stop trying to misrepresent me. It doesn't work.

It's not what I said, it's not close to what I said, and it's just showing how desperate you are to try and push this bias narrative- when I refuse to actually provide examples, you'll just make one up.


How does making up an example that's not even close to what I said supposed to prove anything except that you're willing to misrepresent me?

By me for one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tell me your achievements, but you can't name any of your achievements.

Is being married and having your husband cheat on you in the oval office an achievement?

Is being taken out of a presidential race by a nomination only to have him throw you under the bus an achievement?

Honestly, Hilary has got the bad end of things, but bad happens to bad people. Look at what she does. She is corrupt.

Now tell me her achievements as Sec and Senator. Because being elected and nominated was not one, everyone knows how and why she go them.

Originally posted by Q99
One, I often note that Bush helped with the crash via the Tarp. You bring that up a lot when I point out a lot of the high numbers in Obama's term, even though it is literally in direct opposition to what I said.

Two, noting 'the numbers were high in his early years,' is, one, duh, and two, is not establishing causation.

It's like you're operating on a binary. "If Q isn't blaming Obama for the crash numbers... he MUST be blaming Bush!"

You can't push your opinions on to me in place of my own.

And, yea, presidents can and do stuff that have effects that last for years and years, so there is stuff that prior presidents are the cause of during Obama's term, even multiple presidents back, but you insist on trying to push that as being my view even when I'm outright saying the opposite.

That doesn't fly, psmith.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that if you can say that Bush didn't do something, that I must accept that it's Obama's fault, which, one, doesn't even make sense, two, assumes that I'm blaming Bush in the first place, and three, assumes that the former president of the united states who was around for two terms had no effect on the following president.

"You're just blaming Bush," is not a good argument, because if you're talking about, say, "Why is Iraq such a mess?", he's involved, and if we're talking about, say, the economic crash, then he may not be the cause, it's just something that happened during his watch and he had a relatively good response to, but that sure is heck doesn't make someone who didn't take office until after it started the cause. That's absurd.

Bush is not automatically involved, he is not automatically uninvolved, he did what he did and didn't do what he didn't do, and similarly, Obama is not automatically the cause of anything that happened that Bush didn't do.






Considering I repeatedly asked for articles and numbers on your 'evidence' that Obama did nothing for the first five years, and presented numbers that indicated he did, and got no numbers supporting it, even after multiple times, I'm going to have to say 'no.'

You provided your opinion. That's not the same thing. You did not back your opinions with evidence.

Here's another shot: You've said several times that Obama didn't help in his first several years.

I've noted- with charts and graphs- that the unemployment that was rising when he took office, leveled off shortly after the stimulus hit, that the stimulus is responsible for saving 3.3 million jobs according to sources I showed you, and then the jobs continued to fall consistently ever since to a tune of 3 million jobs per year.

Again, all shown with precise checkable numbers.

Indeed, These numbers, right here, covering everything from job growth to wages rising ("And job growth has been impressive: The U.S. is adding jobs at a pace of about 3 million per year.". The ones you assert are wrong.


You've still yet to provide evidence with what is supposed to be wrong about those numbers, and you still insist that I'm 'biased' for think Obama did well for presiding and playing a large role in a stable recovery- which I have heavily documented to you in the past. Disagreeing that that's the case is not the same as providing evidence.





...?

Why are you lying about what I said? It's not like my post is going to retroactive go back and change itself to fit.




Look, trying to overwrite what I said when not only am I the one you're talking to, but the original post is still right there and we can both look at, doesn't work.





And, hello, I never said everyone of *any* party didn't blame her. I said investigations.


And the difference between 'investigations' and 'everyone' is more than a semantic argument, it's a deliberate re-write on your part, and a significant one.


I said " investigations cleared her of wrongdoing." Which is, gasp, factually true, a Republican-lead investigation found the incident was preventable but there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

You took for this to mean 'all democrats don't blame her'? Really? That's not even close in either parts of the sentence. It's changing the subject I'm talking about and the specific. If you are replacing every noun in a sentence with ones that mean different things and aren't synonyms, then hey-oh, you are in the linguistic wrong.


