Knickoftime wrote:

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.

Are you a lawyer? You are pretty good at manipulating what people say. And you never can let go of the sarcasm. lol

I said "skip over my points" - you say "asked me a question" - see that? Don't create new rules, don't manipulate. It is a conversation. :-)
Seriously, you see what you did here? Stop trying to be the one in charge.

And where did I say to direct 25 million (and let'S stick with the latter figure) to terrorists? You consistently are using logical fallacies and manipulating my words - with intention.
There are more than 2 choices here.

When the Clintons do something wrong, you (or perhaps it was another poster, so excuse me here) seem to bring up other people who have done the same thing,
trying to moralize it and not legalize it. Which is it? When Hillary breaks the law, others did it too, so it is moral. And if she breaks the law - was she convicted.

Again, we are going to agree to disagree, but please stop posting like you are right and I am wrong.

And one more time - Al Capone was just a tax evader since he wasn't convicted of murder, crime, etc.

Lastly, I don't need your permission to have an opinion. Again, stop being "the source" of what flies and what doesn't.

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

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.

Kasich had a shot I think...He could have rallied the base even though he seem unpopular..He could have matchHillary policy...Trump just lit the GOP afire...I think it's a splintered party at this point..Gonna be interesting seeing them revamp from this...

The media abhors a vacuum. Unless Kasich had some hidden skeletons in his closest (and by all indications he doesn't), he would have been the do no harm candidate. He would have politely hit Clinton on trade and let wikileaks have the spotlight to themselves.

He would have carried Ohio and been someone who played competitively in Pennsylvania. If he put Rubio on the ticket, Florida would have been that much more competitive.

And he polled better than Clinton during the whole primary season. Trump is the ONLY candidate who polled below her and had higher unfavorables.

If the salt-of-the-earth real Americans, everyday wisdom crowds listened to the people who were educated in and expert at election politics, they would have gravitated to him.

No, not only did they hand the election over the Clinton, they may also be handing over the Senate, maybe even the House at this point, and splintering the Republican party into tiny bits, because more than anything chants of "lock her up" made them FEEL powerful.

And they resent you telling them so.

Most of this is correct. Anyone but Trump wins this election vs HRC. But if you read wikileaks there is evidence that they along with a complicit media knew this and pumped Trump up initially. He got more coverage than any other candidate. He is also an entertainer and that also garners more attention. Are you good with the obvios manipulation and cooperation between the candidate and so called free press?

All that being said, HRC is a corrupt politician who should be prosecuted for destroying evidence that was under subpoena, IMO. There is much more as well and she has skated every time. WJC on the plane with LL is highly suspicious. Comey dismissing the case is unheard of as He is the cop not the prosecutor. I am sure we will see career FBI agents speak up more about this soon.

Trump is probably not a great person either and I am sure has done things that are highly questionable. He is also not what is being portrayed by the corrupt media. But you all seem to accept it blindly and look the other way for HRC. As long as it fits your agenda.

It is an awful choice. I will probably vote all but the Presidential line this year. First time in my life.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

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.

Kasich had a shot I think...He could have rallied the base even though he seem unpopular..He could have matchHillary policy...Trump just lit the GOP afire...I think it's a splintered party at this point..Gonna be interesting seeing them revamp from this...

The media abhors a vacuum. Unless Kasich had some hidden skeletons in his closest (and by all indications he doesn't), he would have been the do no harm candidate. He would have politely hit Clinton on trade and let wikileaks have the spotlight to themselves.

He would have carried Ohio and been someone who played competitively in Pennsylvania. If he put Rubio on the ticket, Florida would have been that much more competitive.

And he polled better than Clinton during the whole primary season. Trump is the ONLY candidate who polled below her and had higher unfavorables.

If the salt-of-the-earth real Americans, everyday wisdom crowds listened to the people who were educated in and expert at election politics, they would have gravitated to him.

No, not only did they hand the election over the Clinton, they may also be handing over the Senate, maybe even the House at this point, and splintering the Republican party into tiny bits, because more than anything chants of "lock her up" made them FEEL powerful.

