Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Was Seth Rich Assassinated?

PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 1:47:43 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Seth Rich was a DNC staffer who was killed July 11th. As a staffer at the Democratic National Committee, Rich worked tirelessly on a project to help voters easily find their polling places. He also described himself as a "data analyst". Supposedly, he was killed during a robbery, but no items were taken. There was apparently a struggle and he was shot multiple times, one of which was in his back. Two days before Rich died, he posted a plea on Facebook to end gun violence, saying, "I have family and friends on both sides of the law. Please, stop killing each other." Clinton used him as an example of the issue with gun violence, and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that Rich was a "dedicated, selfless public servant who worked tirelessly to protect the most sacred right we share as Americans." (http://heavy.com...).

Of course, his death has espoused some conspiracy theories. One of these theories is that Rich was on his way to the FBI apparently intending to speak to special agents about an "ongoing court case" possibly involving the Clinton family. Some even say that he was assassinated simply to support Clinton's case on "getting guns off the street". Another says that Rich may have been the "DNC leaker", claiming that no Russian hacker could release the emails. Reddit compiled a timeline claiming that Rich was coerced by environmentalists to release the emails and thus caused Clinton to "order a hit" https://m.reddit.com... (http://heatst.com...). The full theory is as follows: "The Clintons have known the Kleebs since at least 2008. Scott Kleeb started a business the Clinton Global Initiative was found fraudulently supporting. Seth Rich was deeply entrenched with the Kleebs from their Nebraska Democratic work. Seth Rich was hired onto a position in the DNC out of a job from a data consulting firm which had previously worked with President Clinton, which was opened up because the Clintons pushed for the Voter Expansion project so that 2008 didn"t happen to Hillary in 2016. Seth Rich has at least 2 connections to the Clintons. Jane Kleeb is a voracious environmentalist/Sanders supporter who might"ve prompted Seth Rich to leak the emails, especially after their business was one month earlier revealed for fraudulency. The best way to cover their tracks would be to make this seem like another right-wing conspiracy. His murder was deemed a robbery, but nothing was missing from his person (http://hiddenamericans.com...)".

"WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich" (actual quote from twitter), two weeks after the email leak. However, the organization and founder Julian Assange has come under fire recently from critics who say Wikileaks is reckless with the information it makes public and also biased against Clinton (http://www.ibtimes.com...). D.C. police are offering their own $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone responsible for the shooting death of the DNC staffer, adding "We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," said D.C. Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham. "At this time, we don't have any information to suggest that the case is any way connected with his work at the DNC."(http://thehill.com... and http://www.fox5dc.com...).

Long story short, do you think DNC staffer Seth Rich was specifically targeted by "the Democrats", or do you think he was murdered by someone else? Do you think he was actually the DNC "leaker", or was he "assassinated" for some other reason (such as "getting too close" to something)? Or do you simply say he was murdered during a failed robbery? Do you think WikiLeaks should have offered 20K, or does this show a bias or something? Would you give the information to the police or WikiLeaks? Discuss.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 5:14:54 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 1:47:43 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
Seth Rich was a DNC staffer who was killed July 11th. As a staffer at the Democratic National Committee, Rich worked tirelessly on a project to help voters easily find their polling places. He also described himself as a "data analyst". Supposedly, he was killed during a robbery, but no items were taken. There was apparently a struggle and he was shot multiple times, one of which was in his back. Two days before Rich died, he posted a plea on Facebook to end gun violence, saying, "I have family and friends on both sides of the law. Please, stop killing each other." Clinton used him as an example of the issue with gun violence, and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that Rich was a "dedicated, selfless public servant who worked tirelessly to protect the most sacred right we share as Americans." (http://heavy.com...).

