Hillary Clinton

>he does it for free™

which do you think is a worse adjective? hopelessly corrupt or willingly imbecile?
You had a chance, but you had to kill me, you had to kill me

"

Jennik wrote:

Scrotes, you and your ridiculous conspiracy theories are the reason I wrote that post. You're also focusing on the word "all" and using it to massively misinterpret my words, which isn't surprising considering how at odds you are with accurately interpreting reality. Of course I don't mean every Trump supporter believes in literally all conspiracy theories. Stop being willfully obtuse.

Okay then.

Here's a list of the so-called "conspiracy theories" I believe:
* C-SPAN coverage of Benghazi and email server hearings (starring Trey Gowdy)
* Wikileaks DNC emails
* Project Veritas videos, with the full understanding that they could be edited in a manner similar to taking Michael Moore's real sentiment about Trump and turning it into an apparent endorsement. Note that the core content of "why the Trump message is so powerful" cannot be taken out of context in even the edited sampling of Moore's message; in the same way, a cautious (conservative? lol) interpretation of Veritas footage is possible.
* mainstream media coverage (or lack thereof)

That's really it. And that's more than enough to believe Clinton is a felon three times over, and that the apparatus and media around her is substantially if not thoroughly corrupt.

The fact that you're credulous enough to believe that HRC is "hopelessly corrupt" is the problem. Your view of her is poisoned by your willingness to swallow any propaganda line fed to you. She has the highest level of transparency of any politician ever due to the relentless smear campaigns from the GOP and Russia's email hacks.

What's been found after all that transparency? Nothing that a rational person should consider damning.

She wanted to use her Blackberry so badly that she started a private email server. That's dumb grandma level, but not disqualifying when you stick to the facts about what occurred (which I have the utmost confidence that you, dear reader, will do).

Hillary, while a public defender, defended an alleged child rapist. She tried to be recused and was denied. She laughed about some things that were not the victim, as a cursory examination of the facts will attest.

She murdered Vince Foster, Seth Rich, and countless other people who stood in the way of her rise to que ha ha ha just kidding, what the fuck is wrong with people that they believe this nonsense?

In a speech, Hillary said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia a dozen years earlier when video evidence shows otherwise. Was she remembering a different incident? Does she lack the eidetic memory we expect of all politicians? Was she willfully lying in order to further some unknown, but certainly nefarious plot? We may never know, but it's probably that last one (lizard people fucking hate Bosnia).

Benghazi! Seriously, that's not her. Do the tiniest bit of research that's not on a site called TruePatriotNewsAmerica.org and it'll be painfully obvious. Hillary is not responsible for Benghazi, and no amount of people screaming otherwise will make it true.

She runs a foundation that gives aid to people across the world. It's one of the most highly rated charities around. Pay to play allegations abound, but no evidence of any wrongdoing has been found.

There's more, but they're either full-on conspiracies or so trivial and rarely talked about that they aren't worth covering here. The Clintons have been unjustly dumped on for longer than most people reading these words have been alive. That Hillary got through looking as good as she does now is astonishing.

Practice healthy skepticism. Abandon credulity. Try to base your beliefs in observable evidence. HRC isn't a perfect candidate, but you won't find anyone who is. That's especially true if you're looking at Trump for an alternative.

Scrotes, until about a month ago there was more negative coverage of Hillary in the media than of Trump. There's a reason everybody's screaming about Benghazi, emails, and so on, and that's because the media wouldn't shut up about that nonsense even when it became obvious there was no story there. Hell, Morning Joe on MSNBC is still blasting Hillary every day over the most ridiculous nothings.

Trump started getting more negative news coverage once it became painfully obvious just how repulsive he is as a candidate. People expected a pivot where he'd start doing some research, preparing for debates, learning policy, and being less of an absolute fuckwit. There was no pivot.

Instead of a pivot, there was a video where he bragged about grabbing pussies and getting away with it because he was famous. In debates, instead of discussing policies, he brought up Rosie O'Donnell and how much of a fat pig she is, all while assuring America that, of course, everyone agrees with him on the matter. Then you have the Twitter rampages, the constant whining about everything being rigged, and all of the other shit he's been spouting non-stop.

Are you honestly surprised that the media turned against him? Does there really need to be a conspiracy here? He's the worst major party candidate in the history of America, and it's not by a small margin. My father, who hasn't voted for a Democrat since Carter, voted for Hillary last weekend. This is a man whose head is still firmly wedged up Saint Ronnie's rectum, but he just can't stomache Trump.

The media is against Trump because of Trump. That's the full story.

@Jennik:

The problem isn't that she's "hopelessly corrupt." Although I have some serious questions about the Clinton Foundation, what its actual overhead is, and the donations from foreign States/actors.

The problem can be summed up with something she said on camera: "We came, we saw, he died. (Laughs.)"

The woman's apparent lack of empathy, lack of understanding about the seriousness of taking a life, is horrendous. Consider this in light of her foreign-policy position: She wants to depose yet another tyrant (Bashar al-Assad) without providing a legitimate replacement. Have we learned nothing?

