Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Nov 2016, 2:01 pm

I get that you don't trust her but identifying someone as being a criminal--that the central characteristic of her is engaging in criminal conduct--is a pretty tough description if you can't pinpoint evidence that links her to committing crimes. Maybe you could call Nixon a criminal but I think "Tricky Dick" is fairer and more accurately sums up the man. And it's funny. Or "slick willy". But Hillary=criminal; that's tough.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 2:06 pm

freeman3 wrote:I get that you don't trust her but identifying someone as being a criminal--that the central characteristic of her is engaging in criminal conduct--is a pretty tough description if you can't pinpoint evidence that links her to committing crimes. Maybe you could call Nixon a criminal but I think "Tricky Dick" is fairer and more accurately sums up the man. And it's funny. Or "slick willy". But Hillary=criminal; that's tough.


Okay, we'll settle for "liar" and "alleged criminal."

Nixon was also an "alleged criminal" for quite some time, so I can live with that.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 5:32 pm

Oh my gosh, did I just read what I think I read?
Freeman is (again) sticking up for Clinton over "criminal conduct" can not be "pinpointed" he's letting her slide because maybe technically she isn't guilty (and that's ok being the fine lawyer he is). But he had trouble when people said Trump did not "technically" break any tax rules. Once again, if it servers his candidate he is happy to look away but if it harms his opponent, then he's willing to judge that person stricter.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Nov 2016, 7:22 pm

"criminal" is the over-the-top description that Hillary haters have come up with, I guess to make it sound like she is just as bad as Trump. The reason I am calling attention to it is because language has a way of becoming reality to people. You keep saying that she is "the criminal" then it becomes that way in people's minds even though if you are being honest about it you have to admit that is over-the-top. The same thing for being corrupt by the way. To me, actual corruption is obtaining influence or some other tangible benefit by paying a politician money. That is actual corruption. Just about everyone in politics is skirting a line of corruption if we're going to say politicians are corrupt when they receive a lot of money from a particular person or group.. Look at Marco Rubio and his billionaire sponsor. Or all the Republicans who depend on Koch money. Are we going to call all those people corrupt? Just about everyone in the "system" is tainted by the money flowing in and that is a big issue and Clintons are involved in that to the hilt. And I think the indirect influence flowing from all that money is a big concern and it has gotten much worse since Citizen's United. However, the word corrupt is being thrown around with regard to Clinton in a way that is not applied to all the other people who receive money and are probably affected in some sense by that money even though there is no quid pro quo. Unless you show quid pro quo by Clinton then either stop calling her corrupt or start calling everyone in Washington corrupt.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 7:48 pm

freeman3 wrote:"criminal" is the over-the-top description that Hillary haters have come up with, I guess to make it sound like she is just as bad as Trump. The reason I am calling attention to it is because language has a way of becoming reality to people. You keep saying that she is "the criminal" then it becomes that way in people's minds even though if you are being honest about it you have to admit that is over-the-top. The same thing for being corrupt by the way. To me, actual corruption is obtaining influence or some other tangible benefit by paying a politician money. That is actual corruption. Just about everyone in politics is skirting a line of corruption if we're going to say politicians are corrupt when they receive a lot of money from a particular person or group.. Look at Marco Rubio and his billionaire sponsor. Or all the Republicans who depend on Koch money. Are we going to call all those people corrupt? Just about everyone in the "system" is tainted by the money flowing in and that is a big issue and Clintons are involved in that to the hilt. And I think the indirect influence flowing from all that money is a big concern and it has gotten much worse since Citizen's United. However, the word corrupt is being thrown around with regard to Clinton in a way that is not applied to all the other people who receive money and are probably affected in some sense by that money even though there is no quid pro quo. Unless you show quid pro quo by Clinton then either stop calling her corrupt or start calling everyone in Washington corrupt.


Sorry, but after today that's just whining.

President Obama AND Secretary Clinton both said (today) that Trump is accepting the support of the KKK.

To me, "criminal" is pretty mild compared to "(affiliated with) the KKK."

This race is in the gutter. So much for "When they go low, we go high."

Maybe Mrs. Obama meant, ". . . we get high."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Nov 2016, 8:18 pm

You're right about that. Wow the ads each side is showing. Hillary looks someone from 1984 and Trump looks like a total sleaze. We have blown past a new low in negative campaigning.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 5:49 am

freeman3 wrote:You're right about that. Wow the ads each side is showing. Hillary looks someone from 1984 and Trump looks like a total sleaze. We have blown past a new low in negative campaigning.


It makes me sick and it all but assures the same stuff is going to continue for the next 4 years.

When Hillary wins, she will have close to zero political capital--unless Democrats take both Houses, which I think is unlikely. She has little charisma and won't move the needle.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 04 Nov 2016, 8:01 am

Freeman,

I don't want to give you the impression that my hunch is groundless. And I've honestly given your comments some thought but I've concluded that I will continue to use the term "criminal" to describe your candidate. And here's why....

Whitewater
Travelgate
Vince Foster
Cattlegate
Filegate
Clinton Legal Defense Fund
Chinagate
IRS Abuses
FALN Terrorists
Campaign Finance Abuses
Benghasi
Clinton Foundation
Home Server

almost forgot...

