Clinton Trail of Bodies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2016, 06:21 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(02-06-2016 11:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You know, if you're going to make an accusation based on what someone said, it's probably a good idea to make sure that you repeat their words accurately. What I said is that she is the most corrupt politician in US history, not the most corrupt politician of all time. Besides, I think you'd be hard-pressed to disagree with that statement if you knew about the history of the Clinton Foundation and its many nefarious donors.

That's a pretty small hair to split but it doesn't change the basic point. And, I'm familiar with the Clinton Foundation and the accusations. They are just that - accusations. They are not proven (although I personally think there is fire behind all that smoke and it is, for me, one more reason not to vote for her).

(02-06-2016 11:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I can only assume that you didn't listen to or read what he said yourself before making this post, otherwise you would have known that he never called them murderers and wouldn't have claimed that "Those are his words."

I can only assume you have not listened to anything Trump said since that first day, otherwise you would know that he absolutely called them murderers. Well, that's not completely accurate. He called them "killers". I can't imagine you really want to quibble over the use of "murderers" instead of "killers" but if you do my response is: "grow up".

(02-06-2016 11:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The judge in question is a Hispanic/Mexican. Trump made disparaging comments about Hispanics/Mexicans in the past. If you put two and two together, it's not that hard to see why Trump thinks that the judge is biased against him. Take, for example, a black judge in a case where the accused is a member of the KKK. Is it really so strange to imagine that the judge might not be impartial in such a case? They're not emotionless robots, they're humans who are prone to bias just like the rest of us.

First, here's the fundamental problem: he's not Mexican. He was born in the United States. Yes, he is Latino, but, according to the Man himself, Hispanics love him.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that you were talking about a select group of people and everyone else from that ethnicity loves you and then later claim that someone of that ethnicity is biased - and not doing their job properly - simply because they are of that ethnicity. He wants it both ways.

Trump has not pointed out anything contrary to the law that the judge actually did, and he's not going to be able to. There was no reason to point out his ethnicity at all, much less exaggerate it, unless you were trying to draw attention to that specific thing. There are only two ways to interpret his comments that I can think of: either he's saying that a latino of Mexican heritage can't do his job properly where Trump is involved OR he's saying "don't believe this guy, he's Mexican and well all know what that's about". Those are really the options. It was a racist comment. I saw someone on the news called it a "thinly veiled" racist comment but there was nothing veiled about it. It was blatant, unadulterated racism.

This asshole throws a tantrum and calls people names every single time he doesn't get his way, and he wants to be President? And people actually vote for him. And defend him. But, if you're to continue to defend him here, you need to take the time to research who and what you are actually defending because people here pay attention and can quickly call out bullshit. And, your post defending his comments are bullshit.

Regarding the Hillary stuff, I've no doubt you can find a few thousand people who claim this is all because she's a woman.

So
Fucking
What

There are over 320,000,000 people in the US and some of them are idiots. Some believe in chemtrail conspiracies, or that the earth is 6,000 years old or that Obama was born in Kenya or that Hillary Clinton takes abuse only because she's a woman. That doesn't make any of these people the standard bearer for the general population or even a subset of the population. Primaries typically have low turnouts (this year some states have set records for turnout but, in terms of general population, it's been really low) and Clinton has gotten over 12.44 MILLION votes. So, if you want to know how many examples you need to convince me that "playing the woman card" is the mantra of the majority of her supporters (or whatever it is you're trying to prove), the number is half of that. But, you better hurry because that number is going to quickly get over 14 million after NJ and California vote.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 10:07 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(02-06-2016 06:21 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 11:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You know, if you're going to make an accusation based on what someone said, it's probably a good idea to make sure that you repeat their words accurately. What I said is that she is the most corrupt politician in US history, not the most corrupt politician of all time. Besides, I think you'd be hard-pressed to disagree with that statement if you knew about the history of the Clinton Foundation and its many nefarious donors.

That's a pretty small hair to split but it doesn't change the basic point. And, I'm familiar with the Clinton Foundation and the accusations. They are just that - accusations. They are not proven (although I personally think there is fire behind all that smoke and it is, for me, one more reason not to vote for her).

