Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

I think it's pretty simple.  Clinton has been relentless shit on by the press for six months straight*.  How much have you heard about Clinton not being progressive enough or the damn email server?

Jack shit, honestly. Nobody cares about that. It's mostly the corruption and the constant lying about easily verifiable shit, like her record.

What corruption? What lies?

[mainiac]

Spoiler: Here's your evidence (click to show/hide)

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: Here's your evidence (click to show/hide)

Produced by the "Benghazi Research Centre."

Clinton ‘Super PAC’ Responds to Benghazi Hearings With ‘Research Center’ and a Flurry of News Releases

Democrayyyyyy lmao, that's not BRC that's HRC

[mainiac]

lmao

Seriously, this reply fucked up.  Pushing back against lies shouldn't be something you laugh at.  This is a key premise behind free press, democracy, etc.  You can't get the idiots and liars to shut up but at least their victims are allowed to talk back.  This is why people have the right to lawyers regardless of guilt.  This is why we dont limit the right to vote on any test or requirement (well in theory anyway and we get pissed when there are limits).

[sluissa]

Where's her super pac refuting the email scandal?

At the moment the only thing I can find that I can't forgive Trump for is his stance on climate change. While Hillary gives lip service to green energy, throw her in front of some oil drillers and she starts sounding like Sarah Palin.

[Loud Whispers]

Seriously, this reply fucked up.  Pushing back against lies shouldn't be something you laugh at.  This is a key premise behind free press, democracy, etc.  You can't get the idiots and liars to shut up but at least their victims are allowed to talk back.  This is why people have the right to lawyers regardless of guilt.  This is why we dont limit the right to vote on any test or requirement (well in theory anyway and we get pissed when there are limits).

"Victims" already presumes certain innocence against a hostile attack with no basis, it's one thing to be able to defend yourself it's another thing to have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend pretending to be independent research committees misleading public opinion with "independent" reports ayyyy lmao where are superpacs for ordinary plebs

The thing about the rule of law is that it should apply to the rich and powerful and the poor and plebian alike
Gotta get that diplomatic concussion tho

[mainiac]

"Victims" already presumes certain innocence

Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" not mean anything to you?  Like sit down and fucking THINK for a goddamn minute.  How does the system work if you decide you dont like someone so they dont get to argue.

it's another thing to have hundreds of millions of dollars

Yeah, hundreds of millions of dollars.  You go to that website and they mail you a copy on perfumed stationary.  Some people might settle for a digital data packet but this is Clinton with them Wall Street Bucks.

While Hillary gives lip service to green energy, throw her in front of some oil drillers and she starts sounding like Sarah Palin.

Yeah, who cares about ten years of supporting green subsidies.  She went in front of coal miners and didn't tell them they sucked!  Except that she did.

[Loud Whispers]

Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" not mean anything to you?  Like sit down and fucking THINK for a goddamn minute.

The irony here
You're saying she's a victim against a political attack on the presumption of Prosecutors being guilty, I wasn't even talking about whether she was responsible for getting some peeps in an embassy killed because that's up to the trial. "Victims" already presumes innocence against a hostile attack with no basis. Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" not mean anything to you? Like sit down and ayyy lmao for a goddamn minute

Who is confuzzled by the BHRC to assume not only is she innocent, but that her prosecutors are guilty for attempting to put her to trial? Former is less sketchy, latter very much sketchy.

How does the system work if you decide you dont like someone so they dont get to argue.

It works like this: They defend themselves, don't invent diplomatic illnesses to avoid giving testimony, and don't spend superpac dolla trying to defeat justice with political shenanigery borne on the brunt of a public convinced by "independent" ""research centres"" that the very notion of going to trial in the first place is a hostile attack

P.s. I like Clinton and thought she handled the post-Benghazi press conferences respectfully
This is sketchy tho

*EDIT

it's another thing to have hundreds of millions of dollars

Yeah, hundreds of millions of dollars.  You go to that website and they mail you a copy on perfumed stationary.  Some people might settle for a digital data packet but this is Clinton with them Wall Street Bucks.

Having hundreds of millions of dollars is not sketchy, it's ok to be rich
But this is what I said

it's another thing to have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend pretending to be independent research committees misleading public opinion with "independent" reports ayyyy lmao where are superpacs for ordinary plebs
The thing about the rule of law is that it should apply to the rich and powerful and the poor and plebian alike
Gotta get that diplomatic concussion tho

[mainiac]

This just in, if Hillary Clinton defends herself it's an ad hominum attack.