Of course, his death has espoused some conspiracy theories. One of these theories is that Rich was on his way to the FBI apparently intending to speak to special agents about an "ongoing court case" possibly involving the Clinton family. Some even say that he was assassinated simply to support Clinton's case on "getting guns off the street". Another says that Rich may have been the "DNC leaker", claiming that no Russian hacker could release the emails. Reddit compiled a timeline claiming that Rich was coerced by environmentalists to release the emails and thus caused Clinton to "order a hit" https://m.reddit.com... (http://heatst.com...). The full theory is as follows: "The Clintons have known the Kleebs since at least 2008. Scott Kleeb started a business the Clinton Global Initiative was found fraudulently supporting. Seth Rich was deeply entrenched with the Kleebs from their Nebraska Democratic work. Seth Rich was hired onto a position in the DNC out of a job from a data consulting firm which had previously worked with President Clinton, which was opened up because the Clintons pushed for the Voter Expansion project so that 2008 didn"t happen to Hillary in 2016. Seth Rich has at least 2 connections to the Clintons. Jane Kleeb is a voracious environmentalist/Sanders supporter who might"ve prompted Seth Rich to leak the emails, especially after their business was one month earlier revealed for fraudulency. The best way to cover their tracks would be to make this seem like another right-wing conspiracy. His murder was deemed a robbery, but nothing was missing from his person (http://hiddenamericans.com...)".

"WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich" (actual quote from twitter), two weeks after the email leak. However, the organization and founder Julian Assange has come under fire recently from critics who say Wikileaks is reckless with the information it makes public and also biased against Clinton (http://www.ibtimes.com...). D.C. police are offering their own $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone responsible for the shooting death of the DNC staffer, adding "We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," said D.C. Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham. "At this time, we don't have any information to suggest that the case is any way connected with his work at the DNC."(http://thehill.com... and http://www.fox5dc.com...).

Long story short, do you think DNC staffer Seth Rich was specifically targeted by "the Democrats", or do you think he was murdered by someone else? Do you think he was actually the DNC "leaker", or was he "assassinated" for some other reason (such as "getting too close" to something)? Or do you simply say he was murdered during a failed robbery? Do you think WikiLeaks should have offered 20K, or does this show a bias or something? Would you give the information to the police or WikiLeaks? Discuss.

It seems hard to claim it was a robbery when nothing was stolen. I think he was murdered because he threatened to or did leak DNC info. There have been many bodies found of people who had info on her and were set to testify. http://www.zerohedge.com...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Apparently, some are saying even more deaths were conducted by "the Democrats" (http://townhall.com...).
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 6:51:45 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:36:44 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
Apparently, some are saying even more deaths were conducted by "the Democrats" (http://townhall.com...).

Jullian Assange is offering 20K for info on the killer, this would make sense if he was the wiki leak source. But it could be more conspiracy theory.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 9:55:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 5:14:54 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
It seems hard to claim it was a robbery when nothing was stolen. I think he was murdered because he threatened to or did leak DNC info. There have been many bodies found of people who had info on her and were set to testify. http://www.zerohedge.com...

Lol!

Wait, you're serious?

I guess when you ignore the actual evidence from credible sources, such as the police; and find non-credible sources which literally make sh*t up about Hilary Clinton literally all the time; and ignore every single way in which your position does not make sense, you maybe right.

I'm sure you have an incoherent set of explanations for why a group of paid assassins, so good that they leave no slip ups in their unending chain of horrific murders, always forget basic things like "leaving the victim conscious", or "staging a robbery but forget to take things".

This is the problem; you, and the nut job American Taliban are mostly just making stuff up about Hilary and President Obama, and then point to the stuff you made up to show why you don't trust Hilary Clinton and President Obama.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 11:30:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 9:55:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/10/2016 5:14:54 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
It seems hard to claim it was a robbery when nothing was stolen. I think he was murdered because he threatened to or did leak DNC info. There have been many bodies found of people who had info on her and were set to testify. http://www.zerohedge.com...

Lol!

Wait, you're serious?

I guess when you ignore the actual evidence from credible sources, such as the police; and find non-credible sources which literally make sh*t up about Hilary Clinton literally all the time; and ignore every single way in which your position does not make sense, you maybe right.

I'm sure you have an incoherent set of explanations for why a group of paid assassins, so good that they leave no slip ups in their unending chain of horrific murders, always forget basic things like "leaving the victim conscious", or "staging a robbery but forget to take things".

This is the problem; you, and the nut job American Taliban are mostly just making stuff up about Hilary and President Obama, and then point to the stuff you made up to show why you don't trust Hilary Clinton and President Obama.

Wipe your chip, Hillary's cum is dripping off it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 11:56:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 11:30:12 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 9:55:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/10/2016 5:14:54 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
It seems hard to claim it was a robbery when nothing was stolen. I think he was murdered because he threatened to or did leak DNC info. There have been many bodies found of people who had info on her and were set to testify. http://www.zerohedge.com...