Pardongate http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100795,00.html

It's too much Freeman. It's too much for me. And I'll even give you a pass on any 3 of the aforementioned missteps. Go ahead and write 3 of these off as so called "right wing conspiracy theories." What's left is a disgraceful family that sees itself as above the rule of law. And a family that has reduced the presidency of the United States to that of a banana republic.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 8:31 am

Of course Freeman used examples for ONLY Republicans in his list of corrupt examples. Democrats don't do that, Hillary herself is above all that as well I suppose? The incredible partisanship continues to shine bright on him yet again.
Hint, to get your point across, try to use examples from both sides, maybe load one a bit heavier but do use examples from both sides if you want your opinion to hold any weight
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Nov 2016, 9:39 am

Interesting that you don't label what DF says as being partisan, Tom. You have this default response where you label my arguments as being partisan. But your label is in reality a distortion. For example, my argument above was there are Republican examples at least equivalent to Hillary--where the Republican candidates were receiving a lot of help from a particular source even though there was no quid pro quo--and you complained about there being no Democratic examples. Why would I do so in such a comparison?

DF is very partisan but I still read what he says carefully. It's not who he is but what he says that is important. You are using the "partisan" claim as a form of argument. It's kind of lazy.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 9:45 am

freeman3 wrote: It's kind of lazy.


Agreed. Just because someone, either Freeman, Dr Fate, or anyone is being partisan, it doesn't mean that they're wrong.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 10:55 am

DF is ABSOLUTELY partisan conservative in almost everything he says, Rickyp is ABSOLUTELY partisan liberal in everything he says. Freeman is very liberal (though not as much so as Rickyp) and I am conservative but not as much so as DF.

My point was in regard to several posts where Freeman was being partisan (who said he was wrong? ...he was partisan) and he claimed he was not, I pointed out several more and NOW the answer is "but so is he". Simply accept being partisan on a subject and try to accept it or maybe open your eyes to that being the case. When called on a position being blindly partisan, either accept it or prove otherwise. It was not accepted and it was not proven otherwise, DF's position had nothing to do with the accusation (no kidding he's partisan)

and while I am as well, not really here I'm not (and DF here as well?) Trump stinks, Clinton stinks, how can anyone actually support either is just beyond my comprehension yet Rickyp and Freeman are sure trying to do so on the Clinton side so it would seem.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 11:12 am

GMTom wrote:and while I am as well, not really here I'm not (and DF here as well?) Trump stinks, Clinton stinks, how can anyone actually support either is just beyond my comprehension yet Rickyp and Freeman are sure trying to do so on the Clinton side so it would seem.


This.

I have no horse in this Presidential campaign. They are both abominable.

My posts probably seem more anti-Clinton, but that's because no one, and I mean NO ONE, is actually trying to defend Trump.

The totality of the argument "for" Clinton seems to be "she's not Trump." That's a lousy argument.

At the very least, she was "extremely careless" with classified material. She was utterly clueless when it came to international situations. She disregarded the MOU she signed to keep the CF and State Department business separate. She lied repeatedly about the email situation.

Those are non-partisan, stone-cold facts.

If she were your employee, would you promote her?

No, you would not.

Nevertheless, RJ and freeman3 have chosen to disregard her incompetence and dishonesty, voting for her because "she's not Trump."

That's the answer to another question. The question that should be answered: "Is she worthy of the Presidency?"

Prove to me the answer must be "yes."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Nov 2016, 11:38 am

Maybe it's obvious but you put RJ when I think you meant to refer to Rickyp...

As for the rest, I don't think it furthers the discussion by seeking to control what other posters should post. Other posters can feel to criticize. Why would anyone defend Trump by the way? Expecting Trump to be a good president is like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and expecting Shakespeare to come out. It ain't going to happen (and no I'm not saying Trump is a chimpanzee it's just a scale comparison...jackass maybe). Hillary certainly has her faults but they are way overblown. She's a smart, tough lawyer with a lot of experience. She will listen to expert people around her. I think it is reasonable to expect that she will not make any huge mistakes as president. I'm not expecting she will be a great president, either. But Trump...come on. He's a joke and he will make us look like a joke. There is a reason Russia is trying so hard to intervene in our presidential election (which by the way I think is a hostile act that should be responded to in some fashion) to get Trump elected.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 12:48 pm

dag
It's too much Freeman. It's too much for me. And I'll even give you a pass on any 3 of the aforementioned missteps. Go ahead and write 3 of these off as so called "right wing conspiracy theories." What's left is a disgraceful family that sees itself as above the rule of law. And a family that has reduced the presidency of the United States to that of a banana republic.


Have you ever spent time investigating sites that might offer a different interpretation of all these scandals than say Brietbart?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ton-years/

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/fie ... als/24710/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... zi/396182/

If Hillary was as dirty as you seem to think, then some how somewhere something would have stuck and she would have been taken down.

The only presidential candidate who'll be standing trial soon will be Trump, as he answers for the fraud charges against Trump University.