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

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/most-hillary-clinton-voters-think-the-allegations-against-bill-clinton-are-credible_us_5a0ca041e4b0c0b2f2f76f79?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004



Not bad, Hillary voters. This is fair and honest. Hillary voters aren't so bad....at least a simple majority.

What is the point of this thread, you dumb ape

Yea, it's not like she bad mouthed any of his accusers or claimed it was all just a vast right wing conspiracy.

^ Vote for actual abuser of women or vote for someone whose husband abused women hmmm

She didn't help or protect any of the women he abused. a more accurate statement would be.

Vote for the actual abuser of women or vote for the person that helped him cover up his actions and publically attacked the character of his victims.

I mean, it's much easier to say after the political career of Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump is no longer being pushed for, and at a time at which Democrats are trying to leverage the sexual assault charge against a republican (with good reason).

Good on them, and I'm not necessarily levying an accusation, but I'm not necessarily convinced that those same statistics would be reflected in a poll taken during the 2016 presidential election for example.

Also, not gonna pretend Republicans don't also play the shitty game of covering for their own side in ways they wouldn't accept from the other side.

Originally posted by Firefly218
^ Vote for actual abuser of women or vote for someone whose husband abused women hmmm

I choose neither. Both are huge pieces of shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Both are huge pieces of shit.



Honestly though I'd say that about the political parties too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. I do believe I was right there pointing this out in the election, on KMC. Asking people why I should hate Hillary because Bill did bad things.

Because she helped him get away with it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Because she helped him get away with it.

And that's what you said at the time I was asking the question when I was in a sea of "u trollin', man!"

That's so ****ing stupid. Women have a right to be believed if there's credible evidence that they should be believed.

Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it. Haha Love it!

Originally posted by Robtard
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it. #CognitiveDissonance

Originally posted by Firefly218
#CognitiveDissonance

LOL at you believing she didn't know and was just naively defending her husband.

However if true, That doesn't say much for her intelligence.

Originally posted by Firefly218
^ Vote for actual abuser of women or vote for someone whose husband abused women hmmm

^bingo,

Originally posted by Robtard
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

^bingo,

Originally posted by Firefly218
#CognitiveDissonance

^aaaaaaaaaaaand bingo.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
Haha Love it!

Originally posted by Firefly218
#CognitiveDissonance

These Trumpers really screwed the pooch when they labeled Weinstein a sexual predator, because scumbag lying Weinstein denied it and said it was all consensual sex-play. The same basic excuse they accepted when Trump bragged, "he said they let him do it!". Oh Trumpers, how do you do it.

I agree that Trump is a piece of sh!t.

Originally posted by Robtard
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

FTFY

Same kind of person. One bragged about it. One liked about it with the wife enabling the lies.

Why can't it be my option: don't vote for either?

Would not Jill Stein have been a better choice than all of them?

Nah, mine's more accurate. Spouses believe each other, even when they know better. Thanks for the equalizing tactics though

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, mine's more accurate. Spouses believe each other, even when they know better. Thanks for the equalizing tactics though

So you think Hillary wasn't aware of his shenanigans? She was just innocent and defended her husband in righteousness, eh?

Believing something even when you know better is called being delusional. not a good trait for a leader.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you think Hillary wasn't aware of his shenanigans? She was just innocent and defended her husband in righteousness, eh?

The consensual cheating? I'm sure she knew Bill's dick was flying loose, we have the Monica scandal as proof she knew. The unwanted sexual predator accusations, she probably believed Bill that those women wanted more and then turned on him out of spite. Marriages, you know.

edit: So yah, what I said is more accurate when we break it down and separate the legal and criminal aspects, instead of lumping them all together to force a narrative

Originally posted by Robtard
The consensual cheating?

No, the predatory behavior he's been accused of for decades. But, sure, the cheating too.

Originally posted by Robtard
The unwanted sexual predations accusations, she probably believed Bill that those women wanted more and then turned on him out of spite. Marriages, you know.

Nah, this is definitely not true. Unless you want to call all of them liars who are lying to besmirch Billy's good name.

Moore? Predator
Spacey? Predator
But Bill Clinton? Nah, those accusers are liars.







I've got you, son, on this topic, here. It's best you check your bias. Take your Hillary-love glasses off. Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've got you, son, on this topic, here. It's best you check your bias. Take your Hillary-love glasses off. Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey. It's not Robtards bias, it's Hillary's bias. A wife is biased to her husband's side of the story.

We're not excusing Bill Clinton here though, just wanna make that clear

Originally posted by Firefly218
It's not Robtards bias, it's Hillary's bias. A wife is biased to her husband's side of the story.

We're not excusing Bill Clinton here though, just wanna make that clear

Do you have any verifiable proof that Hillary didn't know?

Of course Hillary knew. She cucked(quite literally) for Bill because she realized that Bill's reputation was also her reputation, and she had big plans for herself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the predatory behavior he's been accused of for decades. But, sure, the cheating too.


Nah, this is definitely not true. Unless you want to call all of them liars who are lying to besmirch Billy's good name.

Moore? Predator
Spacey? Predator
But Bill Clinton? Nah, those accusers are liars



I've got you, son, on this topic, here. It's best you check your bias. Take your Hillary-love glasses off. Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey.

It's important to separate the consensual from the rape. Bill has a history of both.

I personally believe those women and that Clinton is a rapey sexual predator. I've said this before and I said it here on my first post. But I'm not married to Bill, which is the point I'm making.

What you have is trying to strawman me, actually.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you have any verifiable proof that Hillary didn't know? Hillary has said herself that she didn't know and that evidence pointed to the contrary

Originally posted by Firefly218
Hillary has said herself that she didn't know and that evidence pointed to the contrary


That's nice, but do you have any verifiable evidence that she was telling the truth?

Originally posted by Firefly218
Hillary has said herself that she didn't know and that evidence pointed to the contrary

She says she doesn't know or doesn't have knowledge of things a lot. She's either the most clueless person on this planet, or she's full of shit all of the time. Both are equally good reasons to not want her as a President.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's nice, but do you have any verifiable evidence that she was telling the truth? Innocent until there's reasonable doubt. I choose to see the breadth of her entire track record of helping and protecting women.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Innocent until there's reasonable doubt. I choose to evaluate the breadth of her entire track record of helping and protecting women.

So no, you don't have any verifiable proof that she as telling the truth. just your pro Hillary bias. BTW, she didn't help or protect any of the women who accused Bill. she routinely attacked their character.

