• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

Meh, I interpreted the e-mail debacle just as somebody not being technologically savvy. Just setting up some stuff on her own because she could and it was practical. And then not separating work e-mails that was public property, and her own, which weren't. Since she didn't want the world to know all about her private stuff, she deleted them. Worth noting is that if she wanted to keep secrets there's tonnes of services she could have used. People who do nefarious stuff would use them. So the fact that she didn't is a point in her favour.

I think it's an age thing. Her generation aren't great at this Internets thing. Trying to nail her for it is hysterical.

On her corruption. She hasn't actually done anything illegal regarding that. Bill Clinton figured out a way to get rich, using his presidential name. There's nothing illegal about it. Somebody in some country sets up a dinner where various people with money come and other people who need money for investments. The Clintons are paid as speakers. The trick to it is that those invited are vetted. It's expensive to even get invited. The people who go there know that they're not wasting their time, because everybody there are people they want to be in business with.

It's all above board.

Hillary didn't come up with the idea of "plausible deniability" but she certainly exploited it. Let's not forget that she helped write the destruction-of-evidence laws after Nixon's demise. If someone wants to claim that Hillary did what she did because she was just a silly, clueless woman, that's their choice, but I don't buy it. She is easily smarter than Bill and much smarter than Donnie.

Yes, because the issues surrounding evidence and records handling in the computer age are totally applicable and analogous to the issues surrounding protection of paper records in the filing system era of Nixon.

/s
 
Meh, I interpreted the e-mail debacle just as somebody not being technologically savvy. Just setting up some stuff on her own because she could and it was practical. And then not separating work e-mails that was public property, and her own, which weren't. Since she didn't want the world to know all about her private stuff, she deleted them. Worth noting is that if she wanted to keep secrets there's tonnes of services she could have used. People who do nefarious stuff would use them. So the fact that she didn't is a point in her favour.

I think it's an age thing. Her generation aren't great at this Internets thing. Trying to nail her for it is hysterical.

On her corruption. She hasn't actually done anything illegal regarding that. Bill Clinton figured out a way to get rich, using his presidential name. There's nothing illegal about it. Somebody in some country sets up a dinner where various people with money come and other people who need money for investments. The Clintons are paid as speakers. The trick to it is that those invited are vetted. It's expensive to even get invited. The people who go there know that they're not wasting their time, because everybody there are people they want to be in business with.

It's all above board.

Hillary didn't come up with the idea of "plausible deniability" but she certainly exploited it. Let's not forget that she helped write the destruction-of-evidence laws after Nixon's demise. If someone wants to claim that Hillary did what she did because she was just a silly, clueless woman, that's their choice, but I don't buy it. She is easily smarter than Bill and much smarter than Donnie.

Yes, because the issues surrounding evidence and records handling in the computer age are totally applicable and analogous to the issues surrounding protection of paper records in the filing system era of Nixon.

/s

Dude, first, the destruction of evidence is a crime regardless of the form of the evidence. I'm sorry you cannot recognize that fact. Second, it wasn't paper that Nixon destroyed but 18 minutes of audio recording.
 
Yes, because the issues surrounding evidence and records handling in the computer age are totally applicable and analogous to the issues surrounding protection of paper records in the filing system era of Nixon.

/s

Dude, first, the destruction of evidence is a crime regardless of the form of the evidence. I'm sorry you cannot recognize that fact. Second, it wasn't paper that Nixon destroyed but 18 minutes of audio recording.

Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?
 
Could you go into more detail on her corruption and her corrupt political machine? I'm unaware of this vast corruption.
And so were all the investigators that investigated her.

Of course, you could accuse all of those republican senators that continually tried to prove it of being crisis actors, or part of the deep state, or RINOs, or whatever the term ya'll use for those who you disagree with is today.

Yeah, see, I think he's right that many dems wanted to see her gone but the rest is just delusion. I disliked her because of her overarching sense of entitlement and her failure to have any kind of principles beyond "what does the focus group say?"*

*I still held my nose and voted for her in the general election.

HRC was very principled in the beginning. When Bill Clinton first won office, she was one of the most forward advancing and aggressive first women in our history. And the press and people hated her for it. She repeatedly stuck her neck out (universal health care and many others) and she was hammered. She was probably one of the most divisive Washington people in history. Two years after Bill won, the democrats lost the house to Newt - mostly because the Clintons and HRC in particular were overreaching. Several years later, she learned her lesson, became a politician, then won a senate rate. I try to give her a break for what happened. She was treated very unfairly in the beginning.
 
Yes, because the issues surrounding evidence and records handling in the computer age are totally applicable and analogous to the issues surrounding protection of paper records in the filing system era of Nixon.