(02-06-2016 11:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I can only assume that you didn't listen to or read what he said yourself before making this post, otherwise you would have known that he never called them murderers and wouldn't have claimed that "Those are his words."

I can only assume you have not listened to anything Trump said since that first day, otherwise you would know that he absolutely called them murderers. Well, that's not completely accurate. He called them "killers". I can't imagine you really want to quibble over the use of "murderers" instead of "killers" but if you do my response is: "grow up".

(02-06-2016 11:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The judge in question is a Hispanic/Mexican. Trump made disparaging comments about Hispanics/Mexicans in the past. If you put two and two together, it's not that hard to see why Trump thinks that the judge is biased against him. Take, for example, a black judge in a case where the accused is a member of the KKK. Is it really so strange to imagine that the judge might not be impartial in such a case? They're not emotionless robots, they're humans who are prone to bias just like the rest of us.

First, here's the fundamental problem: he's not Mexican. He was born in the United States. Yes, he is Latino, but, according to the Man himself, Hispanics love him.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that you were talking about a select group of people and everyone else from that ethnicity loves you and then later claim that someone of that ethnicity is biased - and not doing their job properly - simply because they are of that ethnicity. He wants it both ways.

Trump has not pointed out anything contrary to the law that the judge actually did, and he's not going to be able to. There was no reason to point out his ethnicity at all, much less exaggerate it, unless you were trying to draw attention to that specific thing. There are only two ways to interpret his comments that I can think of: either he's saying that a latino of Mexican heritage can't do his job properly where Trump is involved OR he's saying "don't believe this guy, he's Mexican and well all know what that's about". Those are really the options. It was a racist comment. I saw someone on the news called it a "thinly veiled" racist comment but there was nothing veiled about it. It was blatant, unadulterated racism.

This asshole throws a tantrum and calls people names every single time he doesn't get his way, and he wants to be President? And people actually vote for him. And defend him. But, if you're to continue to defend him here, you need to take the time to research who and what you are actually defending because people here pay attention and can quickly call out bullshit. And, your post defending his comments are bullshit.

Regarding the Hillary stuff, I've no doubt you can find a few thousand people who claim this is all because she's a woman.

So
Fucking
What

There are over 320,000,000 people in the US and some of them are idiots. Some believe in chemtrail conspiracies, or that the earth is 6,000 years old or that Obama was born in Kenya or that Hillary Clinton takes abuse only because she's a woman. That doesn't make any of these people the standard bearer for the general population or even a subset of the population. Primaries typically have low turnouts (this year some states have set records for turnout but, in terms of general population, it's been really low) and Clinton has gotten over 12.44 MILLION votes. So, if you want to know how many examples you need to convince me that "playing the woman card" is the mantra of the majority of her supporters (or whatever it is you're trying to prove), the number is half of that. But, you better hurry because that number is going to quickly get over 14 million after NJ and California vote.
Firstly, I'm aware of who and what Trump is. The thing is that there would be no need for me to defend him if people only criticized him fairly. You may tell me to "grow up", but then I'd tell you to "be accurate." There is so much material to legitimately attack Trump on that it consistently boggles my mind why people make things up just to criticize him. Consider that one time where someone claimed that his net worth would be three times what it is today if he had invested his money in the stock market instead of the real estate business. Why make something up if you can just attack him on the truth? By the way, I would defend Clinton and Sanders the same way if people on TTA did it to them, but for some reason hardly anyone ever talks about Bernie.

Secondly, I sadly won't be able to provide you with millions of comments (just imagine how long those would take to collect), but that's not really how statistics work either. I won't claim that there's a way to make sure the online sample is statistically representative of the voter base as a whole, but it's big enough to counter your point that my generalization is based on only one or a few examples. It comes from spending a lot of time observing her supporters and I've noticed similar common behaviors among the other candidates' supporters.

Thirdly, last I heard, the FBI is currently looking into the Clinton Foundation from a corruption angle; it will be interesting to see what comes of that. There may not be positive proof right now, but it's like that saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 10:28 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(02-06-2016 10:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 06:21 PM)BnW Wrote:  That's a pretty small hair to split but it doesn't change the basic point. And, I'm familiar with the Clinton Foundation and the accusations. They are just that - accusations. They are not proven (although I personally think there is fire behind all that smoke and it is, for me, one more reason not to vote for her).