Classic Trumper approach: Everything out of Hillary's mouth is a lie until proven true. Everything out of Trump's mouth is truth until proven a lie, and even when he accidentally admits he's lying, it's often dismissed

Originally posted by Silent Master
So no, you don't have any verifiable proof that she as telling the truth. just your pro Hillary bias. BTW, she didn't help or protect any of the women who accused Bill. she routinely attacked their character. Hillary Clinton is an inspiring figure and has handled the pitfalls of politics with extraordinary grace and aplomb, especially as a woman in a characteristically masculine arena

Originally posted by Robtard
Classic Trumper approach: Everything out of Hillary's mouth is a lie until proven true. Everything out of Trump's mouth is truth until proven a lie, and even when he accidentally admits he's lying, it's often dismissed sums it up

end thread

But we aren't going to ignore the fact that her tactic of "I didn't know" is getting old are we?

Not sure she did a "I didn't know" more so that she believed Bill's side of the sexual predator allegations. She clearly knew about the cheating, as noted, Bill has a history of stepping outside his marriage, one case landed him lying about it and being impeached. Can't really ignore that one.

If you want to call her a fool, moron and/or bag of shit for believing her husband's side of the story when it comes to the rape-y criminal behavior, go ahead. But to equate that to an actual rapist like Trump is a stretch. Bill and Trump are the sexual predators, Trump bragged it no less

Originally posted by Firefly218
Hillary Clinton is an inspiring figure and has handled the pitfalls of politics with extraordinary grace and aplomb, especially as a woman in a characteristically masculine arena

LOL!!!

TIL cheating is kinda the same as sexual harassment and rape coz reasons.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure she did a "I didn't know" more so that she believed Bill's side of the sexual predator allegations. She clearly knew about the cheating, as noted, Bill has a history of stepping outside his marriage, one case landed him lying about it and being impeached. Can't really ignore that one.

If you want to call her a fool, moron and/or bag of shit for believing her husband's side of the story when it comes to the rape-y criminal behavior, go ahead. But to equate that to an actual rapist like Trump is a stretch.

I think they are both shit bags when it comes to telling the truth, but, yes actual rape would be worse than covering for your husband's rape. not much though.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
TIL cheating is kinda the same as sexual harassment and rape coz reasons.

Bill was accused of sexual assault as well was he not?

Originally posted by socool8520
Bill was accused of sexual assault as well was he not?

yeah yeah...hillary should have known he was a rapist because he cheated on her. yes i get it, but it's f*cking stupid.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yeah yeah...hillary should have known he was a rapist because he cheated on her. yes i get it, but it's f*cking stupid.

That's not what I said at all. I said he was also accused of sexual assault wasn't he?

you did. Originally posted by socool8520
But we aren't going to ignore the fact that her tactic of "I didn't know" is getting old are we?

not interested in your trolling tactics so practice them on someone else, k sport?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you did.

not interested in your trolling tactics so practice them on someone else, k sport?

No, you're just incapable of admitting your own bias and get all pissy pants when called out on it. It's cool man, no judgement.

that's nice

Originally posted by socool8520
I think they are both shit bags when it comes to telling the truth, but, yes actual rape would be worse than covering for your husband's rape. not much though.

Covering for a rapist you know is guilty is about the same, imo. Like the people who defend pedos when they know they're pedos. If you're helping the rapist rape, you're really not much better, again, my opinion here.

But the point is: while Clinton knew about Bill's cheating, did she actually believe the rape allegations or did she believe her husband when he denied those acts weren't consensual?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's nice

I said no judgement.

Originally posted by Robtard
Covering for a rapist you know is guilty is about the same, imo. Like the people who defend pedos when they know they're pedos. If you're helping the rapist rape, you're really not much better, again, my opinion here.

But the point is: while Clinton knew about Bill's cheating, did she actually believe the rape allegations or did she believe her husband when he denied those acts weren't consensual?


Well, that would make her extremely gullible given the fact that he has already shown poor judgement with all of his scandals wouldn't it?

And then to attack the accusers when you know full well what kind of guy your husband is not a great idea imo.

Don't get me wrong, I could easily see Trump being guilty of what he's accused, and if he is, he deserves to be in prison. I'm not defending him, I just don't get the defense for Hillary

Originally posted by socool8520
Well, that would make her extremely gullible given the fact that he has already shown poor judgement with all of his scandals wouldn't it?

And then to attack the accusers when you know full well what kind of guy your husband is not a great idea imo.

Don't get me wrong, I could easily see Trump being guilty of what he's accused, and if he is, he deserves to be in prison. I'm not defending him, I just don't get the defense for Hillary

This is sort of assuming that she connects Bill to being a rapist because he cheats a lot. That's a weird stretch. Being a serial cheater doesn't mean you're also a sexual predator in of itself. Two different animals.

Again, if she legitimately believed Bill and that his cheating was with willing partners, why wouldn't she defend her husband against rape allegations? Wouldn't you if someone accused your spouse of rape and you believed your spouse.

Because you're mixing the two. Bill is a sexual predator. Trump is a sexual predator. Clinton defended Bill's sexual predations from the mindset that he didn't rape.

So the real point you should be asking yourself, do you believe Hillary believed her husband Bill's side or do you believe Hillary believed the women and attacked them anyways. One is forgivable, the other isn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is sort of assuming that she connects Bill to being a rapist because he cheats a lot. That's a weird stretch. Being a serial cheater doesn't mean you're also a sexual predator in of itself. Two different animals.

Again, if she legitimately believed Bill and that his cheating was with willing partners, why wouldn't she defend her husband against rape allegations? Wouldn't you if someone accused your spouse of rape and you believed your spouse.

Because you're mixing the two. Bill is a sexual predator. Trump is a sexual predator. Clinton defended Bill's sexual predations from the mindset that he didn't rape.

So the real point you should be asking yourself, do you believe Hillary believed her husband Bill's side or do you believe Hillary believed the women and attacked them anyways. One is forgivable, the other isn't.

It's not that much of a stretch in Bill's case. Sure, had only one person come forward, then having a strong faith in your husband is understandable. Multiple women though? and he was a serial cheater? Things should at least be lingering in the back of your mind. Enough so that you would second guess lashing out at the accusers publicly knowing your husband's lack of honesty.

You are correct though,they are two different things, but he lied about his indiscretions so it would seem foolish to me after multiple accusations that she would just believe him so readily and completely.

Given her track record with the IDK excuse, I would say it's the former. But given the scenario it is possible she believed him.