Lol!

Wait, you're serious?

I guess when you ignore the actual evidence from credible sources, such as the police; and find non-credible sources which literally make sh*t up about Hilary Clinton literally all the time; and ignore every single way in which your position does not make sense, you maybe right.

I'm sure you have an incoherent set of explanations for why a group of paid assassins, so good that they leave no slip ups in their unending chain of horrific murders, always forget basic things like "leaving the victim conscious", or "staging a robbery but forget to take things".

This is the problem; you, and the nut job American Taliban are mostly just making stuff up about Hilary and President Obama, and then point to the stuff you made up to show why you don't trust Hilary Clinton and President Obama.

Wipe your chip, Hillary's cum is dripping off it.

What a wide reaching and comprehensive take down of the facts of the matter, and a swift defense of your own narrative.

You have a big problem here, Ben. You and a significant number of republicans I've seen, including Bronoraptor, and others appear to be living in a bubble; a constructed world where the narrative you've built is "Democrats and liberalism is evil, Clinton and Obama doubly so"; selective facts, outright lies, distortion, misrepresentation are fine, provided that they agree with your point of view, if they don't, well explained away by media bias, dismissed out of hand, or deflected with insults if they are acknowledged at all.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 6:14:42 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 11:56:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


I wasn't going to respond to this, it's clear you've drank the Klinton Koolaid, but I figure it would be fun to post a few reasons why I don't like Clinton, don't worry it will be sourced, I can't wait to watch you try to defend her and all the lies she's told. And if you think I come from a right wing perspective then you clearly don't pay attention to the things I post on DDO. I'm not a Trump supporter, but fvck Hillary Clinton.

Lets start with a quote to set the mood: "She'll say anything and change nothing." -
Barack Obama, 2008 [http://townhall.com...]

The DNC promised all primary candidates that it would be fair and unbiased. Clearly that was bullsh!t [http://observer.com...] Debbie Wasserman Schults (DWS) and other high ranking members did all kinds of crap to hinder Bernie's campaign, early on they disable his access to doner lists because he had the courtesy to tell them that there information was open to hacking, he had to threaten to sue in order to be treated fairly [https://www.washingtonpost.com...] And what does Hillary do with the disgraced DWS? She rewards her by putting her on her national campaign, no doubt she'll get a cushy job in the White House if Hillary wins.

She refuses to release her transcripts of speeches she's given to Wall Street banks yet expects us to believe she'll hold them accountable. She won't give press conferences either. And you wonder why she only has a 60% untrustworthy rating [http://freebeacon.com...]

That meeting between Bill and Lynch that happened by accident? BS Bill waited for her. [http://observer.com...] And how strange after that meeting -even though her staff knew this was a political fire storm waiting to happen - she sealed the Clinton Foundation emails which the FBI wants to investigate [http://townhall.com...]

The FBI direcor Comey said she was sloppy and careless, but stopped short of criminal negligence even though he admitted had someone else done what she did they'd be fired. And then she has the gaul to say the FBI said she was truthful [http://www.politifact.com...]

She's a war hawk [http://www.nytimes.com...]

She's responsible for overthrowing the Honduran government and is proud of her role in it and lies about its legality [http://www.democracynow.org...]

She's a moron and I'll repeat a liar. She continually lies about how she faced sniper fire in Bosnia [https://www.washingtonpost.com...]

The only reason she started talking about wealth inequality was because Sanders was getting so popular because of it http://www.nytimes.com...

She claimed Ronald Regan was at the forefront of fighting the AIDS crisis to suck up to her pro-Regan audience [http://www.complex.com...]

This may be conspiracy, but you have to admit it's really fvking suspicious 3 DNC staffers with something against Hillary died within weeks of the email leaks. And a death ruled suicide by a guy who publicly said "... if I"m ever found dead, it was murder. I would never kill myself." [http://townhall.com...]

Do you believe she wiped personal 30,000 emails when she was under investigation? ... with like a cloth or something? [http://www.politico.com...] [http://www.politico.com...] and there was classified info on her very hackable server. [https://www.washingtonpost.com...]
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:52:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 6:14:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 11:56:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


I wasn't going to respond to this, it's clear you've drank the Klinton Koolaid, but I figure it would be fun to post a few reasons why I don't like Clinton, don't worry it will be sourced, I can't wait to watch you try to defend her and all the lies she's told.