And they resent you telling them so.

Most of this is correct. Anyone but Trump wins this election vs HRC. But if you read wikileaks there is evidence that they along with a complicit media knew this and pumped Trump up initially. He got more coverage than any other candidate. He is also an entertainer and that also garners more attention. Are you good with the obvios manipulation and cooperation between the candidate and so called free press?

So let me get this theory straight.

His supporters resent the media elite for trying to tell them what it best.

Since day 1 the elite have been saying out loud to anyone who'd listen what a joke of a candidate he was. But NOW the theory is his supporters who resent their judgment and worldview being scrutinized were fooled by how much attention the media gave him during the primaries?

The conspiracy is now the press in a coordinated campaign gave more attention to the "entertainer"... the bright shiny object candidate... and their plan WORKED. And again, that these people who gravitated to the "entertainer" who got more attention resent being told they aren't smart?

Really?

This is what it's come to?

Trump is probably not a great person either and I am sure has done things that are highly questionable. He is also not what is being portrayed by the corrupt media.

What evidence of that is there?

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

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.

Are you a lawyer?

No.

See, ask a question, get a direct answer.

And where did I say to direct 25 million (and let'S stick with the latter figure) to terrorists? You consistently are using logical fallacies and manipulating my words - with intention.

Fair enough.

Let's remove the notion that their $10-25m neither got them any favorable treatment by the Obama administration while HRC was SoS (since their is no evidence of such nor would have been redirected to terrorist organizations. I'll concede to that. Let's stick strictly to the principle.

As it has been factually established George Bush also accepted millions from the Saudis, is it your position he too should be prosecuted under the laws you seem to believe should exist?

There are more than 2 choices here.

When the Clintons do something wrong, you (or perhaps it was another poster, so excuse me here)

It was...

seem to bring up other people who have done the same thing,
trying to moralize it and not legalize it. Which is it? When Hillary breaks the law, others did it too, so it is moral. And if she breaks the law - was she convicted.

Again, i can't answer the question because I don't know what law she broke you're referring to. Can you make it more clear which law and not your preferred version of the law that doesn't actually exist you refer to?

Again, we are going to agree to disagree, but please stop posting like you are right and I am wrong.

Until you establish which law you're referring to, I have to assume you're wrong, and not just of a different opinion and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Lastly, I don't need your permission to have an opinion. Again, stop being "the source" of what flies and what doesn't.

Again, you reveal what this issue is about. I don't recall a single poster who is supportive of Clinton and/or critical of Trump making the "stop telling me what's right or wrong" argument. It is solely the rhetorical grounds of one side of this debate, and as established earlier in this thread, is a significant motivator of trump supporters.

I'll meet you 1/4 of the way. You are entitled to subjectively believe something the Clinton Foundation did should be illegal. That is a valid opinion.

Take a deep breath and read that again and count backwards from 10 until you hit reply. I perfectly acknowledge THAT is a subject ripe for personal interpretation.

It is not, objectively, an illegal act. That the Clinton foundation did not break the law isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't a viewpoint. It is a fact.

We can and have argued the moral and ethical implications of it. But you should not conflate your moral/ethical preference with legal fact.

So yes, I'm going to say, stop trying to.

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

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.

Are you a lawyer?

No.

See, ask a question, get a direct answer.

And where did I say to direct 25 million (and let'S stick with the latter figure) to terrorists? You consistently are using logical fallacies and manipulating my words - with intention.

Fair enough.

Let's remove the notion that their $10-25m neither got them any favorable treatment by the Obama administration while HRC was SoS (since their is no evidence of such nor would have been redirected to terrorist organizations. I'll concede to that. Let's stick strictly to the principle.

As it has been factually established George Bush also accepted millions from the Saudis, is it your position he too should be prosecuted under the laws you seem to believe should exist?

There are more than 2 choices here.

When the Clintons do something wrong, you (or perhaps it was another poster, so excuse me here)

It was...

seem to bring up other people who have done the same thing,
trying to moralize it and not legalize it. Which is it? When Hillary breaks the law, others did it too, so it is moral. And if she breaks the law - was she convicted.