Originally posted by socool8520
It's not that much of a stretch in Bill's case. Sure, had only one person come forward, then having a strong faith in your husband is understandable. Multiple women though? and he was a serial cheater? Things should at least be lingering in the back of your mind. Enough so that you would second guess lashing out at the accusers publicly knowing your husband's lack of honesty.

You are correct though,they are two different things, but he lied about his indiscretions so it would seem foolish to me after multiple accusations that she would just believe him so readily and completely.

Given her track record with the IDK excuse, I would say it's the former. But given the scenario it is possible she believed him.

Again, it's not unheard of for a wife/husband to believe their spouse, even in crazy situations.

Bill's clearly a sexual predator in my mind, but I'm also not married to him. If I was maybe I'd believe him if he told me "I cheated on baby, but they all wanted it. But they don't mean a thing!".

Dunno, I've seen some whacked marriages (uncles, aunts, friends of family) growing up and the shit some spouses believe is insane.

Originally posted by socool8520
It's not that much of a stretch in Bill's case. Sure, had only one person come forward, then having a strong faith in your husband is understandable. Multiple women though? and he was a serial cheater? Things should at least be lingering in the back of your mind. Enough so that you would second guess lashing out at the accusers publicly knowing your husband's lack of honesty.

You are correct though,they are two different things, but he lied about his indiscretions so it would seem foolish to me after multiple accusations that she would just believe him so readily and completely.

Given her track record with the IDK excuse, I would say it's the former. But given the scenario it is possible she believed him.

Right, she either knew and was protecting him or she was delusional. either way, that type of person shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a leadership position.

That said, Trump is a piece of sh!t himself and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a leadership position either. that's why I supported Sanders.

Originally posted by Silent Master
. that's why I supported Sanders.

Nopesauce

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, it's not unheard of for a wife/husband to believe their spouse, even in crazy situations.

Bill's clearly a sexual predator in my mind, but I'm also not married to him. If I was maybe I'd believe him if he told me "I cheated on baby, but they all wanted it. But they don't mean a thing!".

Dunno, I've seen some whacked marriages (uncles, aunts, friends of family) growing up and the shit some spouses believe is insane.

I agree that it isn't unheard of, but it just seems unlikely in her case. I think the detriment to her career and the plausible deniability was enough for her to take his side. My money would be on she didn't believe him.

Originally posted by socool8520
I agree that it isn't unheard of, but it just seems unlikely in her case. I think the detriment to her career and the plausible deniability was enough for her to take his side. My money would be on she didn't believe him.

Your belief certainly isn't crazy, in fact, it's outright plausible she believed Bill's accusers and denied it for her own ends.

But "I don't know for sure" has a lot less vinegar than "I know, because he bragged about it".

Originally posted by Robtard
Your belief certainly isn't crazy, in fact, it's outright plausible she believed Bill's accusers and denied it for her own ends.

But "I don't know for sure" has a lot less vinegar than "I know, because he bragged about it".

That's the rub though. Did he actually do it or was he just bragging like some men do? Not making excuses just showing you that both scenarios have a "maybe not" element to them.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if he is a sexual predator.

Originally posted by socool8520
That's the rub though. Did he actually do it or was he just bragging like some men do? Not making excuses just showing you that both scenarios have a "maybe not" element to them.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if he is a sexual predator.

Bill was accused and we believe he's a sexual predator (at least I do and you do), not sure why people would make a special rule for Trump when he's been both accused and then caught on candid microphone bragging about his sexual predations.

He was her political capital. It wouldn't matter if she believed, didn't believe, stood by her husband etc she needed him for her endeavors.

Let's not evern pretend that she didn't know her husband was a sexual predator, at the time is was initially brought up though that wasn't a term used as it is today though.

Originally posted by Robtard
What you have is trying to strawman me, actually.

You have it backwards. You're using a strawman to compare Bill to Don and then whitewashing Hillary's enabling. Because you clearly have a bias.

What you did in your previous two segments was try and use a red herring to change what we were talking about. You're trying to strawman my point to make it seem like I'm calling you out for not acknowledging Bill's problems and then pointing out that I'm using a strawman (I'm clearly not), as if your feelings were hurt that I would dare mischaracterize your position.

Sorry, I'm not Surtur: your bait and switch games won't work on me.

You left out a lot of my post, but anyhow.

My opening post I state Bill is a sexual predator:

Originally posted by Robtard
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

You claimed I was defending that he wasn't; while making disparaging remarks:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've got you, son, on this topic, here. It's best you check your bias. Take your Hillary-love glasses off. Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey.

That is a strawman argument you made. Now will you apologize?

Originally posted by Robtard
You left out a lot of my post, but anyhow.

My opening post I state Bill is a sexual predator:



You claimed I was defending that he wasn't; while making disparaging remarks:

Anyone can clearly see that what you claim I said is no where in what you quoted. Neither did I ever say you were defending bill being a sexual predator:

You said:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

So I corrected it to:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.



Key words there are "enabled" and "lied about it."


You're using "strawman" but you're not using that word correctly.

"Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey." -you

You're clearly accusing me of defending bill as not being a sexual predator there, when I said he was in my first post. So yeah, I see where this is going and I'm just not interested.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bill was accused and we believe he's a sexual predator (at least I do and you do), not sure why people would make a special rule for Trump when he's been both accused and then caught on candid microphone bragging about his sexual predations.

There shouldn't be but I thought the issue was Hillary's a Liar vs Trump's a liar.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey." -you

But that's clearly not what I corrected in my post of yours which what we were and I was actually talking about.

You're skipping the meat on purpose. Because strawman. Because bait and switch.


Address the actual point: admit you were wrong.

To your correction of my post, I said this:

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, mine's more accurate. Spouses believe each other, even when they know better. Thanks for the equalizing tactics though

Granted, should probably not have said the last line and is what set things off in a downward spiral. You then asked/implied if I thought Hillary was just unaware. I then made it clear about separating the consensual cheating and the rape on Bill's part, meaning while Clinton knew Bill was a cheater, she probably (imo) believed his side of the rape allegations, cos she's his wife.

You did accuse me of defending Bill as not being a sexual predator, when I clearly made a point that he was in the first post, I pointed that out and here we are.

Originally posted by Robtard
You then asked/implied if I thought Hillary was just unaware. I then made it clear about separating the consensual cheating and the rape on Bill's part, meaning while Clinton knew Bill was a cheater, she probably (imo) believed his side of the rape allegations, cos she's his wife.

You did accuse me of defending Bill as not being a sexual predator, when I clearly made a point that he was in the first post, I pointed that out and here we are.