And arming, training, and assisting mysterious Islamic Rebels? Really? We're going to give the keys to a kingdom to... an unknown? To "ISIL-lite"? No, thank you.

In addition, I seem to recall Clinton denying involvement with the Red Line and Syria. True, she wasn't there when the threat wasn't backed up... but she surely was there when that idea came into being, when that Red Line was drawn -- and I'm pretty sure, had she been in the Oval Office when Syria crossed that Red Line, it would have ended in disaster.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for war. As much as I dislike Mr. Trump, at least he isn't an advocate for this irresponsible deposition of yet another tyrant.

Don't forget the veritas sham of an american citizen calling up unsolicited and offering a $20,000 donation to a consultant firm, wiring the money from an account in belize, and then implying that this is proof of Clinton campaign getting donations from foreign countries.

Also they pretty much undo their work from before, they explicitly show how money ends up in the coffers of this consultant company, the money being spent on Donald ducks among other things. So they show this funding trail that has absolutely no connection to the Clinton campaign, but rather from private American citizens. Good job!

"

bwam wrote:

The problem can be summed up with something she said on camera: "We came, we saw, he died. (Laughs.)"

That was Osama bin Laden. People literally cheered when they heard he died. If you're going to condemn Hillary for what she said there, how many people do you imagine you're leaving uncondemned? Hillary understands the seriousness of taking a life, which should be obvious she she's referring to a terrorist responsible for taking thousands of them.

If you had paid even the tiniest bit of attention to Hillary over the years, you would know that a lack of empathy is not one of her problems. Just her words about abortion during the third debate should have disabused you of that notion.

Man, you should have seen the smile on my face each time I heard a person like Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond had died, and I have so much empathy I'm fucking vegan. People who are responsible for tremendous amounts of suffering through their bigotry and hatred lose their right to my empathy.

She's also not the warmonger the right (and parts of the left) believes her to be. She has taken commonly held positions in the past. She has never been a lone, or ever uncommon, voice for war. She is in favor of military intervention when military intervention appears to be the most sensible option. I'm far from a proponent of war, but you're delusional if you think she's more likely to go to war than most other politicians, and you're just plain nuts if you think she's more likely to go to war than Trump.

"

Jennik wrote:

The fact that you're credulous enough to believe that HRC is "hopelessly corrupt" is the problem.

Never said hopelessly. She is a serial liar, but I definitely don't view her as a demon, or even as an archetypal villain. She's a person.

"

Jennik wrote:

She wanted to use her Blackberry so badly that she started a private email server. That's dumb grandma level, but not disqualifying when you stick to the facts about what occurred (which I have the utmost confidence that you, dear reader, will do).

What she did was a felony. From my experience in Army IT I believe it's a very common felony, similar to drug possession in many ways: frequency of occurrence, likelihood of getting caught, and room for doubt as to whether these things should be laws in the first place. But if we knew a candidate had, say, used cocaine, and then repeatedly lied (39+ times) to the House Oversight Committee about said use, should that person have even a glimmer of a chance of ever becoming President?

"

Jennik wrote:

Hillary, while a public defender, defended an alleged child rapist. She tried to be recused and was denied. She laughed about some things that were not the victim, as a cursory examination of the facts will attest.

Completely agree. If anything, I take slight issue that she didn't do more to defend her client. No revelations here either way.

"

Jennik wrote:

In a speech, Hillary said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia a dozen years earlier when video evidence shows otherwise. Was she remembering a different incident? Does she lack the eidetic memory we expect of all politicians? Was she willfully lying in order to further some unknown, but certainly nefarious plot?

My take is that she deliberately lied simply to brag. No big conspiracy or anything.

"

Jennik wrote:

Benghazi! Seriously, that's not her. Do the tiniest bit of research that's not on a site called TruePatriotNewsAmerica.org and it'll be painfully obvious. Hillary is not responsible for Benghazi, and no amount of people screaming otherwise will make it true.

Couldn't find your site. However, I personally find the refusal of responsibility disgusting. Clinton should have voluntarily taken responsibility for not increasing security after Stevens' many requests. She was Secretary of State, it's a responsibility of the office, and even if delegated she is responsible for the performance of that duty.

Of course the murder stuff is nonsense.

"

Jennik wrote:

The fact that you're credulous enough to believe that HRC is "hopelessly corrupt" is the problem.

I was not talking about her haha

"

LostForm wrote:

Don't forget the veritas sham of an american citizen calling up unsolicited and offering a $20,000 donation to a consultant firm, wiring the money from an account in belize, and then implying that this is proof of Clinton campaign getting donations from foreign countries.

Also they pretty much undo their work from before, they explicitly show how money ends up in the coffers of this consultant company, the money being spent on Donald ducks among other things. So they show this funding trail that has absolutely no connection to the Clinton campaign, but rather from private American citizens. Good job!

First paragraph: You mean Belize is in the US? Wow. [/sarcasm] I don't know how you could better prove getting money from a foreign country than, um, getting money from a foreign country.

Second paragraph: You obviously don't understand campaign law at all.