/s

Dude, first, the destruction of evidence is a crime regardless of the form of the evidence. I'm sorry you cannot recognize that fact. Second, it wasn't paper that Nixon destroyed but 18 minutes of audio recording.

Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?
https://nypost.com/2014/08/03/after-40-years-john-dean-re-examines-nixon-tapes-18-minute-gap/

Google is your friend. I'm surprised you're incapable of looking it up yourself, but it does support my statement about the lack of critical thinking skills present in the US today. Feel free to use www.google.com for additional research on Nixon and the tapes.
 
Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?
https://nypost.com/2014/08/03/after-40-years-john-dean-re-examines-nixon-tapes-18-minute-gap/

Google is your friend. I'm surprised you're incapable of looking it up yourself, but it does support my statement about the lack of critical thinking skills present in the US today. Feel free to use www.google.com for additional research on Nixon and the tapes.

You seem to be pretty defensive. First off, I was asking for a link that HRC broke the law. And if you are making a claim that she did, you're the one who should be googling.
 
Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?
https://nypost.com/2014/08/03/after-40-years-john-dean-re-examines-nixon-tapes-18-minute-gap/

Google is your friend. I'm surprised you're incapable of looking it up yourself, but it does support my statement about the lack of critical thinking skills present in the US today. Feel free to use www.google.com for additional research on Nixon and the tapes.

You seem to be pretty defensive. First off, I was asking for a link that HRC broke the law. And if you are making a claim that she did, you're the one who should be googling.
Thanks for the Trumpian “You’re defensive and it’s your fault for not reading my mind” debate strategy. Jesus fucking Christ, you didn’t even thank me for the link to what you quoted and asked about.

The post you quoted was about Nixon and destruction of evidence. Obviously you have an axe to grind and, given your posting style, I’m not interested in discussions with those who use Trumpian posting techniques. Good luck.
 
You seem to be pretty defensive. First off, I was asking for a link that HRC broke the law. And if you are making a claim that she did, you're the one who should be googling.
Thanks for the Trumpian “You’re defensive and it’s your fault for not reading my mind” debate strategy. Jesus fucking Christ, you didn’t even thank me for the link to what you quoted and asked about.

The post you quoted was about Nixon and destruction of evidence. Obviously you have an axe to grind and, given your posting style, I’m not interested in discussions with those who use Trumpian posting techniques. Good luck.

Clearly I assumed that you were alleging that Hillary broke the law as evidenced by your post #11. Then I quoted the wrong post. Are you alleging that HRC broke the law or not? And if so, what's the problem with asking you for the source? I don't know why this is so controversial. I ask for sources so that I can see what people are basing their opinion on. I can read the source, then come up with an alternative interpretation.

Anyway, it's a growing theme on this forum that someone attacks HRC on questionable basis, someone challenges their assumptions, then they get attacked back and become incredibly defensive. Despite her deep flaws, I voted for HRC. I liked her. If you or anyone else attacks her, of course I'm going to debate it back.
 
...Clearly I assumed that you were alleging that Hillary broke the law as evidenced by your post #11. Then I quoted the wrong post.....

Thanks for the Trumpian apology...meaning that's not an apology for your false claims against me. When you apologize for the comments quoted below, we can talk:
Yes, because the issues surrounding evidence and records handling in the computer age are totally applicable and analogous to the issues surrounding protection of paper records in the filing system era of Nixon.

/s

Dude, first, the destruction of evidence is a crime regardless of the form of the evidence. I'm sorry you cannot recognize that fact. Second, it wasn't paper that Nixon destroyed but 18 minutes of audio recording.

Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?

Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?
https://nypost.com/2014/08/03/after-40-years-john-dean-re-examines-nixon-tapes-18-minute-gap/

Google is your friend. I'm surprised you're incapable of looking it up yourself, but it does support my statement about the lack of critical thinking skills present in the US today. Feel free to use www.google.com for additional research on Nixon and the tapes.

You seem to be pretty defensive. First off, I was asking for a link that HRC broke the law. And if you are making a claim that she did, you're the one who should be googling.
 
Thanks for the Trumpian apology...meaning that's not an apology for your false claims against me. When you apologize for the comments quoted below, we can talk:
Yes, because the issues surrounding evidence and records handling in the computer age are totally applicable and analogous to the issues surrounding protection of paper records in the filing system era of Nixon.

/s

Dude, first, the destruction of evidence is a crime regardless of the form of the evidence. I'm sorry you cannot recognize that fact. Second, it wasn't paper that Nixon destroyed but 18 minutes of audio recording.

Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?