No, sorry, this is not up for debate. You're calling his accuser a liar when you readily admit to Bill's problem. And then you're saying Hillary is a liar because his accuser said the following:




That is not the picture you painted. That is not a poor innocent wife defending her husband. They are Frank and Claire Underwood.

Now, things are different. Unlike Moore, both Hillary and Bill are not running for office. The sexual issues with Bill has been going on for decades. And he was impeached because of his lies. There's nothing honest about this couple. Like I said, you're choosing to ignore his victims and pretending like Hillary did not enable Bill and cover up for him. The truly scary issue with Hillary is the vitriolic threats she made to his victims. She sounds like a sociopathic murderer.


Now you'll spin it and pretend it is innocent. But too many things like this add up after a while. You have to stop believing in your bias and just discard Hilary has a very shitty person. You voted for her and you don't want to acknowledge that you voted for a truly vile person: I get it. Who cares? What do you earn from keeping that hollow pride?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the predatory behavior he's been accused of for decades. But, sure, the cheating too.



Nah, this is definitely not true. Unless you want to call all of them liars who are lying to besmirch Billy's good name.

Moore? Predator
Spacey? Predator
But Bill Clinton? Nah, those accusers are liars.







I've got you, son, on this topic, here. It's best you check your bias. Take your Hillary-love glasses off. Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey.

It doesn't matter in the context of the discussion whether it's true. Robtard's point is that he thinks that's what Hillary believed. He's making no statement of fact about Bill's behavior or even really giving his opinioin on it, merely saying that he thinks Hillary probably believed her husband rather than the women.

Which is par the course. I'm sure Moore's wife believes her husband instead of the accusers, I don't begrudge her for that. That goes with the territory of being married. People are generally going to err on the side of their spouse unless some very explicit anthony weiner type evidence comes out to prove something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, sorry, this is not up for debate. You're calling his accuser a liar when you readily admit to Bill's problem. And then you're saying Hillary is a liar because his accuser said the following:


No, I've not called Bill's accuser's liars. I believe Bill's a sexual predator, said this from the first post. So not sure what games you're playing here.

Originally posted by BackFire
It doesn't matter in the context of the discussion whether it's true. Robtard's point is that he thinks that's what Hillary believed. He's making no statement of fact about Bill's behavior or even really giving his opinioin on it, merely saying that he thinks Hillary probably believed her husband rather than the women.

Which is par the course. I'm sure Moore's wife believes her husband instead of the accusers, I don't begrudge her for that. That goes with the territory of being married. People are generally going to err on the side of their spouse unless some very explicit anthony weiner type evidence comes out to prove something.

^

Gets it.

I do though believe Bill is a sexual predator, from my outside view. Trump is too.

I just love how leftists here are in a tizzy over the recent sex scandals from people on their side. I'm guessing Franken was an especially hard story to handle.

Cept who's defending these people? I've seen no real support for Franken's behavior, aside from maybe the odd Twitter warrior?

Originally posted by Robtard
Cept who's defending these people? I've seen no real support for Franken's behavior, aside from maybe the odd Twitter warrior?

I said people are in a tizzy, not that you defended him. Though you did pull a "well he said sorry". Ignoring that he pretty much has to do that if he wants any chance to have a career. Also ignoring the tricky situation that would unfold if he, a leftist, said a woman was lying.

Originally posted by Surtur
I said people are in a tizzy, not that you defended him.

Though you did pull a "well he said sorry". Ignoring that he pretty much has to do that if he wants any chance to have a career. Also ignoring the tricky situation that would unfold if he, a leftist, said a woman was lying.

Fair enough.

That wasn't a defense and you're twisting the context; that was noting that he at least isn't denying everything and accusing his victim(s) of lying like other people have done. I in fact said 'if Franken's guilty, let him go down with the rest'.

Speaking of tricky situations: you Trumpers are in a pickle. You condemn Bill for being a sexual predator because people have accused him of such and then spin it onto Hillary, while at the same time ignoring that Trump's been accused of the same and then bragged about it. The conundrum you're in.

Hillary is running for president. Having a rapist as first lady is just you being racist.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough.

That wasn't a defense and you're twisting the context; that was noting that he at least isn't denying everything and accusing his victim(s) of lying like other people have done. I in fact said 'if Franken's guilty, let him go down with the rest'.

Speaking of tricky situations: you Trumpers are in a pickle. You condemn Bill for being a sexual predator because people have accused him of such and then spin it onto Hillary, while at the same time ignoring that Trump's been accused of the same and then bragged about it. The conundrum you're in.

Well it is Dems bringing up Bill though remember. I think I know why. It's pointless. They can damage Bill, but Hilary isn't running anymore. So why? Because he was a former president. It makes it then very easy to pivot from the former president to the current one.

Which if Trump did do these things he does need to answer for them.

TBF, I shouldn't have included you there with other Trumpers, vaguely recall you giving Bill the same benefit as Trump in 'it's accusations, nothing has been proven'. Though you did and continue to dismiss his bragging about it.

Unless your mind has changed since about a year ago in regards to Bill?

trump has magic fee-fees forcefield from common ethics. investigate everyone but trump. "mmmmmm yeah give it to me orange daddy i've been a dirty s1ut"

I say investigate Trump too if it is warranted.

Originally posted by Surtur
if it is warranted.

clown

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I've not called Bill's accuser's liars. I believe Bill's a sexual predator, said this from the first post. So not sure what games you're playing here.



^

Gets it.

I do though believe Bill is a sexual predator, from my outside view. Trump is too.

Dude....


I've very clearly outlined where you've made mistakes.

I quoted two different victims.


This has nothing to do with whether or not you think this is some sort of "my spouse never does wrong" situations. This is about Hillary threatening the victims and enabling Bill.


I outlined very clearly what my intentions were and you ignored it. This is why I say you're bias. This is why I say you have Bill's dick in your mouth while you're pounding away on Hillary. You keep ignoring the very meat of the facts (my point) and acting like this is a pretend discussion about you denying Bill was a predator. The very point of this thread is to show people are NOT denying Bill is a piece of shit. Stop making it about that.


Go back. Read my posts. Look at the content. And forgot for 5 seconds about the pretend "gotcha pretending Bill's not a bad person." No one is playing that game. No one even cares.

Originally posted by BackFire
It doesn't matter in the context of the discussion whether it's true. Robtard's point is that he thinks that's what Hillary believed. He's making no statement of fact about Bill's behavior or even really giving his opinioin on it, merely saying that he thinks Hillary probably believed her husband rather than the women.