Stop trying to misrepresent me. It doesn't work.

It's not what I said, it's not close to what I said, and it's just showing how desperate you are to try and push this bias narrative- when I refuse to actually provide examples, you'll just make one up.


How does making up an example that's not even close to what I said supposed to prove anything except that you're willing to misrepresent me?



Me thinks you continue to ignore evidence and cover it up by writing as long a post as possible.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Me thinks you continue to ignore evidence and cover it up by writing as long a post as possible.


Whatever, you're just continuing to act like your assertions work as a substitute for facts or even what other people say.


I am pretty tired of your disengenuous misrepresentations, where when you lose out on facts and evidence you call bias and start putting words in other people's mouths.

Q I am waiting on a response from you.

Originally posted by Q99
Whatever, you're just continuing to act like your assertions work as a substitute for facts or even what other people say.


I am pretty tired of your disengenuous misrepresentations, where when you lose out on facts and evidence you call bias and start putting words in other people's mouths.

Once again, I posted facts that contradict your "Facts", and your response is "whatever you're just making things up". That's not a rebuttal. When I provide facts, you ignore them and then claim I'm misrepresenting you, yadda yadda.

Originally posted by long pig
First you get the money, then you get the power....then you get the bitches.

Hillary wants bitches!

She always told me "money over bitches". The only mob she was ever in.

lol

Star ya missed this^^

She cant even name her #1 Success

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Star ya missed this^^

She cant even name her #1 Success




No, didn't miss it. I just don't think it's really a surprise for anyone that she can't.

Originally posted by Star428
No, didn't miss it. I just don't think it's really a surprise for anyone that she can't.

Honestly her #1 success was having a private server where she could do and say whatever she needed to off the record, her second was ducking this email scandal for so long, and her third will be avoiding jail time.

Time, what's it like having a forum dedicated to responding to your every thought?

Originally posted by Digi
Time, what's it like having a forum dedicated to responding to your every thought?

Its amazing to talk to people who are as exited about politics as me.

Anyone hear about the rape victim that Hilary apparently laughed at and helped her rapist get a lighter sentence back early in her career in the 1970s? At least that is what this one woman is claiming.

Of course one could call into question the timing, though apparently this same woman also spoke up back in 2008 as well.

Originally posted by Digi
Time, what's it like having a forum dedicated to responding to your every thought?

Originally posted by Surtur
Anyone hear about the rape victim that Hilary apparently laughed at and helped her rapist get a lighter sentence back early in her career in the 1970s? At least that is what this one woman is claiming.

Of course one could call into question the timing, though apparently this same woman also spoke up back in 2008 as well.

No I didn't please elaborate on another morally wrong and horrendous thing Hilary has done to screw up other people's lives.

That's actually a reasonable response to my question. I'm glad you have an outlet for this stuff, even if I think your thread making can trend reactionary at times.

I hope she doesn't get elected. I honestly don't think she would be a good president. She has proven that she can't be trusted.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No I didn't please elaborate on another morally wrong and horrendous thing Hilary has done to screw up other people's lives.

It's basically just what I said. Apparently Hilary tried to smear this rape victim. I don't know if said victim has brought fought any actual evidence of this or not.

I still think she's just trying to get laid. Someone needs to take one for the team and plow that pigbeast.

T.I, I think you're the right man for the job!

Get your nice-looking Hillary shirt!


http://store.infowars.com/Hillary-For-Prison--T-shirt_p_1692.html?ims=zuxpe&utm_campaign=Hillaryforprison_300x250&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Banner&utm_content-Hillaryforprison_300x250#



It's only around $20.00 so show your Hillary support!

Funnily enough, The Benghazi probes on Hillary may have been politically compromised/pushed as an attack to try and affect her approval rating, rather than an honest probe. Or so a top Republican official's comments seem to indicate.