Again, i can't answer the question because I don't know what law she broke you're referring to. Can you make it more clear which law and not your preferred version of the law that doesn't actually exist you refer to?

Again, we are going to agree to disagree, but please stop posting like you are right and I am wrong.

Until you establish which law you're referring to, I have to assume you're wrong, and not just of a different opinion and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Lastly, I don't need your permission to have an opinion. Again, stop being "the source" of what flies and what doesn't.

Again, you reveal what this issue is about. I don't recall a single poster who is supportive of Clinton and/or critical of Trump making the "stop telling me what's right or wrong" argument. It is solely the rhetorical grounds of one side of this debate, and as established earlier in this thread, is a significant motivator of trump supporters.

I'll meet you 1/4 of the way. You are entitled to subjectively believe something the Clinton Foundation did should be illegal. That is a valid opinion.

Take a deep breath and read that again and count backwards from 10 until you hit reply. I perfectly acknowledge THAT is a subject ripe for personal interpretation.

It is not, objectively, an illegal act. That the Clinton foundation did not break the law isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't a viewpoint. It is a fact.

We can and have argued the moral and ethical implications of it. But you should not conflate your moral/ethical preference with legal fact.

So yes, I'm going to say, stop trying to.

I have to freely admit that I have grabbed a female by the pssy before. I've pulled their hair and smacked their ass. guess I'm not presedential material myself

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

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.

Are you a lawyer?

No.

See, ask a question, get a direct answer.

And where did I say to direct 25 million (and let'S stick with the latter figure) to terrorists? You consistently are using logical fallacies and manipulating my words - with intention.

Fair enough.

Let's remove the notion that their $10-25m neither got them any favorable treatment by the Obama administration while HRC was SoS (since their is no evidence of such nor would have been redirected to terrorist organizations. I'll concede to that. Let's stick strictly to the principle.

As it has been factually established George Bush also accepted millions from the Saudis, is it your position he too should be prosecuted under the laws you seem to believe should exist?

There are more than 2 choices here.

When the Clintons do something wrong, you (or perhaps it was another poster, so excuse me here)

It was...

seem to bring up other people who have done the same thing,
trying to moralize it and not legalize it. Which is it? When Hillary breaks the law, others did it too, so it is moral. And if she breaks the law - was she convicted.

Again, i can't answer the question because I don't know what law she broke you're referring to. Can you make it more clear which law and not your preferred version of the law that doesn't actually exist you refer to?

Again, we are going to agree to disagree, but please stop posting like you are right and I am wrong.

Until you establish which law you're referring to, I have to assume you're wrong, and not just of a different opinion and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Lastly, I don't need your permission to have an opinion. Again, stop being "the source" of what flies and what doesn't.

Again, you reveal what this issue is about. I don't recall a single poster who is supportive of Clinton and/or critical of Trump making the "stop telling me what's right or wrong" argument. It is solely the rhetorical grounds of one side of this debate, and as established earlier in this thread, is a significant motivator of trump supporters.

I'll meet you 1/4 of the way. You are entitled to subjectively believe something the Clinton Foundation did should be illegal. That is a valid opinion.

Take a deep breath and read that again and count backwards from 10 until you hit reply. I perfectly acknowledge THAT is a subject ripe for personal interpretation.

It is not, objectively, an illegal act. That the Clinton foundation did not break the law isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't a viewpoint. It is a fact.

We can and have argued the moral and ethical implications of it. But you should not conflate your moral/ethical preference with legal fact.

So yes, I'm going to say, stop trying to.

I have to freely admit that I have grabbed a female by the pssy before. I've pulled their hair and smacked their ass. guess I'm not presedential material myself

We finally found something we agree on! Though I'm surprised how little you care about this kind of sexual assault. I think another poster mentioned you have a daughter (but I apologize if I'm mistaken). Would you care if Barack Obama grabbed her p_____ without her permission? (Seriously, I can't imagine how much worse it would have been for him than Trump if he had confessed on tape in 2008 to this and then women started accusing him of actually doing it. There's no way he would have gotten off by saying it was just locker room banter.)