Why are both of you missing the point on purpose? Again, this isn't about Hillary being innocent and standing by her man. There is no room for entertaining that position.

No point is being missed. That may be your point and your belief, it was not Robtard's initial point which is what I was referring to.

Originally posted by BackFire
No point is being missed. That may be your point and your belief, it was not Robtard's initial point which is what I was referring to.

If you understood my point then you would not have felt the need to clarify Robtard's initial point which is why I said you missed my point. Now it's getting ridiculous. kitty

I'm clarifying your clarification of my clarification or robtard's clarification of my point of Robtard's original point. Skip all that bullshit. It's getting absurd, now.


I fixed Rob's post that left out the part where Hillary threatened the victims and enabled Bill. Arguments, bla bla bla, etc.

I posted evidence. Arguments, bla bla bla.


So the victims are lying or they are not. You cannot take Robtard's middle ground of "I believe the accusers about Bill being a predator but not the other things the victims said about the Hillary threats."

Sure you can.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sure you can.

He can try but it doesn't work.

So are they lying?

About what?

stuff

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*bumping thread because he wants people to argue with dadudemon more*




Crickets, dude. Crickets.

...things...

Okay, let's go through this step-by-step because what you tried to get away with irked me a little bit here, dadudemon. You try to overwhelm with superficial explanations you hope will be kafkaesque/contain enough phony complication for people not to casually notice and this has been a debate pattern with you for a quite a long time.

I have nothing against you outright but I certainly believe you're capable of intellectual dishonesty. I am going to break this up into several parts to explain the mistakes you've made here to try to bring you, and perhaps others, clarity into a situation that I think you may have intentionally obfuscated.

PART I: Dadudemon's Strawman Fallacy

So, what I'll do first is define what a "strawman" is. A strawman fallacy is defined as an argument form (informal fallacy) that partially substitutes or even outright replaces your opponent's argument/statement with something they were not arguing in the first place, effectively attacking a "strawman" as opposed to your opponent's argument. It involves mischaracterization and is usually done with the intent to more easily refute your opponent.

So let's focus on where you committed the strawman (you did, in fact, commit the fallacy despite your confident insistence that you didn't) so let's see:



The above quote is from Robtard. He speculates on Hillary's perspective regarding what Bill had done by stating that Hillary most likely bought/believed an explanation from Bill that these woman wanted to come back to Bill for sex or other sexual activities and that they made claims to "spite him."

Robtard clarifies this later on when he says, "I then made it clear about separating the consensual cheating and the rape on Bill's part, meaning while Clinton knew Bill was a cheater, she probably (imo) believed his side of the rape allegations, cos she's his wife."

You respond to his initial opinion with this:


This is logically problematic and here's why:
First off, Robtard was discussing how Hillary approached Bill potentially denying the claims and Robtard did not deny these claims himself, which is necessary for him to have called Bill's accusers "liars" in this context. I will help with this.

EXAMPLE: So Jimmy gets a chocolate bar from the store and runs home to his house where his mother lives with him. The store clerk phones Jimmy's mother and tell her that Jimmy stole the chocolate he came home with. Jimmy's mother does nothing about the store clerk's accusations that Jimmy stole the bar and then speculation stirs in Town X amongst it's fine people.

Now, you are a citizen in Town X and these are the details that you have. Now, let's say you hear this and decide to speculate that Jimmy's mother was probably told by Jimmy that the store clerk had some sort of vendetta against Jimmy and that store clerk lied about him stealing the chocolate bar. Then, you claimed that Jimmy's mother likely believed what Jimmy had said and is why she did not act to punish Jimmy or whatnot.

Now, If Citizen Y came along and claimed you were calling the store clerk a liar when you shared a point-of-view regarding how Jimmy's mom felt and handled the situation, would you say that was sound reasoning or would you call it a strawman? In this situation, the only one misrepresenting the situation regarding the store clerk or even claiming that the store clerk did something dishonest or "spiteful" is Jimmy, not you.

You would have needed to claim something like, "The store clerk lied..." or "I think the store clerk lied..." in order for Citizen Y's assertion that YOU were claiming the store clerk was lying to be logically sound. Otherwise? It is an obvious misrepresentation of your position by Citizen Y and is, therefore, a strawman fallacy.

PART II: Dadudemon's accusations of Robtard committing a strawman and a red herring (the whitewashing assertion included)

So, going into this, we are going to discuss how you asserted Robtard is, in fact, the one who used a strawman fallacy and a red herring to alter or distract from the discussion. Let's begin.
First, we are going to discuss how Robtard used a strawman to compare Bill to Donald to what I assume is whitewash Hillary's enabling. I'd like to point out that you've assumed, in this context, Hillary was in fact enabling Bill Clinton's action without evidence. However, that's not entirely relevant yet so let's continue.


Originally posted by dadudemon
You have it backwards. You're using a strawman to compare Bill to Don and then whitewashing Hillary's enabling. Because you clearly have a bias.

In order for Robtard to have used a strawman (definition is near the top of Part I. You can also look into this yourself using a search engine, for whoever may be reading), in this context, he would have needed to misrepresent your position (since you claim in this post I'm quoting that he does it to you. Y'all can check). Yet, there is little evidence to suggest he even remotely did this. On the first page of this thread, we have numerous posts from users such as these:

By Firefly:


By Silent Master:


By Emperordmb:


By (and this one is important) You, responding to Firefly's post (quoted just above the other two posters):



Other posters also included commentaries about the election and then directly to Bill, as seen on page one, but I have included the ones that are relevant to your claim. So, Robtard comes along and posts this:



So, not only did Robtard not initiate or use the portions of the discussion that involved Trump to mischaracterize (something he would have needed to do to accuse him of strawmanning, among other things) but you commented on the situation even before he did. I say in my initial post that you intentionally misread this because I assume you didn't forget about the discussion beforehand or that you yourself weighed in on it.

Sure, your initial post was exclusively related to Bill Clinton and Hillary's role in that situation. However, the discussion took a different tone and several people were involved, you yourself. You later try to come down on Robtard for steering the discussion away from that but I speculate that if you took issue with this, you would have complained earlier, as opposed to attempting to weaponize his involvement in the already-initiated discussion to take attention away from mistakes you made.

As for your claim that Robtard was essentially using the strawman, that he did not do, to whitewash the blame? Well, the premise is busted from the start because he didn't strawman. Plus, to whitewash is to deceptively absolve someone of blame or responsibility. Since Robtard does not openly think she is responsible (he thinks Bill is) and there is no evidence that she is to blame, the whitewashing claim is incorrect.



