Hillary Clinton is a toxic, crazy lady

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

My favourite thing is how leftards pretend that questioning election results is suddenly crazy now, as if they didn't just get busted for spending the previous 4 years lying and committing crimes to make the case that the 2016 election was illegitimate.. 

You don't seem capable of grasping this, as it's been repeated as nauseum and still hasn't gotten through, but there's an enormous difference between:

A. Accusing someone of using illegal and unethical tactics to influence voters (which is what the Democrats accused Trump of doing--and indeed what was done.)

B  Making baseless accusations of electoral fraud to undermine all faith and confidence in our democratic process. 

 

The former says that your opponent cheated to win votes and he shouldn't be trusted. The latter says that American voters were disenfranchised and the entire electoral system shouldn't be trusted. The former attacks the opponent. The latter attacks the country.

That really isn't a subtle distinction or something that should be difficult for any functional adult to understand. Yet here we are again...

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Hodad

[West]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hillary the respectable politician with valuable opinions"

This is the greatest conspiracy theory of all

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You don't seem capable of grasping this, as it's been repeated as nauseum and still hasn't gotten through, but there's an enormous difference between:

A. Accusing someone of using illegal and unethical tactics to influence voters (which is what the Democrats accused Trump of doing--and indeed what was done.)

B  Making baseless accusations of electoral fraud to undermine all faith and confidence in our democratic process. 

 

When  you create a fake 'dossier' of false information and then falsely claim that your opponent is illegally working with a foreign gov't - you are ABSOLUTELY making a baseless accusation of electoral fraud in an effort to undermine all faith and confidence in the democratic system.

It is an EXAMPLE of that dishonesty and attempt to undermine the system that you would even suggest that the dems didn't do that.

Sorry but it is 100 percent true that the dems and their supporters being 'angry about trump's attempts to undermine the system' are pure unadulterated hypocrisy.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

 

A. Accusing someone of using illegal and unethical tactics to influence voters (which is what the Democrats accused Trump of doing--and indeed what was done.)

B  Making baseless accusations of electoral fraud to undermine all faith and confidence in our democratic process. 

 

 

Oh look, a copy and paste from Hillary's playbook.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Legato

[Hodad]

13 minutes ago, Legato said:

Oh look, a copy and paste from Hillary's playbook.

I know you not into posting things of substance, but do you not see a difference between the two? Seriously?

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well if you meant me you'd have only quoted me - So you WERE saying you're  the lying troll.

Well yes, you're a lying troll.  But you're kind of an !diot for admitting it.   

You're just spouting DRIVEL. My response is clearly aimed at YOUR RESPONSE and your nonsense is not going to change that. LMAO

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That doesn't prove the amount of influence Putin had in that result. It just shows a margin.

When ANYTHING is decided on a razor thin margin, that is PROOF that EVERY ADVANTAGE was CRUCIAL.

I don't really care if you don't understand that.

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

"But it must have", without evidence, is hearsay. Your opinion at best, false at worst.

No it is LOGIC. Learn it.

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Also, putting his victory in quotation marks or marking it with an asterisk, doesn't change the fact that he was your POTUS for 4 years.

When someone cheats, it deserves an asterisk. Just look at the baseball players that set records while doing steroids.

You're just defending CHEATERS. ?

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Thats like telling someone "I could have beat you if I ran harder" after a loss during a sprint. Or the "the wind was affecting me more because am taller".

Not even close. ^These are merit based arguments, NOT CHEATING.

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The same denial from Clinton just made her seem that much more as someone that couldn't be trusted. 

There were many other reasons people didn't trust Hillary, but that was the LEAST of them because she was spot on.

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Doesn't matter. People don't recall runners up. He won the election.

Yes, he did "win" by cheating. Trump is KNOWN for a long history of cheating.

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Sadly, history will remember it differently. She lost the election, according to it.

Sorry you don't get to write "history."

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I felt Clinton was a horrible leader as well, so people had from bad to worse to pick from.

Aside from his drama and immaturity, he was good on policy, which is what most will care about.

^Your opinion, nothing more. His policy was to cast doubt on actual reality and continually  try to distort it to his own advantage. That is good for no one other than him.

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

And thats proof that this alone is why he won, correct?

See LOGIC above. We'll never know for certain he would have won without cheating.

But we do know he needed every advantage to "win" and cheating gave him a significant advantage.

Unfortunate that you don't care whether someone cheats at elections. ?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

When  you create a fake 'dossier' of false information and then falsely claim that your opponent is illegally working with a foreign gov't - you are ABSOLUTELY making a baseless accusation of electoral fraud in an effort to undermine all faith and confidence in the democratic system.

