Originally posted by lazybones
There's a difference between Hillary saying things that are wrong and perjury. Perjury requires proof of wilful intent to mislead. And if there was solid proof of that, we would have seen a conviction. I believe Gowdy's questioning among others are covered in the article that I linked, so I'd recommend giving that a read.
Originally posted by lazybones
There's a difference between Hillary saying things that are wrong and perjury. Perjury requires proof of wilful intent to mislead. And if there was solid proof of that, we would have seen a conviction. I believe Gowdy's questioning among others are covered in the article that I linked, so I'd recommend giving that a read.
You don't think she meant to mislead people?
Originally posted by Surtur
Ah yes, keep thinking you guys played no role.Hey, better idea: double down
and then what the left actually did was "Huh, our strategy of castigating those who disagree with us on policy with the most twisted intent like racism and sexism didn't work? WELL MAYBE WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN DOING IT HARD ENOUGH, TIME TO DOUBLE DOWN!"
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I was still more to the left just after Trump won and I was thinking "oh well, hopefully we'll learn from this and realize our current strategy of character attacks and identity politics and screaming 'racist bigot sexist homophobe' and having psychotic breakdowns over trump isn't working. We're gonna get our shit together and he's gonna go down because he is not that hard to criticize, we should have no problems looking better than the other side with Trump in existence"...and then what the left actually did was "Huh, our strategy of castigating those who disagree with us on policy with the most twisted intent like racism and sexism didn't work? WELL MAYBE WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN DOING IT HARD ENOUGH, TIME TO DOUBLE DOWN!"
This is what I thought and I was naive as f*ck to think it. I thought "Okay, potential win win. Either Trump comes through or he's full of shit, but leftists learn a lesson from the defeat".
Nope, they didn't learn a thing. Unfortunate.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I was still more to the left just after Trump won and I was thinking "oh well, hopefully we'll learn from this and realize our current strategy of character attacks and identity politics and screaming 'racist bigot sexist homophobe' and having psychotic breakdowns over trump isn't working. We're gonna get our shit together and he's gonna go down because he is not that hard to criticize, we should have no problems looking better than the other side with Trump in existence"...and then what the left actually did was "Huh, our strategy of castigating those who disagree with us on policy with the most twisted intent like racism and sexism didn't work? WELL MAYBE WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN DOING IT HARD ENOUGH, TIME TO DOUBLE DOWN!"
Anything else happen in that fantasy? Surely you can spice it up a bit.
Originally posted by darthgoober
You missed my edit
If her only real defense is that she was to dumb to know that she was giving false answers... well why would we trust her with an even more important job in the government when we know she apparently didn't read the manual for the job she was trusted with.Eh, because most of what she says and does indicates to me that she is actually quite intelligent. At least, moreso than Donald Trump. So even if she made a stupid mistake, I'm frankly willing to give her a pass given what she was up against. There is also evidence that the documents at her disposal were not properly assigned a header, which would make the mistake far more reasonable as classified documents are supposed to have headers. To quote the article I linked:
CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?COMEY: Correct.
CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.
I mean it just ****ing baffles me how these people who do media and politics for a professional living can't understand what some twenty year old in Texas could pick up. And this isn't me trying to suck the koolaid out of my own dick because I don't think noticing this is impressive at all, I'm moreso pointing out that these people are so out of touch they can't pick up on the glaringly obvious.
Originally posted by lazybones
Ah, whoops.Eh, because most of what she says and does indicates to me that she is actually quite intelligent. At least, moreso than Donald Trump. So even if she made a stupid mistake, I'm frankly willing to give her a pass given what she was up against. There is also evidence that the documents at her disposal were not properly assigned a header, which would make the mistake far more reasonable as classified documents are supposed to have headers. To quote the article I linked:
Originally posted by SurturYep she raised something like one billion. If you can raise that amount and still lose, then there is obviously something systemically wrong with your campaign.
They did a study and even Trump had more ads that were just about policy and not negative about Hilary. And I believe she spent way more money on the campaign than Trump.It seems Democrats have built everything around Trump. They do have other interests, but it's all over taken with Trump. The strategy seems to be: sit around and wait for Trump to tweet or say something dumb, then get outraged.
I dunno, WaPo wrote an article reviewing all his jokes at a recent dinner(where it seems it is tradition for jokes to be made). It's just...it seems way more intense a focus on Trump. I know FOX loved to go after Obama, but that was mostly FOX, as opposed to a f*ckton of networks now.
He's called racist for calling Maxine Waters dumb lol. That is what we're dealing with now.
And I also tend to agree that the Democratic opposition to Trump seems to making some of the same mistakes. A poll showed that far more people believe the Democrats are simply anti-Trump, rather than a party that stands for something. That's a terrible figure. Of course, Trump is diabolically unpopular, so that might carry them through the midterms. But in the presidential election, voters will need to know what Democrats are going to substantively change in order to part with a first term president.
In terms of the media, I do think they can be hysterical sometimes and to their detriment. Personally, however, I am convinced that there's something to the Russia investigation and whatnot. But I certainly don't think the Democrats and the media should be putting all their eggs in that basket. What if he isn't impeached? What if there is dirt found but not enough to convict, totally tarring the reputation of the media people who hyped it up to such an extent (Rachel Maddow is on my mind here)?
Although I will say that I do think Trump voters need to be assigned a sense of agency here. If you vote for Trump, you need to own that vote and be able to defend it on solid grounds. It is incumbent on every responsible voter to do their research and weigh up every factor. And personally, I find it hard to believe that you could do that and come out supporting Trump.
Originally posted by Surtur
So wait do you not think what the Russians tried to do made people vote a certain way? Are you officially saying they did not?
^Another distraction
This has nothing to do with your angle since around mid Nov 2016 that you're somehow not really responsible in Trump winning, as a person who first voted for him and then supported him only after he won.
Originally posted by Robtard
^Another distractionThis has nothing to do with your angle since around mid Nov 2016 that you're somehow not really responsible in Trump winning, as a person who first voted for him and then supported him only after he won.
You still don't get it. There is a difference between saying "I'm not responsible for this" and "I'm not the only one responsible for this".
Originally posted by Surtur
You still don't get it. There is a difference between saying "I'm not responsible for this" and "I'm not the only one responsible for this".
^ You're unable to accept your own actions and you're trying to shed yourself of responsibility.
I didn't support Trump and I didn't vote for Trump. How am I (or someone like me) responsible in Trump winning? Can you Surtsplain it?