To audit the taxes of men who dumped her in high school and college for being nasty looking. And the same for men calling her dear Chelsea a dog as a teenager growing up. She was kind of geeky looking.

This thread could be re-titled "conservative posters try and make Hillary Clinton sound petty and small by acting petty and small."

You can say the reverse of the donald trump thread.

Not a very fair comparison. You can dislike Hillary for her politics, but she doesn't put on the clownshow that Trump does.

LOL. Hillary is a ****ing criminal. She belongs in a jail cell not in the White House.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Hillary is a ****ing criminal. She belongs in a jail cell not in the White House.

Is this only about the Email server or do you think she did other criminal acts?

If J Biden decides to run, he will get the DEM nominee. Look for Corey Booker to be VPOTUS to get the black vote.

Repeating something doesn't make it true, Star.


Originally posted by psmith81992
You can say the reverse of the donald trump thread.


Mind you, there's a difference between disliking what someone does, and trying to make up things and even motives for what they do unrelated to their own stances. If someone dislikes Donald Trump because they find his stance on immigration abhorrent or think his business record is poor, that's something he's actually done, that'd be like disliking Hillary based on her performance as secretary of state and senator and first lady and so on, or reacting to statements she actually said- note how a whole lot of stuff here isn't actually based on what Hillary said but is more a caricature of her, often in direct contradiction to her actual stances and actions.

Or saying that they think he will fail/want him to fail. Again, that's just stating an opinion/desire, not attaching random motives to Trump.


Plus there's, like, actual polls and analysis and stuff posted there too, completely aside from that.


This is more, "People say things they want to be true."

Originally posted by psmith81992
You can say the reverse of the donald trump thread.

Not really, you seem to do that a lot, pretending that there is a symmetry that just doesn't exist. Like Lestov and Bashar are just not the liberal equivalent of Star and TI, for example.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really, you seem to do that a lot, pretending that there is a symmetry that just doesn't exist. Like Lestov and Bashar are just not the liberal equivalent of Star and TI, for example. oh lestov certainly is and so is bashar to a lesser extent.

There once was a liberal equivalent of Star/TI on KMC. In his defense, he openly admitted to having mental issues and was on medication for it.

The only difference is these two equivalents don't have the self awareness to admit that.

Originally posted by psmith81992
oh lestov certainly is and so is bashar to a lesser extent. They are both to a lesser extent, cause Star and TI are way more extremist, and Lestov and Bashar don't behave similarly.

And similarly the Hillary thread was made by TI to attack Hillary, and it has been used throughout its life to post unfounded hitpieces and make jokes about her.

The Trump thread was also made by TI, but because he supports him, and there's been fruitful discussion of Trump's run and connected issues.

Originally posted by Robtard
There once was a liberal equivalent of Star/TI on KMC. In his defense, he openly admitted to having mental issues and was on medication for it.
Darth Jello?

Yeah, sounds right.

http://support.stophillarypac.org/shut-down4/?efn=Friend&eln=%%LAST%%&ema=%%TO_EMAIL%%&ezi=%%zlp_CODE%%


Don't let that b**** get off the hook. She needs to pay for what she did. Or rather, more accurately, what she didn't do.

Hasn't the Benghazi Committee been proven to be a Republican witch hunt, abusing the political process for partisan purposes. Awful really, how some Republican politicians would do that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hasn't the Benghazi Comittee been proven to be a Republican witch hunt, abusing the political process for partisan purposes. Awful really, how some Republican politicians would do that.

IMO, they should face criminal charges for abusing the system and the tax payers money.

Bardock, your opinion is irrelevant here. You're not American. Stick to your own country's business and politics instead of continuing to butt into ours. This b**** is a criminal who belongs in jail.

Originally posted by Star428
Bardock, your opinion is irrelevant here. You're not American. Stick to your own country's business and politics instead of continuing to butt into ours. This b**** is a criminal who belongs in jail.

But there isn't any evidence that she has committed any crimes. Really the committee is the one that's breaking the law.