Koolaid, not so much; because unlike you, I'm putting everything in a wider context, rather than assume everything she does is automatically evil, out of the box.

Clinton has been subject of a republican witch-hunt for the best part of 20 years. There have been a number of investigations and articles talking about her outright corruption; and yet with pretty much every investigation that there is, the various people in charge of the investigation crawling up her are on pretty much everything, can't really find much more than general and vague accusations.

If she was a republican, if this were trump, you would be able to defend pretty much everything she's done.

But, instead, and because you hate her, for whatever reason I cannot say, you're implying that she murdered a number of people, for which you have no evidence, try and pin accusations of corruption, when there is no evidence or even implication that she has used the state department or government influence to specifically further her own personal wealth, goals or agenda.

The corruption narrative makes no sense whatsoever. It's really just one of the standard republican tactics to try and unreasonably smear her. You accuse her repeatedly of corruption, with little if any direct evidence of that, and then use her repeated accusation of corruption to justify why you should treat everything new as an example of corruption!

Clinton is a populist, and the same sort of liar as most other politicians. I don't think she needs to do the latter, and quite honestly, there is a good case to be made that aligning policy with popular sentiment is not actually a bad thing if you actually do it. If a politician can change their mind, and be brought around by general broad sentiment of people, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Now, here's the thing; you don't need to be on a Witchhunt. You don't have to level claims of corruption that would not stick in a court of law, or launch yet another biased partisan investigation that doesn't really show she's done much fundamentally wrong, you could be completely truthful, and paint her as a typical lying politician (she would have dug her own grave on that one).

However, the republicans have gone completely insane. Obama is not a muslim, Hilary isn't going to take your guns, there is no evidence she had anyone killed and even the mere suggestion is pretty ludicrous. Obama nor Clinton is not the founder of ISIS, they had a part to play, more down to decisions in hindsight than any malfeasance or even incompetence.

If there was a shred of truth to any of the claims you and people like you have actually made over the last 20 years, there has been enough investigations by foaming at the mouth republicans that have crawled up her arse with a magnifying glass that it's pretty clear that if there was anything of substance to anything more than her being a populist and a lying politician, she'd probably be in prison right now.

This is followed by a long list of atrocious hypocrisy in selective reporting, and insane conspiracy theories and whacko accusations by people like you that ironically makes people like me doubt the veracity of anything you say. Because even if clinton is corrupt, when it comes from the same people that says she wants to take your guns, she had people murdered, obama was a muslim, and she was the worst secretary of state in the history of the world; it kinda destroys your own credibility.

But, here's the thing, you're doing this not specifically because you dislike Hilary; this is part of a systematic attack on people who disagree with your position; a quest for ideological purity that anyone who is on the left is automatically wrong about everything and is automatically a horrible person who should be attacked. It is red meat thrown to the dogs in order to whip up a sense of outrage.

I think Clinton has issues; I think actions concerning the foundation are ethics violations; but only just, NGO's work through the connections that they have, and it's only crossing into the realms of corruption if she really changed state department or government policy solely based on money donated; there doesn't seem to be much if any evidence of that and certainly no evidence of any personal gain from any of it that I'm aware of. The emails themselves? The only thing that makes sense, is wanting to avoid the republicans who have crawled up her arse for 20 years having access to personal information to smear her with. I don't blame her given your insane claims here. The DNC was biased against sanders and tried to influence the election subtly; but that wasn't exactly really a secret, and I'm pretty sure no different from the republican party emails if they were in the public domain, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of scary level misconduct or election tampering, just what we all knew. The DNC wanted hillary to win, and some of the individuals there tried to help that happen. Poor ethics for an organization that should be unbiased in this respect, but not corrupt or horrific in the grand scheme of things.