Bonn. I have a hard time believing Trump just grabbed someone down there without some kind of consent Do you have prove he did? Let's get real. Women who talk about sexism are the biggest hypocrite BSers. Donald Trump is a narcissistic obnoxious braggart I don't agree with some of his hardcore views but I know that he can't implement them A softer more logical version makes sense. There is no chance under any circumstance would I cast vote for the absolute corrupt Hillary Clknton. Whatever we do or don't think of Trump she's worse and the disgusting outrageous elitist media is the biggest baddest human disgrace

BRIGGS wrote:Bonn. I have a hard time believing Trump just grabbed someone down there without some kind of consent Do you have prove he did? Let's get real. Women who talk about sexism are the biggest hypocrite BSers.

Briggs, you're getting dangerously close (and may have crossed the line with that last comment) to denying that sexual assault, rape and sexism actually exist.

Is this really your position?

Your defense is devolved into Trump LIED about things he did. That's the best case scenario. That for some reason Trump thought there was some upside to lying about ... in your words ... "just grabbing someone down there without some kind of consent."

I'm game. Let's assume for a sec he was lying about that.

Why on earth would any human being lie about that?

Why did he want Billy Bush to think he did those things?

The ONLY two outcomes of this matter are 1.) He did those things. 2.) In his 59-year old mind, lying about doing those things was a good idea to him.

Which of these only two explanations do you prefer?

... and the disgusting outrageous elitist media is the biggest baddest human disgrace

Once again, demonstration that this isn't about Trump, this is bitter resentment over people being told their judgment sucks.

You say trump is "narcissistic obnoxious braggart" but the people who are so angry over everything and anything has all the opportunity in the world to select a candidate that could have defeated Clinton and they blew it. The picked maybe the ONE candidate that could not.

But no, it's everyone else's fault.

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Bonn. I have a hard time believing Trump just grabbed someone down there without some kind of consent Do you have prove he did? Let's get real. Women who talk about sexism are the biggest hypocrite BSers.

Briggs, you're getting dangerously close (and may have crossed the line with that last comment) to denying that sexual assault, rape and sexism actually exist.

Is this really your position?

Your defense is devolved into Trump LIED about things he did. That's the best case scenario. That for some reason Trump thought there was some upside to lying about ... in your words ... "just grabbing someone down there without some kind of consent."

I'm game. Let's assume for a sec he was lying about that.

Why on earth would any human being lie about that?

Why did he want Billy Bush to think he did those things?

The ONLY two outcomes of this matter are 1.) He did those things. 2.) In his 59-year old mind, lying about doing those things was a good idea to him.

Which of these only two explanations do you prefer?

... and the disgusting outrageous elitist media is the biggest baddest human disgrace

Once again, demonstration that this isn't about Trump, this is bitter resentment over people being told their judgment sucks.

You say trump is "narcissistic obnoxious braggart" but the people who are so angry over everything and anything has all the opportunity in the world to select a candidate that could have defeated Clinton and they blew it. The picked maybe the ONE candidate that could not.

But no, it's everyone else's fault.

My position-- I'm very high on the pssy.

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:Trump is for change??..What change are you referring to...

He made it clear, hol.

Change from so-called "political correctness." Read the full CNN piece.

Trump would be a symbolic victory against the changing tide happening in our culture people who express sexist and racist things can not longer say them without being called sexist and racist.

Trump is a change away from smarty-pants, college educated liberals who think they know better.

To bring it back to sports. Watch Curt Shilling's obvious frustration when a FOX Business host who apparently shares his views about Clinton pushes back against the inappropriate comments charge. His agitation that everyone doesn't make the same conclusion he does it palpable.

Then listen to him meltdown on radio today.

http://media.weei.com/a/117082853/k-c-unhinged-schilling-attacks-john-tomase-10-14-16.htm

Listen to the context of his words. It's ALL about bitter resentment over the 'elite' and cultural 'correctness'.

This is Trump's entire candidacy in a nutshell.

Yeah...You are right..Political corrrectness is a big deal to them..The country have moved on..They are not having it...