Originally posted by Lucius
Star's hatred towards Hillary sounds so personal. It's kind of deranged.
Yea, this is the thing- when called on to back up what you say, instead you either respond with how much you personally dislike her, or how much someone else does. A montage of headlines posted over her laughing at completely unrelated things? And that's the *best* you've got?
Which says to me, you really *can't* back up what you say. You just dislike her because she's not on your side and believe bad things about her because of it, but it's all hollow hate.
There isn't a specific one to my knowledge. If you don't want to make one yourself perhaps you can use this more general thread I made:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=619557
it's not so much that the scandal will sink hillary.. her supporters are diehard.. they don't give a **** what you say about her they will still support her. whatever the investigation shows or however legitimate it might be is not an issue for them.
it's just that only hillary with her dedicated fembot cult could survive such a scandal(on the left, ben carson and trump would be given similar leeway by their respective cults), even with a much more appealing and progressive candidate standing by to take her place. just goes to show the power that the clintons have in the democratic party. all hail the ant queen.
Originally posted by red g jacks
it's not so much that the scandal will sink hillary... it's that only hillary with her dedicated fembot cult could survive such a scandal, even with a much more appealing and progressive candidate standing by to take her place. just goes to show the power that the clintons have in the democratic party. all hail the ant queen.
Eh, a lot of it is that the scandals really aren't that big.
Most people could survive "sent not-yet-classified to cleared people under less secure means where no breach occurred," or "was in charge of a department where some of her subordinates died for reasons unrelated to any direct decision of hers."
It's just that there's so much focus on her that they get dragged out for months or years. The image of her has really been build up but if you step back, you kinda go, "Wait, these people are just assuming she's done really bad things because of the reputation they project onto her which is there because they assume she's done really bad things...". I mean, don't get me wrong, she has scandals, but she has fairly moderate scandals that people then hold onto like they're the last life preserver in the water during a giant storm.
And among some people, 'gets blasted disproportionately and walks it off,' is not viewed as a minus, to say the least.
As for much more appealing and progressive, Sanders is more progressive, but support wise he's got a much narrower appeal, while Hillary's got strong ties to many of the communities that make up the party.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I wonder if she'll get in trouble with a male intern?
Gross. Fortunately, pretty sure she isn't winning the election so I don't have to think about something as disgusting as that. Really... Who, besides Bill (he really needs his eyes checked) would ever want to touch her let alone get in the same bed as her? I pity Bill
Originally posted by Q99i haven't followed it very closely, but the way she handled the whole thing just seemed shady as **** to me. sending them paper copies of the emails and then the electronic copies were pdf documents.... then she wiped the server before sending it to them. why on earth would you do that other than to obstruct the investigation?
Eh, a lot of it is that the scandals really aren't that big.Most people could survive "sent not-yet-classified to cleared people under less secure means where no breach occurred," or "was in charge of a department where some of her subordinates died for reasons unrelated to any direct decision of hers."
It's just that there's so much focus on her that they get dragged out for months or years. The image of her has really been build up but if you step back, you kinda go, "Wait, these people are just assuming she's done really bad things because of the reputation they project onto her which is there because they assume she's done really bad things...". I mean, don't get me wrong, she has scandals, but she has fairly moderate scandals that people then hold onto like they're the last life preserver in the water during a giant storm.
And among some people, 'gets blasted disproportionately and walks it off,' is not viewed as a minus, to say the least.
As for much more appealing and progressive, Sanders is more progressive, but support wise he's got a much narrower appeal, while Hillary's got strong ties to many of the communities that make up the party.
the only defense i've heard her followers muster up on her behalf is "they have no right to her private emails." yet clearly they do... since she was forced to submit them via paper copy and electronic copy, and she only went out of her way to submit them in a form that would be next to impossible for investigators to efficiently sift through for any actual wrong doing. and maybe her claims to a right to privacy would seem more legit if she didn't foolishly mesh her personal emails with her govt related emails, which the state is supposed to have a certain level of access to for record keeping purposes.