I can only assume you have not listened to anything Trump said since that first day, otherwise you would know that he absolutely called them murderers. Well, that's not completely accurate. He called them "killers". I can't imagine you really want to quibble over the use of "murderers" instead of "killers" but if you do my response is: "grow up".


First, here's the fundamental problem: he's not Mexican. He was born in the United States. Yes, he is Latino, but, according to the Man himself, Hispanics love him.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that you were talking about a select group of people and everyone else from that ethnicity loves you and then later claim that someone of that ethnicity is biased - and not doing their job properly - simply because they are of that ethnicity. He wants it both ways.

Trump has not pointed out anything contrary to the law that the judge actually did, and he's not going to be able to. There was no reason to point out his ethnicity at all, much less exaggerate it, unless you were trying to draw attention to that specific thing. There are only two ways to interpret his comments that I can think of: either he's saying that a latino of Mexican heritage can't do his job properly where Trump is involved OR he's saying "don't believe this guy, he's Mexican and well all know what that's about". Those are really the options. It was a racist comment. I saw someone on the news called it a "thinly veiled" racist comment but there was nothing veiled about it. It was blatant, unadulterated racism.

This asshole throws a tantrum and calls people names every single time he doesn't get his way, and he wants to be President? And people actually vote for him. And defend him. But, if you're to continue to defend him here, you need to take the time to research who and what you are actually defending because people here pay attention and can quickly call out bullshit. And, your post defending his comments are bullshit.

Regarding the Hillary stuff, I've no doubt you can find a few thousand people who claim this is all because she's a woman.

So
Fucking
What

There are over 320,000,000 people in the US and some of them are idiots. Some believe in chemtrail conspiracies, or that the earth is 6,000 years old or that Obama was born in Kenya or that Hillary Clinton takes abuse only because she's a woman. That doesn't make any of these people the standard bearer for the general population or even a subset of the population. Primaries typically have low turnouts (this year some states have set records for turnout but, in terms of general population, it's been really low) and Clinton has gotten over 12.44 MILLION votes. So, if you want to know how many examples you need to convince me that "playing the woman card" is the mantra of the majority of her supporters (or whatever it is you're trying to prove), the number is half of that. But, you better hurry because that number is going to quickly get over 14 million after NJ and California vote.
Firstly, I'm aware of who and what Trump is. The thing is that there would be no need for me to defend him if people only criticized him fairly. You may tell me to "grow up", but then I'd tell you to "be accurate." There is so much material to legitimately attack Trump on that it consistently boggles my mind why people make things up just to criticize him. Consider that one time where someone claimed that his net worth would be three times what it is today if he had invested his money in the stock market instead of the real estate business. Why make something up if you can just attack him on the truth? By the way, I would defend Clinton and Sanders the same way if people on TTA did it to them, but for some reason hardly anyone ever talks about Bernie.

Secondly, I sadly won't be able to provide you with millions of comments (just imagine how long those would take to collect), but that's not really how statistics work either. I won't claim that there's a way to make sure the online sample is statistically representative of the voter base as a whole, but it's big enough to counter your point that my generalization is based on only one or a few examples. It comes from spending a lot of time observing her supporters and I've noticed similar common behaviors among the other candidates' supporters.

Thirdly, last I heard, the FBI is currently looking into the Clinton Foundation from a corruption angle; it will be interesting to see what comes of that. There may not be positive proof right now, but it's like that saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

What are you tlaknig about, there is plenty of and has been a lot of Bernie threads and talks about him there. A lot of them you never mentioned anything from the attacks or supporting leaps made on him on both ways.

A lot of times a thread keeps alive because there is someone there bickering or defending around the topic, you spend a lot of time in the trump department for what its worth just as it is, in doing that which made threads like this keep going... largely the only ones in Sanders thread that did that was Alla in her fearful of the big bad commie posts in his threads that sparked topic but it didn't have a catalyst to ever go on.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 10:40 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(02-06-2016 10:28 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What are you tlaknig about, there is plenty of and has been a lot of Bernie threads and talks about him there. A lot of them you never mentioned anything from the attacks or supporting leaps made on him on both ways.
Can you give me some examples? Just look at the Politics section right now, there's only a single Bernie thread (which is actually about his supporters, not him) on the first page and like half a dozen Trump threads.