The narrative you are painting against Clinton is incoherent, and hypocritical. As well as not being able to show any significant motive malfeasance, or anything much greater than the typical type of issue you'd find with politicians; it's also more hypocritical than I can possibly state; at the one hand you're claiming to be against clinton for lying, malfeasance, and incompetence, yet it is an objective fact that the person you are supporting has lied more, been engaged in potentially more shady dealings, with greater levels of evidence, and whom many, many, many people (republicans and democrats) are coming right out and saying is not competent to do the Job, while Hilary is.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 3:32:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:52:37 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 6:14:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 11:56:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Holy sh!t what a Dodge! What a rant! I can't tell if it's foam at the mouth or you went back for another round of slog dogging Hillary's Rodham! Ha ha ha I like how the one part you did quote of me you erased my last sentence saying I don't support Trump, then go on to talk about Republicans and how I support Trump. I'm a Sanders supporter nitwit, if your best argument is she's as much of a liar as the typical politician then Sanders still is better because he's not a typical politician. FVCK HILLARY CLINTON.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 3:32:18 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:52:37 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 6:14:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 11:56:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Holy sh!t what a Dodge! What a rant! I can't tell if it's foam at the mouth or you went back for another round of slog dogging Hillary's Rodham! Ha ha ha I like how the one part you did quote of me you erased my last sentence saying I don't support Trump, then go on to talk about Republicans and how I support Trump. I'm a Sanders supporter nitwit, if your best argument is she's as much of a liar as the typical politician then Sanders still is better because he's not a typical politician. FVCK HILLARY CLINTON.

Dodge?

I explained the details of my reasons, pretty much in detail twice. And I am pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy in your position, and the fact that your living in a non reality where the only thing that matters is whether a particular argument or article supports your own opinion rather than it actually being true or valid.

Your narrative about Hilary makes no sense; and all you really have is an argument that the worst aspects you can pick out look bad; and then using it to justify unsupported and outrageous claims of out-right corruption and malfeasance. Ignoring all the actual information.

Hilary is not nearly as bad as you claim; and you can tell this by past political behavior, the fact that half of the crap you said isn't supported by evidence by merely pointing out particular avenues which you can spin into malfeasance.

Yet, your not calling for the same level of scrutiny of trump, or potentially Bush Jr, who in many respects has damaged the country in terms of foreign policy more deeply and more lastingly than even the most ardent claims of Republicans against Hilary.

You're just falling into the typical trap of conspiracy theorists.

You WANT something to be true, because you have a view of the world that requires democrats and Hillary to be evil; because it's the only way you can validate people disagreeing with you, and pointing out how utterly divorced from reality your positions are.

Because you WANT it to be true; you look at "alternative" news sources that only agree with your position; regardless of how often such sources can be objectively shown to be repeatedly distorting and misrepresenting the facts if not out-right lying. I suspect you know how biased they are, but you don't care, because you want them to be right.

Because you ONLY look at the news sources that agree with you, or simply dismiss out of hand the sources that do not; and individuals who don't agree with you it reinforces your own opinion of what you want to be true; and makes it even harder to admit to yourself that you're position is divorced from reality.

This is pretty much well evidenced, because I went into detailed reasoning for why I don't think Hilary is quite as bad as you say, and the problems with your position that indicate it as so, and provide justifiable reason to suggest most of it is outrageous hyperbolae.

You then insult me directly, don't address anything I really said (even though I went into a modicum of detail about the broad claims against Hilary), and then accuse me of dodging.

You are not living in reality, man. I'm not dodging, I'm engaging with you, explaining my reasoning; only to be met with the same sort of ridiculous dismissive attitude of someone who doesn't seem to be interested in what the truth actually is, only that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Hillary lies and dissembles, Hillary's Email server was a massive error, she helped run a charity, and almost certainly helped her charity with connections while in the state department.

The first, is probably no worse than most other politicians; and most assuredly and certainly much better than someone like Trump; or even the type of stuff you hear on Fox News. She kinda has to be in some respect given the sheer volume of hatred coming from people like you.

The second was stupid, though I can say that as a tech savvy engineer. Would she have used anyway it knowing that it was insecure and a major political risk as a result; no. Do I think there was any massive amount of harm caused by it? I suspect not; if there was she'd have been indicted because, lets face it, real damaging emails, and information from government sources can be tracked on both source and receiver. I can see reasoning behind having it that is understandable given the nature of the political "discourse" against her, even if I think it was a bad decision. What is true, however, is the nature of how bad it is, is being speculatively overblown by people like you in absence of any evidence.

The third, in my view, having some basic understanding of how NGO's actually work doesn't seem to be too far out of the ordinary, and I'm pretty sure no different than how the system works; it's about people and connections. And you know, the worst case if everything that is currently being accused is true, then Hillary is guilty of assisting a non-profit charity that is actually working to help people using her connections; but without any significant changes in policy in the state department as a result of donations, nor any personal gain on her part.