We have already covered how Robtard did not using a red herring, as a red herring is terminology relating to how an argument is irrelevant. Yet, it was relevant as you and others were discussing Trump as part of the situation from page one of this thread.

Also, you very plainly called out Robtard for not ackowledging Bill's problems when you proclaimed, in the very same post, he was using a strawman to compare "Bill and Don", which would inherently distract from "Bill's problems" in this context. Like, directly distract from it. This, of course, would be the case if that had happened. It did not.


This comes off as a light form of gaslighting, to be honest. If anyone did this within this entire thread, it is demonstrably you who did it, dadudemon. This is very, very dishonest and manipulative. Cheaply so, but it is the case nonetheless.

PART III: Dadudemon's tergiversating and mispresentation, discussed

Here, I will discuss how you definitively weasel-word and tergiversate in order to escape from the strawman and broken point you had previously made and it... well, it's something, to say the least:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anyone can clearly see that what you claim I said is no where in what you quoted. Neither did I ever say you were defending bill being a sexual predator:


This is completely untrue. Sure, you didn't come out and directly SAY Robtard was defending Bill being a sexual predator (you'll find out why I named this chapter "dadudemon's tergiversating" but you implied it directly. And I mean directly. We will go back to this quote to discuss that, since we've already used it to outline your strawman.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, this is definitely not true. Unless you want to call all of them liars who are lying to besmirch Billy's good name.
Moore? Predator
Spacey? Predator
But Bill Clinton? Nah, those accusers are liars.

I've got you, son, on this topic, here. It's best you check your bias. Take your Hillary-love glasses off. Pull Bill's dick out of your mouth (it was consenual, Robtard swears!). And admit that Billabong is a sexual predator just like Moore and Spacey.

Firstly, you proclaim Robtard wants to call all of his accuser's liars to "besmirch Billy's good name." You secondly imply Robtard is okay with accepting Moore and Spacey's accusers as predator but he does not with Bill Clinton. Thirdly, you have the final portion of this post which has you saying: "It was consenual , Robtard swears!" There are THREE direct implications here that you are claiming Robtard is defending Bill Clinton. Then, you come back to say, "Oh, I never SAID that!" This is incredibly weak and is classic weasel-wording.

Hell, you even tell Robtard to admit Bill is a sexual predator, even though several times during the course of this thread, he has claimed he believes that. This implies he is denying that Bill is/was a sexual predator but he didn't. You thought he did and it's likely one of the reasons why you initially strawmanned his position. Then again, you're a bit all over the place because you told him to admit that Bill was a sexual predator but then said:

Originally posted by dadudemon when you readily admit to Bill's problem.

To digress for a moment, this snippet right here?



Is not evidence Hillary was thanking her to keep quiet. When she thanks the accuser for "everything she does", this comes off as frustration that she knew Bill was sleeping with these women, not that he assaulted them. Hillary also called her a "bimbo" for years, likely because she was irritated that, I don't know, she was under the impression someone had been sleeping with her husband? This is not evidence that Hillary was complicit, nor is it proof Robtard is calling Hillary a liar and I think you know this. I mean, it even comes with ridiculous exaggerations from you, like this:



You're doing everything in your power here to distance yourself from the reasoning errors you made several times during this discussion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude....
I've very clearly outlined where you've made mistakes.

No, but you have very clearly manufactured where Robtard made mistakes.


Yes, and right along with your own interpretation, ignoring others as incorrect and treating yours as matter-of-fact.


Perhaps she was being threatening but you have not demonstrated her intent thoroughly. You haven't done much rationally here, dadudemon. It is frankly a ****ing mess.


Genuinely scary stuff, because it demonstrates people should be careful when conducting arguments with you as you will misrepresent, alter, and micharacterize their perspective/opinions.

If that was truly the "very point of this thread", why did you bring it up after Robtard accused you of making a logical mistake once you had already openly participated on the very first page of this thread? Why not point out everyone involved in bringing Trump into the discussion or continuing it? The latter question's answer is obvious and I discussed it earlier. You made a mistake and tried to push attention away from that by trying to highlight Robtard as being the one who derailed this discussion or "made it about that." He's not. Everyone did, you included. I mean, even on the second page, you still continue the discussion that included Trump within this thread without issue. No, really. See here:

Originally posted by dadudemon
FTFY
Same kind of person. One bragged about it. One liked about it with the wife enabling the lies.
Why can't it be my option: don't vote for either?
Would not Jill Stein have been a better choice than all of them?



There isn't room for you, nor is there apparently room for a discussion that as thought-out, reasonable, and without manipulation if you're involved.

This was a shameful display, dadudemon. I'm disappointed, as I've argued in the past that you're not as bad as you used to be but you've seemingly developed into something worse. Without patronizing, I'd urge you to consider the points I've made here and possibly consider re-evaluating how you conduct yourself toward other people during debates.

That's it.

Originally posted by The Lost
*Lots of text*

Nice try but you're making the same mistake Robtard did by trying to force the topic to be about the point I never wanted to make:


Robtard's words:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

My correction:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.


Start from there.




Originally posted by dadudemon
So the victims are lying or they are not. You cannot take Robtard's middle ground of "I believe the accusers about Bill being a predator but not the other things the victims said about the Hillary threats."

That is really too bad, Dominic.

Originally posted by The Lost
That is really too bad, Dominic.

Check the edit



Then start from there. Skip the whole misspoke section because it's a non-issue. Robtard already covered it quite well. Edit: here is what I mean:

Originally posted by Robtard
Granted, should probably not have said the last line and is what set things off in a downward spiral.




Start with who you want to call a liar, out of the victims and Hillary, and to what degree. Then explain why your position is correct.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Check the edit

Then start from there. Skip the whole misspoke section because it's a non-issue. Robtard already covered it quite well.

Start with who you want to call a liar, out of the victims and Hillary, and to what degree. Then explain why your position is correct.

No, because again with you, the well has effectively been poisoned.



False dilemma fallacy, because what could have have occurred is the accusers felt that Hillary was being threatening in what she said but she was in fact irate about what they "had done for Bill" which she thought was consensual intercourse. Perhaps no one is lying, which is a viable alternative.

For the last time, I'd urge you to take advice from the final portion of my posts in the last page and re-evaluate. I mean that sincerely.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Start with who you want to call a liar, out of the victims and Hillary, and to what degree. Then explain why your position is correct.

Really? You're still trying this nonsense here? Anyhow: I've not called any of Bill's victims liars. That seems to be a position you've invented and applied it to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
That seems to be a position you've invented and applied it to me.

100%

Originally posted by Robtard
Really? You're still trying this nonsense here? Anyhow: I've not called any of Bill's victims liars. That seems to be a position you've invented and applied it to me.


You disagreed with my edit of your words. This is how this all started.


Again, let's start over:

Robtard's words:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

My correction:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.


Why do you disagree that Hillary enabled Bill? This is not a "because it's her husband" we've covered this angle already. The accusers are stating things which clearly indicates Hillary knew and was not just choosing her husband's side. She indirectly threatened them and enabled Bill's behavior.

It can only come down to you disagreeing with the accusers and you think they are lying.

So who is lying?

The accusers or Hillary?


This has been my entire point and you keep dodging it. I've asked someone else to read this exchange and they thought my point was pretty obvious and it's clearly being dodged (and this person things I'm full of hot air so it's not a pal) so I'm not going crazy.

Edit - So if you don't think the accusers are liars then you agree with my edit of your wording and the whole "Hillary is just taking her husband's side of things" is a side argument that you now disagree with?

Nope, not crazy. Unreasonable and manipulative.

Despite ignoring absolutely everything else discussed here, I didn't think you'd swipe the brush across everything. If it's that bad? Well, then it's that bad.



Holy ****, are you genuinely doubling down on your original strawmanning? Robtard doesn't think the accusers are lying. We've established this so do you just think you can wish this into something that's true?



What part of "this-is-a-false-dilemma-because-neither-party-may-be-lying" didn't resonate, dadudemon?



BTW, your edit is for sure a false equivocation but that is broaching the tip of an incredibly massive iceberg that likely is the one that ****ed the Titanic.

pls stop

Originally posted by dadudemon
You disagreed with my edit of your words. This is how this all started.


Again, let's start over:

Robtard's words:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

My correction:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.


Why do you disagree that Hillary enabled Bill? This is not a "because it's her husband" we've covered this angle already. The accusers are stating things which clearly indicates Hillary knew and was not just choosing her husband's side. She indirectly threatened them and enabled Bill's behavior.

It can only come down to you disagreeing with the accusers and you think they are lying.

So who is lying?

The accusers or Hillary?


This has been my entire point and you keep dodging it. I've asked someone else to read this exchange and they thought my point was pretty obvious and it's clearly being dodged (and this person things I'm full of hot air so it's not a pal) so I'm not going crazy.

Edit - So if you don't think the accusers are liars then you agree with my edit of your wording and the whole "Hillary is just taking her husband's side of things" is a side argument that you now disagree with?

Already covered that in my response before:

Originally posted by Robtard
The consensual cheating? I'm sure she knew Bill's dick was flying loose, we have the Monica scandal as proof she knew. The unwanted sexual predator accusations, she probably believed Bill that those women wanted more and then turned on him out of spite. Marriages, you know.

edit: So yah, what I said is more accurate when we break it down and separate the legal and criminal aspects, instead of lumping them all together to force a narrative

No where in that post does it say I believe Bill's accusers are lying and I made it clear from my first post in here that I believe Bill's guilty of being a sexual predator, so I would be believing his accusers.

Originally posted by Robtard
Already covered that in my response before:



No where in that post does it say I believe Bill's accusers are lying and I made it clear from my first post in here that I believe Bill's guilty of being a sexual predator, so I would be believing his accusers.

You dodged my point, entirely. You've been dodging it since the beginning.


To ensure we don't keep getting off track, do you know what my point is? You can use your words or mine: it doesn't matter. From my perspective, you don't seem to understand my point at all.

Edit - If you're trolling me, I admit, you've got me. If you're not, then just summarize what you think my point actually is. I won't be a dick: I promise.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You dodged my point, entirely. You've been dodging it since the beginning.


To ensure we don't keep getting off track, do you know what my point is? You can use your words or mine: it doesn't matter. From my perspective, you don't seem to understand my point at all.

Edit - If you're trolling me, I admit, you've got me. If you're not, then just summarize what you think my point actually is. I won't be a dick: I promise.

I've dodged nothing of yours, nor am I trolling you. At this point, your point seems to be wanting to muck everything up as you've accused me of using read herrings and strawmanning you, when I've done neither.

edit: You keep asserting that I said/believe Bill's innocent and that his accusers are lying, when I've not done that. The opposite actually.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You dodged my point, entirely. You've been dodging it since the beginning.


To ensure we don't keep getting off track, do you know what my point is? You can use your words or mine: it doesn't matter. From my perspective, you don't seem to understand my point at all.

Edit - If you're trolling me, I admit, you've got me. If you're not, then just summarize what you think my point actually is. I won't be a dick: I promise.

If you're out, you could just say it, dadudemon. I can sympathize being in your position, as it will be challenging to respond whilst juggling not being able to push past your own pride to admit wrongdoing or being incorrect.

Don't accuse someone of dodging and then pretend I don't exist. I undoubtedly predict some sort of "no, you don't get the point" nonsense but, at the bare minimum, you should respond. It's important to avoid hypocrisy if you're going to go at Robtard regarding his supposed dodging.

eat

Originally posted by Robtard
I've dodged nothing of yours, nor am I trolling you. At this point, your point seems to be wanting to muck everything up as you've accused me of using read herrings and strawmanning you, when I've done neither.

edit: You keep asserting that I said/believe Bill's innocent and that his accusers are lying, when I've not done that. The opposite actually.

So you don't understand my point. Great. We can go somewhere form here.


Okay, then I'll clarify it.

Robtard's words:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.

My correction:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.


I put that she enabled her sexual predator husband in my rewording. Not that she believed. That's a non-issue to me. I don't think it applies to this situation, at all.

I've quoted the victims where they describe Hillary threatening them and indicating she was aware of Bill's illegal sexual activity.

This is what you keep dodging.


Either the victims are lying about the threats and Hillary is telling the truth. Or the victims are telling the truth and Hillary is lying, enabled Bill's behavior, and threatened the victims. This is not a false dichotomy: this is who you believe. You've taken an odd middle ground where you're choosing some of column A and some of column B.



Let's be quite clear at no point did I wish or do I wish to talk about you denying Bill was a predator. That's not something I ever wanted to talk about nor was it even interesting. It was one sentence at the end of multiple jokes where I ****ed up majorly because you've latched onto this as if it is the only point I ever intended to make.