(02-06-2016 10:28 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A lot of times a thread keeps alive because there is someone there bickering or defending around the topic, you spend a lot of time in the trump department for what its worth just as it is, in doing that which made threads like this keep going... largely the only ones in Sanders thread that did that was Alla in her fearful of the big bad commie posts in his threads that sparked topic but it didn't have a catalyst to ever go on.
I also spend a lot of time in the Clinton threads. Tongue

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 11:16 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(02-06-2016 10:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 10:28 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What are you tlaknig about, there is plenty of and has been a lot of Bernie threads and talks about him there. A lot of them you never mentioned anything from the attacks or supporting leaps made on him on both ways.
Can you give me some examples? Just look at the Politics section right now, there's only a single Bernie thread (which is actually about his supporters, not him) on the first page and like half a dozen Trump threads.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ers--35956
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ers--35955

but back in the ones in the era when things mattered. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...tic-Debate
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ers?page=8

Maybe thats the case since it was then I focused to care and haven't cared since it's literally been over since Nevada... that's just how voting in this nation has worked and been the case for nearly every primary since the 1960s. You "win" and have the lead coming out of the first 4ish states going into the 1st super tuesday on the schedule and you've won it. So i've not really added much to any Bernie thread and had no care to since it hasn't mattered since, not that I would like it to have been the case but general populations apparently want to feel like they voted for the "winner"


Quote:
(02-06-2016 10:28 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A lot of times a thread keeps alive because there is someone there bickering or defending around the topic, you spend a lot of time in the trump department for what its worth just as it is, in doing that which made threads like this keep going... largely the only ones in Sanders thread that did that was Alla in her fearful of the big bad commie posts in his threads that sparked topic but it didn't have a catalyst to ever go on.
I also spend a lot of time in the Clinton threads. Tongue

Those threads don't exist, they're like Hillary Supporters.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 11:25 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(02-06-2016 11:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 10:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Can you give me some examples? Just look at the Politics section right now, there's only a single Bernie thread (which is actually about his supporters, not him) on the first page and like half a dozen Trump threads.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ers--35956
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ers--35955

but back in the ones in the era when things mattered. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...tic-Debate
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ers?page=8

Maybe thats the case since it was then I focused to care and haven't cared since it's literally been over since Nevada... that's just how voting in this nation has worked and been the case for nearly every primary since the 1960s. You "win" and have the lead coming out of the first 4ish states going into the 1st super tuesday on the schedule and you've won it. So i've not really added much to any Bernie thread and had no care to since it hasn't mattered since, not that I would like it to have been the case but general populations apparently want to feel like they voted for the "winner"


Quote:I also spend a lot of time in the Clinton threads. Tongue

Those threads don't exist, they're like Hillary Supporters.
Thanks. No wonder I haven't seen any of these threads, they're ancient.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 11:29 PM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
Why anyone would support clinton surprises me. Yet people do support dumber candidates, not just in american mind you. In fact america isn't even the dumbest when it comes to elections.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 03:45 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
I don't get why people support Clinton, but I'm equally flabbergasted that people support Trump. I can't imagine two more disgusting choices.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 04:09 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 03:45 AM)BnW Wrote:  I don't get why people support Clinton, but I'm equally flabbergasted that people support Trump. I can't imagine two more disgusting choices.

I can agree, but at least trump is entertaining.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 05:13 AM
RE: Clinton Trail of Bodies
(03-06-2016 04:09 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 03:45 AM)BnW Wrote:  I don't get why people support Clinton, but I'm equally flabbergasted that people support Trump. I can't imagine two more disgusting choices.

I can agree, but at least trump is entertaining.
I don't get that people keep saying it.. it's been such a bore with no originality since after month 3.

We'll people do watch sitcoms that just do same things over and over so I guess it's entertaining like that.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: