earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

It is a relevant "deal" when you demonstrate an inability to compartmentalize and follow a sequence of events properly. I've been very clear in my response to you and it is all there on permanent record for reference.

Conflating factoids is exactly the problem with the alt right.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

I think the Clinton foundation received between $10-25m from Saudi Aradia before 2008. To say "Hillary accepted it' is disingenuous or ignorant and demonstrative of how you get and process your information.

My heart says if societies with human rights violations are going to give up millions of dollars that can help people affected by human rights violations, I'll take it and put it to good use.

If you know if money from Saudi Arabia or Qatar taken during her tenure of Secretary of State or if you know if any quid pro quo benefits either received from the donation, please identify that here.

My problem is in constantly defending some points, while you skip over others. That is on the record too.

I've never skipped over a question you have of me, ever. Your last post asked me a question, I answered it in detail. That's called a conversation.

How do you unknowingly accept 25 million?

I can't answer that because I never wrote that. You're asking and answering your questions now.

The Saudi Arabia stuff is like Donald Trump ^10. It is a bit disheartening that you can rationalize this. They were known terrorist funders, again, stop rationalizing inhumane actions.

So you'd rather them direct that $10-25m to terrorists instead?

Listen, you're more than entitled to your opinion on the matter. But it is a moral/ethical question, not a legal one.

But this has been your sole response to the question what law has she broken. Your only answer has been the one that doesn't exist and your personally think should exist, one that doesn't seem to be shared by say... the U.N., for one. Nor the nations that have accepted money from the Clinton Foundation.

If that is disqualifying to you, that's legitimate.

See, I didn't respond "But Trump did..." once during any discussion of Clinton.

That's how a conversation works.

jrodmc wrote:I can't believe this got more pages than Tony Wroten.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website. Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started. When it began in 1997, the foundation’s main goal was to build the Clinton presidential library, although it left open the option to "engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities" that nonprofits are allowed to do under federal law.

The Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million to build the library. (According to the Post, the Saudis gave a similar amount to the George H.W. Bush library.) After the library donation, the Saudis gave very little and stopped giving entirely during the time Clinton was secretary of state. She stepped down in early February 2013.

earthmansurfer wrote:

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

See posts from Bonn and myself. Now it appears you are grasping for anything that casts doubt and shade on her. Whatever their motives they generate a massive amount of money for philanthropy. You are really whiffing here and its becoming apparent you have no interest in truth. Cmon man

Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

What is 25 million accepted from a terrorist organization? Yeah, it would just be someone else.
And it would be another country abusing woman, homosexuals, etc.
And it is old news, not like Trumps 11 year old saying of... oh wait.

Looks like Clinton supporters are guiding things...

Curious though, what does your heart say?

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:-12 women accusing Trump so far...

For fairness:

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Bill Clinton isn't running for President..

Yeah, he was president. lol
And now he will be back in the White House again. What is he gonna do with all that time?

For the millionth time - what does this have to do with Hillary's fitness to be president? This reminds me of Obama being blamed for the words of Rev. Wright and the deeds of Bill Ayers 40 years ago. This republican strategy of guilt by association will not work. Trump's action isn't offset by the actions of his opponent's husband. And Trump should be happy nobody is bringing up the ACTIVE child rape case he's defending himself against as we speak.

Do you really need this explained to you?
Hillary must be a good judge of character marrying a rapist, eh?
Like attracts like, there is a reason these two criminals have stayed together all these years.

So marrying a bad person (Bill Clinton) reveals character more than BEING a bad person (Trump)? Whoa, you really want to go with that logic? And how many rape allegations have been associated with Trump? And which candidate is CURRENTLY in court for a child rape case?

No, marrying a bad person shows a persons character, doesn't mean they are bad.
Breaking the law over a period of years shows Hillary is a bad person.

They are both bad people, I'm not pro Trump. I just think he is less corrupt. Anyway, I don't feel like Pepsi or Coke...

Remember, Al Capone is just a tax evader...