Do you have a non-fox news link for the above?
https://nypost.com/2014/08/03/after-40-years-john-dean-re-examines-nixon-tapes-18-minute-gap/

Google is your friend. I'm surprised you're incapable of looking it up yourself, but it does support my statement about the lack of critical thinking skills present in the US today. Feel free to use www.google.com for additional research on Nixon and the tapes.

You seem to be pretty defensive. First off, I was asking for a link that HRC broke the law. And if you are making a claim that she did, you're the one who should be googling.

Ah shit! Damn it all - you nailed me! I'm a Trump supporter. I can't hide it anymore. Love that guy. Yahoo. We love guns, coal, taco salad, and sunday school. And we don't apologize when we're right.
 
Ah shit! Damn it all - you nailed me! I'm a Trump supporter. I can't hide it anymore. Love that guy. Yahoo. We love guns, coal, taco salad, and sunday school. And we don't apologize when we're right.

Nailed, yes, but not in the way you think I did. Good luck, Harry.
 
Ah shit! Damn it all - you nailed me! I'm a Trump supporter. I can't hide it anymore. Love that guy. Yahoo. We love guns, coal, taco salad, and sunday school. And we don't apologize when we're right.

Nailed, yes, but not in the way you think I did. Good luck, Harry.

You betcha buddy! BTW: I see some fellow Trumpster in you also. I'm going to work on you and see what happens...
 
Ah shit! Damn it all - you nailed me! I'm a Trump supporter. I can't hide it anymore. Love that guy. Yahoo. We love guns, coal, taco salad, and sunday school. And we don't apologize when we're right.

Nailed, yes, but not in the way you think I did. Good luck, Harry.

You betcha buddy! BTW: I see some fellow Trumpster in you also. I'm going to work on you and see what happens...
Awesome. Spoken like a true Trumpster.

When you're done with your Trumpian insults and false accusations, and apologize for them, perhaps you'd like to go back on topic, but if you don't, that's fine too. Trump never apologizes either.
 
You betcha buddy! BTW: I see some fellow Trumpster in you also. I'm going to work on you and see what happens...
Awesome. Spoken like a true Trumpster.

When you're done with your Trumpian insults and false accusations, and apologize for them, perhaps you'd like to go back on topic, but if you don't, that's fine too. Trump never apologizes either.

Geez, I gave you credit for exposing me as a Trumpster. Of course Trumpsters don't apologize. Why should someone apologize if they are never wrong??
 
You betcha buddy! BTW: I see some fellow Trumpster in you also. I'm going to work on you and see what happens...
Awesome. Spoken like a true Trumpster.

When you're done with your Trumpian insults and false accusations, and apologize for them, perhaps you'd like to go back on topic, but if you don't, that's fine too. Trump never apologizes either.

Geez, I gave you credit for exposing me as a Trumpster. Of course Trumpsters don't apologize. Why should someone apologize if they are never wrong??

Well, that's what Trumpsters think, but I disagree.
 
Ah shit! Damn it all - you nailed me! I'm a Trump supporter. I can't hide it anymore. Love that guy. Yahoo. We love guns, coal, taco salad, and sunday school. And we don't apologize when we're right.

Nailed, yes, but not in the way you think I did. Good luck, Harry.

You betcha buddy! BTW: I see some fellow Trumpster in you also. I'm going to work on you and see what happens...

In the meantime, he continues to dodge your request for factual evidence that HRC illegally destroyed evidence.
 
You betcha buddy! BTW: I see some fellow Trumpster in you also. I'm going to work on you and see what happens...

In the meantime, he continues to dodge your request for factual evidence that HRC illegally destroyed evidence.

In the meantime, he continues to avoid apology for a personal attack instead of simply seeking to discuss the issue. Just like you. Both of you know what Comey testified to about Hillary. Both of you know classified material was found in her deleted emails on Weiner's laptop. Both of you are engaging in personal attacks rather than admitting the fact she lied and destroyed evidence.
 
Even a cursory look at what happened in 2016 should dispel the notion that DJT and HRC are "equivalent" scumbags.
The mere fact that within his own party there was a "never Trump" faction that flipped into full-bore endorsement of Agent Orange and his Nazi-sympathizing ideology, should be a tipoff. There were a lot of Democratic voters who were not happy with HRC's coronation a nominee, but there wasn't a "never Hillary" faction within the party. My own objections to her included her sense of entitlement, her history of corporate coziness and above all, the thirty years of being loaded up with intense Republican and foreign influence baggage that I feared (justifiably as it turns out) would enable the election of the most corrupt, least competent, least empathic and most self-interested nominee ever to smear the American political landscape.
 
Back
Top Bottom