I think I've made it clear that Bill's accusers are not lying, because Bill's a sex-pred and that Hillary is possibly not lying, because she believed her husband's account of the rape allegations(separate from the consensual cheating incidents), as spouses often do believe their significant other. Backfire went on to use a current example with Moore's wife.

So the known liar here would be Bill Clinton.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I've quoted the victims where they describe Hillary threatening them and indicating she was aware of Bill's illegal sexual activity.


Begging the question.




False dilemma.


Yeah, you know what? I'd pretend I didn't exist either. You're not ignoring me in the DNA thread, dadudemon. Stop sweating and please at least address me. I want a definitive answer if you've conceded or if there is another reason you are pretending I've been vaporized. lol?

Originally posted by Robtard
I think I've made it clear that Bill's accusers are not lying, because Bill's a sex-pred and that Hillary is possibly not lying, because she believed her husband's account of the rape allegations(separate from the consensual cheating incidents), as spouses often do believe their significant other. Backfire went on to use a current example with Moore's wife.

So the known liar here would be Bill Clinton.

You've talked about everything except my point. Why? Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over but still dodge the actual point?


What's your goal?

Again, here is my point:

Either the victims are lying about the threats and Hillary is telling the truth. Or the victims are telling the truth and Hillary is lying, enabled Bill's behavior, and threatened the victims. This is not a false dichotomy: this is who you believe. You've taken an odd middle ground where you're choosing some of column A and some of column B.


Are the victims lying about Hillary's threats?

No, that's the narrative you're trying to force on me, I never commented on that. This started because you first created a strawman where I apparently thought Bill wasn't a sexual predator(I stated he was from my first post) and when I pointed out what you were doing, you accused me of the strawmanning.

But if someone truly believes something which is false to be true, they're wrong, but they're not lying when they say said falsehood. eg Moore's wife. Anyow, have fun I guess.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You've talked about everything except my point. Why? Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over but still dodge the actual point?


What's your goal?

Again, here is my point:

Either the victims are lying about the threats and Hillary is telling the truth. Or the victims are telling the truth and Hillary is lying, enabled Bill's behavior, and threatened the victims. This is not a false dichotomy: this is who you believe. You've taken an odd middle ground where you're choosing some of column A and some of column B.


Are the victims lying about Hillary's threats?

I appreciate you half-addressing me. Christ, DDM.

It is a false dilemma ("dichotomy" sounded fancier, I take it?), as explained here:

Originally posted by The Lost
False dilemma fallacy, because what could have have occurred is the accusers felt that Hillary was being threatening in what she said but she was in fact irate about what they "had done for Bill" which she thought was consensual intercourse. Perhaps no one is lying, which is a viable alternative.

Is you saying "it's not a false dichotomy" when it very clearly is supposed to lend agency to your point? It's just damaging it, DDM.

Also, what you accused him off in the latter sentence that you couldn't describe is known as "argument to moderation", in which someone asserts the truth must be the middle ground. Robtard, however, has not asserted the truth must be the middle ground. He's speculated this could be the case. Your problem is you've now doubled down and think one must be lying. You're making far too many definitive statements without enough proof/information and it's leading to you making several logical mistakes.

In short? You're building a house on a swamp, DDM.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, that's the narrative you're trying to force on me, I never commented on that. This started because you first created a strawman where I apparently thought Bill wasn't a sexual predator(I stated he was from my first post) and when I pointed out what you were doing, you accused me of the strawmanning.

You disagreed with my rewording:

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, mine's more accurate. Spouses believe each other, even when they know better. Thanks for the equalizing tactics though

And that was a dodge.

I brought it up that the victims are also accusing Hillary of threats which is why she enabled Bill's illegal sexual behaviors.



Originally posted by Robtard
Anyow, have fun I guess.


Then....you're choosing to ignore the threats and accusations of enablement of Hillary, which is why my original rewording was about, and you refuse to take a stance on it? Is that right? Have I captured your position well?


Then you cannot disagree with my wording and think yours is better until you address the original reason I reworded your post. So we are back to the beginning. You'll have to take a stance in order to disagree with my wording.

Originally posted by The Lost
...

lol, goodness gracious, you want my attention so badly. Sorry, not happening. I don't want to address anything you post regarding this.

You win everything, I concede everything. So you can stop wasting your time.

I'll keep responding to Robtard about this if he wishes to continue, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, goodness gracious, you want my attention so badly. Sorry, not happening. I don't want to address anything you post regarding this.

DDM, that's... not good. I've brought up legitimate issues you've made in this thread. You're straight up opting out and not even stating why.



I wish you really had conceded because you'd know continuing with your absolutely shattered premise isn't functional. This is a mess, DDM. It's just a debate online. It doesn't take much to admit fault. What is the point of continuing on? I think you know something's off and that's why you won't respond to me.

I doubt Robtard would want to continue. I mean, to what end? You're not up to speed with everyone else here. This is why, pages ago, I told you to re-evaluate and made it clear that it was not just to be condescending. You really ought to do that.

TL;DR: You're ****ing up worse than I've ever seen you **** up.

https://i.imgur.com/ooX2Flp.jpg

DD isn't responding to Lost because there's not really much of a response to be made.

He's simply wrong. Rob did not say what DD said he said, and DD is trying to force an unnecessary contradiction to prove it.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
DD isn't responding to Lost because there's not really much of a response to be made.

He's simply wrong. Rob did not say what DD said he said, and DD is trying to force an unnecessary contradiction to prove it. I have a lot of time for DDM, but yes in this case, he did what any of us can and have done overplayed our hand. I also have a lot of time for Sorgo, he will always be one of the most interesting minds here. Well played Sorgo/Lost!

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
DD isn't responding to Lost because there's not really much of a response to be made.

He's simply wrong. Rob did not say what DD said he said, and DD is trying to force an unnecessary contradiction to prove it.

No, it's because it's not necessary and it's a waste of my time.

Robtard disagreed with my rewarding and he didn't care to actually engage me with my rewording when confronted by it. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
DD isn't responding to Lost because there's not really much of a response to be made.

He's simply wrong. Rob did not say what DD said he said, and DD is trying to force an unnecessary contradiction to prove it.

Bingo. He fully committed and said things that were wrong matter-of-factly. He thinks if he takes responsibility/admits it, it makes how aggressively confident he was look bad, which he would be correct about. However, what he likely doesn't realize is that the full commitment to the wrongness looks much, much worse.

It's pride and appearance. Trust me. I was like that years ago. Still got a bit of arrogance myself but it's nothing that self-awareness and transparency cannot ameliorate.

this thread

https://i.imgur.com/dweYY7E.gif