It is an EXAMPLE of that dishonesty and attempt to undermine the system that you would even suggest that the dems didn't do that.

Sorry but it is 100 percent true that the dems and their supporters being 'angry about trump's attempts to undermine the system' are pure unadulterated hypocrisy.

It's ONLY "BASELESS" to those who refuse to look at THE EVIDENCE that's been posted here many times.

Like you MAGA CULT members. ? ?

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're just spouting DRIVEL.

well that's exactly the kind of thing a lying troll would say isn't it.

Stop Lying. Stop Trolling. Your belief is worthless

[Perspektiv]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

When ANYTHING is decided on a razor thin margin

You still would have to prove that where the election was won, was persuaded by the interference.

Looking at the margin as proof, doesn't jive.

Looking with proof as to where the infiltration occurred, is a better start. How many were affected or targeted.

Again, otherwise you're pushing hearsay.

Facts tend to be difficult to refute. Unless of course, you don't have access to any...

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No it is LOGIC.

Logic would be you easily being able to quantify the impact and where it impacted vs the results which don't prove a thing. 

You're essentially pointing to a spike in overdoses as the cause. So it must be the drugs, totally ignoring what pushes someone to that point.

Its lazy and convenient, as is incredibly vague. Easy to blame everything on "cheating" and "razor thin margins", vs actually showing where this was the case.

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

When someone cheats, it deserves an asterisk.

When it can be proven in a way that removes any doubt, sure. 

You have not done so in this debate, preferring to use catch phrases vs actual evidence.

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're just defending CHEATERS. ?

Am questioning your "proof" that election was stolen, which is what you're saying.

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There were many other reasons people didn't trust Hillary

Maybe many of them had something to do with the razor thin margins? There is plenty of proof of people being polled stating just this. Her being dishonest, cold.

Just maybe her husband's record with black Americans, made her sound hollow in talking down to Trump with regards to his views on minorities.

See. Very easy to quantify. Your turn. Oh, wait..

27 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump is KNOWN for a long history of cheating.

Doesn't prove anything more than a cop pulling me over because am black. 

"These people are known to steal. Numbers through the roof"..

Doesn't prove anything. 

29 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^Your opinion, nothing more. His policy was to cast doubt on actual reality and continually  try to distort it to his own advantage.

Until you produce evidence of otherwise, you're essentially doing that just now in pointing to something without any evidence of how it affected the end result, or resolute proof of it.

30 minutes ago, robosmith said:

We'll never know for certain he would have won without cheating.

Logic, is essentially you would not know either way.

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

But we do know he needed every advantage to "win"

Which he did, so your point?

[reason10]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

You don't seem capable of grasping this, as it's been repeated as nauseum and still hasn't gotten through, but there's an enormous difference between:

A. Accusing someone of using illegal and unethical tactics to influence voters (which is what the Democrats accused Trump of doing--and indeed what was done.)

B  Making baseless accusations of electoral fraud to undermine all faith and confidence in our democratic process. 

 

The former says that your opponent cheated to win votes and he shouldn't be trusted. The latter says that American voters were disenfranchised and the entire electoral system shouldn't be trusted. The former attacks the opponent. The latter attacks the country.

That really isn't a subtle distinction or something that should be difficult for any functional adult to understand. Yet here we are again...

 

 

 

You are full lof shitt. Trump won legally. Biden didn't. Hillary is a NAZI. So are the idi0ts who voted for her.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

I know you not into posting things of substance, but do you not see a difference between the two? Seriously?

Nobody can who isn't blinded by their devotion to their echo chamber.  That's the problem - every time dems or their supporters try to claim a difference which simply doesn't exist it convinces trump friendly people or trump supporters that EVERYTHING you say is a lie.  And that the charges against trump are more likely to be politically motivated than based in law.

 You've got no idea how much damage you've done to your brand behaving like this.  Faking dossiers, getting the fbi involved, 3 years of 'collusion' which is 'about to be proven any day now, we've got the evidence almost', etc etc.  You come across as worse than trump. Trump's just one guy while your side it seems EVERYONE is corrupt.

[Nationalist]

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

How did they do that after Obama was out of office, Trump became president and Sessions was AG? 

Like this...

https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/24/explosive-new-fbi-notes-confirm-obama-directed-anti-flynn-operation/

[reason10]

On 10/7/2023 at 2:09 AM, robosmith said:

I posted evidence. You posted YOUR PROGRAMMING.

You have NEVER posted evidence of ANYTHING (except your stupidity.) Earth to idi0t: THE VIEW is not a source.