Keep in mind, Trump was a private citizen and it is harder to dig up his dirt. Plus he gets his associates to sign non-disclosure agreements making it challenging to get people to speak out against him for fear of being sued.

arkrud wrote:I have my own view of the world and do not want anybody or everybody to force any of theirs on me.
So I think in this respect Trump is exactly what I want to see running for president.
He is the symptom of change. Most likely he does not know it and it is not his intentions by any means.
But the change is needed badly and it will manifest itself if we want it or not.
The way the dictatorship of "political correctness" and "pretensions morality" went will not end good for the country.
We need to heal our-self from this terrible illness and this elections are very good shock therapy to start the heeling process.

As I've pointed out several times the last few days, your motivation has already been diagnosed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/opinions/trump-tape-doesnt-matter-opinion-robbins/

This election isn't about greatness, the future, or even Donald Trump. It's about defiance.

To his supporters, a vote for Trump is a way to flip the middle finger to the system, the media, the elite, the liberals, the know-it-alls and the people who pretend they're better than "us."

Every dangerous and disgusting thing Trump says proves he's not fit -- and that's the point. He's not fit for the current "system." And that is exactly his appeal. When he opened his apology by saying, "I've never said I'm a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I'm not," he was making it clear:

I'm not "pretending to be perfect," like "Hillary Clinton and HER KIND."

Obama won his first election thanks to the emotions of hope and enthusiasm.

Trump could win this election on the emotions of frustration and resentment.

Feelings are powerful. According to research, 95% of our decisions are based on subconscious factors -- like how we feel. Not logic. Not what you "know" is right. We make decisions based on what we feel in the moment.

Most Republican voters disagree with Trump's grotesque, lewd words on an intellectual level -- but they still back the man because they feel defiant. That matters.

Let me go back a bit.

I have my own view of the world and do not want anybody or everybody to force any of theirs on me.

This can't be any more plain.

There are people who no longer invested in facts and logic and data and those things working in concert with one another.

It's all about "views" ... opinion ... subjective interpretation and resentment if anyone tries to fact or logic check views.

This is what its come to - 1/3 of our electorate unwilling to engage in debate and argument... unwilling to even consider a different idea.

This country would not have been founded if a small group of what would now be called 'elites' didn't stand up for their ideas and convince others they were right and their ideas were better.

so·ci·o·path
/ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/
noun: sociopath; plural noun: sociopaths
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
. Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules.

This one is good. It has pictures. This makes it easy.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj4tLzpiNvPAhVFOT4KHaTpCqUQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikihow.com%2FSpot-a-Sociopath&usg=AFQjCNHd5r4cGH_ZVGTvmy4H-JwHhE0ibA&sig2=G7WMvGmXLwP9_0azhgDNGA&bvm=bv.135974163,bs.2,d.dmo

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Hillary Clinton again gets away with 30 years of enabling sexual assault corruption criminal acts toxic dishonesty and the American media facilitated the whole process. What a disaster for women especially to have this woman as the first female President. You get what you pay for

So this is victom blaming or am I getting this wrong.

BRIGGS, how did Hilary enable this? What, according to you, are the proper steps of a victim?

Also, are all of the women who were assaulted by Bill Cosby enablers? Is this how you characterize them as well?

Hillary is a victim of what? Having no dignity pride or possibly much much worse? Her husband has been named by multiple women going back 30+ years
and these women all have said that MRS Clinton has contacted them in variable ways after the deeds. Not only did she not walk away--she stayed and enabled. She enabled Bill Clinton to do what he has done. She's no victim and to think so is insane.

Can you back this **** up? Or should we take your word for it?

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:Forget the Presidency, that's over with..Trump's brand is in jeopardy...Three more weeks of this until the election and he is done..Reality shows etc...

Here's the irony....

Trump's most ardent supporters are motivated by 2 things:

1.) Extreme hatred of Hillary Clinton. Zealous belief she'll be a literal catastrophe as President.

2.) Bitter, extreme resentment that the 'elite' dare question their intelligence and engagment.

Now here's the punchline...

If they had put their weight behind Rubio or Kasich or Bush or maybe even Cruz, they'd have a much better shot at defeating Clinton.

They're going to get what they most fear because of their own poor judgment.

Some jokes write themselves.

You wouldn't consider throwing your hat in the ring in four years' time KoT, would you? You'd have my vote.