yea, technically nobody was smart enough to write a law specifically outlawing what she did before she did it.. but a smart and proactive member of the federal govt that understands the importance of cyber security in the 21st century would have known better. so simply by creating a mess that requires an investigation, she slipped up and made herself look dumb/naive/old fashioned/out-of-touch.
then with her foot-dragging tactics to obstruct the following investigation... she just comes across looking shady. if there was actually nothing to hide, then she's even more stupid for taking that approach. it just looks bad all around to anyone who has a mind for cyber security... the only reason a ton of people are pretending it doesn't matter is cause she is the anointed one. if trump had this same scandal these same people would descend upon it in a minute like the loyal ant soldiers that they are.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i haven't followed it very closely, but the way she handled the whole thing just seemed shady as **** to me. sending them paper copies of the emails and then the electronic copies were pdf documents.... then she wiped the server before sending it to them. why on earth would you do that other than to obstruct the investigation?
The thing is, if she actually wanted to obstruct, there's much better ways of doing so than sending copies first. While slow, she didn't actually wait to be forced to submit them for that matter.
It was a bit mishandled to be sure, but it's no grand crime. Heck, what could the grand crime even be, when the accusation is "E-mails that were later classified but not at the time"?
It was a definite bungle, but there's no leaks at any point. Heck, the investigation is putting out more than the actual original issue.
if trump had this same scandal these same people would descend upon it in a minute like the loyal ant soldiers that they are.
Uh, Trump has plenty of scandals. I mean, currently there's signs that he may be going back on his pledge to not run 3rd party. There's a good amount of business history with him which is plenty shady. A lot that could be attacked fairly hard.
And note, people are descending upon Hilary and the scandal like a giant army of ants, that's why it's dragged out for so long.
Rather than getting an auto-pass, because it's a Clinton it's fairly safe to assume that any even minor thing will be trotted out and attempted to be presented as the Worst Thing Ever. When really, she does make bad calls, but none of 'em are game breakers.
Heck, none of them are as bad as Christie's bridgegate, and he's still got a political career and is even in the race, with a good pile of endorsements and more presence on the polls than a number of others.
Actual sink-a-candidate scandals are pretty rare... Here's an article about how attempting to play that historically backfires for *both* parties. Citing things like Iran-Contra... note how that didn't sink Republican chances despite being very significant. Or the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Sink-candidate level stuff is pretty rare, even things that blow Hilary's scandals out of the water. It's not a unique immunity, it's that so many low and mid level attempts are thrown that they've helped create a teflon rep, even though the odds say that Rubio could handle ones that size just as well. Ultimately, people care more if they think that a candidate will support their policies, than what they do with an e-mail server or a vague 'sleeze factor,' which both candidates have tried to play up in their opponents, usually to the attacker's determent more than the candidate's.
Originally posted by Q99no... the thing is, you didn't answer my question but instead decided to deflect it, as is to be expected by members of the ant colony.
The thing is, if she actually wanted to obstruct, there's much better ways of doing so than sending copies first. While slow, she didn't actually wait to be forced to submit them for that matter.It was a bit mishandled to be sure, but it's no grand crime. Heck, what could the grand crime even be, when the accusation is "E-mails that were later classified but not at the time"?
It was a definite bungle, but there's no leaks at any point. Heck, the investigation is putting out more than the actual original issue.
Uh, Trump has plenty of scandals. I mean, currently there's signs that he may be going back on his pledge to not run 3rd party. There's a good amount of business history with him which is plenty shady. A lot that could be attacked fairly hard.can you give me an example of a scandal that trump has that hasn't been thoroughly fleshed out by the media?
Rather than getting an auto-pass, because it's a Clinton it's fairly safe to assume that any even minor thing will be trotted out and attempted to be presented as the Worst Thing Ever. When really, she does make bad calls, but none of 'em are game breakers.nah thats just a part of being the frontrunner in genenral.... but she is lucky she such a powerful face/name otherwise this could have sunk her easily. say a mitt romney type campaign..no way that an "investigation" doessn't sink him
Heck, none of them are as bad as Christie's bridgegate, and he's still got a political career and is even in the race, with a good pile of endorsements and more presence on the polls than a number of others.😂..... he has not a shot in hell