Double standard?  What double standard?

[smjjames]

Where's her super pac refuting the email scandal?

At the moment the only thing I can find that I can't forgive Trump for is his stance on climate change. While Hillary gives lip service to green energy, throw her in front of some oil drillers and she starts sounding like Sarah Palin.

And you forgive him for his xenophobic rhetoric?

The only reason that we haven't seen any super PACs defending against the email scandal is because the republicans have been mostly concentrating their fire at each other and Hillarys super PACs are kind of in primary mode atm.

[Loud Whispers]

This just in, if Hillary Clinton defends herself it's an ad hominum attack.
Double standard?  What double standard?

Nah fam, Hilly Clinton defending herself would be a necessary part of justice

Now making an entire research centre pretending not to be Hillary Clinton whilst attacking the prosecutors as being political villains, that's well sketchy m9
Pretending to be an impartial authority debunking "myths" whilst publishing facts which are Hillary Clinton's opinion, whilst still pretending not to be associated with Hillary Clinton
Literally etchasketch
Accusing your prosecutor who's just a lawyer trying to do his job investigating whether you were criminally negligent and resulted in the needless death of Americans of politically harassing you and wasting taxpayer money at it on your research centre which pretends to not be you? Someone get me a sketch portrait

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Double standard? What double standard?
Her Research Centre literally calls him the Hatchet Man

Ad hom my shit up fam

[Lord Shonus]

Trey Gowdy is a US Representative, not the Attorney General. He is the chairman of the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi, yes, but the sole factor in his being named to the committee (which was formed under strict party lines, with all Republicans voting yes and nearly all Democrats voting no) was his party credentials, not his previous legal experience. Under Gowdy's leadership, the committe has shifted from investigating the events directly surrounding the attack with a deep probe into Clinton's entire tenure as Secretary of State - something that has not been done to investigate any other scandal. Under Gowdy's leadership, the "investigation" has now gone on for far longer than the probe into Iran-Contra or other scandals while examining less than a tenth as much evidence. Elijah Cummings, the highest-ranked Democrat on the panel, openly states that the investigation is being deliberately delayed for political attack purposes.

"Hatchet Man" is, according to every bit of evidence an entirely accurate description.

It is better than the previous witch hunt against the Clintons, where Lewinski was threatened with treason charges if she didn't go public about the affair, but not by much.

[Arx]

...can someone please explain to the non-American why so many people seem to think Clinton is literally the antichrist? Like, I really feel for mainiac here. I'm seeing a lot of shade and not a lot of sources.

[Frumple]

Not directed at folks on this forum, exactly, but in regards to general US sentiment much of the reason is that she's been under a series of fairly dedicated media attacks for something like the last decade, basically unceasingly. She's had shit made up about her, she's had shit blown tremendously out of proportion, she's had almost everything constantly shown in the worst light possible, she's had almost everything decent she's done drowned out in shit-slinging, attempted to be reframed as a negative (see mentions of flipflopping, only caring about present political prudence, etc.), or just barely covered, just as a non-exhaustive list. It's a case where I literally can't recall any american politician get as much negative sentiment/media attention as hilary does, over a period as long as she has.

She also has legitimate criticisms to be made for some of her previous actions! They're just pretty much never treated the same way those kind of criticisms are for other politicians with similar (or greater*) fuckups. And she's certainly more centrist than bernie, of course, it's just that, y'know, so is pretty much the entire US political system. It's just somehow a cardinal sin for her, at least vis a vis the primary season. Probably mostly because there's only two dem candidates, but still.

*I had a lovely conversation recently where someone railed quite vigorously over the four military folks that died at benghazi, and then blew off the 2k+ US military dead (nevermind the civilian casualties, of course) from Bush's bullshit, just as an example.

[smjjames]

...can someone please explain to the non-American why so many people seem to think Clinton is literally the antichrist? Like, I really feel for mainiac here. I'm seeing a lot of shade and not a lot of sources.

Theres a number of reasons:

1. Hillary is effectively a third Obama term and I'm sure you've heard how the republicans have been acting in general towards him.

2. The anti-establishment wave does play a part, but that's more related to the elections than anything specific about her.

3. Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi (and her tenure as Seceretary of State under Obama).

4. The emails. which is a more recent thing and also an outgrowth of Benghazi.

5. Then theres the history as First Lady under her husband.

So, it's not a single reason, just lots of various reasons.