As I've said I think with the emails, and probably the Clinton Foundation, there is skirting with Ethics. But there is a wider context here; Did Hilary delete emails to cover up horrific acts on her part, or because in a toxic culture where people like you are going to seize on every detail of every email and use them to repeatedly hammer her on with an appearance of impropriety to give the appearance of total corruption, even though there probably wasn't. Which is it? To me, the latter is far more plausible considering how much you the right wing media already flagrantly lies; it's also somewhat backed up by the fact that if she was covering stuff up, she did a bad job in the emails she released, and it doesn't appear to be supported by around 10% of the missing emails that were subsequently discovered, and the fact you only knew that there were any deleted emails because she said so!

The narrative makes no sense, and you seem more willing to simply make the accusation than defend them, and to simply claim I'm a shill than to deal with it.

Your position is a conspiracy theory, plain and simple. The facts do not support the world-is-ending scenario you say it does.

But here's the bottom line; Hillary's behavior isn't great; but the facts don't seem to be consistent with outright corruption rather than consistent with jaded behavior of a career politician under siege for two decades by the republican nut-house.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 10:06:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing;

For the last time you fvcking retard, IM NOT MAKING RIGHT WING CLAIMS - READ WHAT I WROTE - ADDRESS MY POINTS DIRECTLY - I DON'T CARE WHAT REPUBLICANS SAY. YOU ARE THE ONE HURLING INSULTS SAYING IM DELUSIONAL DESPITE USING LEGIT LEFT WING SOURCES.

I'VE PRESENTED MY REASON WHICH YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED OTHER THAN CALLING ME A REPUBLICAN. I AM A SANDERS SUPPORTER!!!!

YOU ARE THE INCOHERENT HYPOCRITE.

"Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since?"

Are you high? Hillary having her own private server is unprecedented in the state department functions. And the evidence ha been blatantly covered up as I posted before with the meeting between Lynch and Bill email record sealing and how the DoJ is refusing to let the FBI investigate the Clinton Foundation.

"But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made"

I wasn't making broad claims fool. You didn't address Honduras, you didn't address saying Regan fought against AIDS, you didn't address Bosnia, you didn't address the truth statement of her FBI interviews, you didn't address my point about she's a war hawk, you didn't address DNC collusion during the primaries, you didn't address how she refuses to release her speeches to big banks and Wall street, you didn't address how she copied sanders message after he starting gaining popularity from it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 10:08:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time.

And no, she doesn't have to be a mastermind to do what's she's doing and she can still say stupid sh!t that's obviously a lie.
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 11:47:51 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

You both are stupid

If clinton wants someone dead you wouldnt even hear about it

And hillary Clinton is so stupid that she had a private server account which unless she's missing a few brain cells in that would bite her later in her questions questions power
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 12:21:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 10:06:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing;

For the last time you fvcking retard, IM NOT MAKING RIGHT WING CLAIMS - READ WHAT I WROTE - ADDRESS MY POINTS DIRECTLY - I DON'T CARE WHAT REPUBLICANS SAY. YOU ARE THE ONE HURLING INSULTS SAYING IM DELUSIONAL DESPITE USING LEGIT LEFT WING SOURCES.

I'VE PRESENTED MY REASON WHICH YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED OTHER THAN CALLING ME A REPUBLICAN. I AM A SANDERS SUPPORTER!!!!

Dude, in my last 3-4 replies, I have, at length explained the reasoning and justification for not thinking the way you do.

I suspect you haven't even read any of it.

But saying that, I apologize for calling you a republican and a Trump supporter. It's very easy to make that mistake, as you're repeating the same fox news narrative that is permeating the media, and trumps campaign; and seem, in some respects, indistinguishable from the typical right wing nutter here when it comes to Hilary; but be sure, from now on, I will refrain from calling you a republican, and will simply point out that in this respect, you agree with most of their propaganda on the subject.

I would point out, likewise, I am by no means a Hillary shill, my point is simply that I don't think the evidence indicates that she is close to as bad as you're indicating; and considering your hurling of insults in lieu of an argument in a couple of your replies.

As I said, I am not disagreeing with any of your facts; lets be clear. The facts that you are citing, as far as I care to look at them, are relatively accurate (I am unsure whether she "repeatedly lied" about Bosnia, as I can only find one reference to it, but I'm not going to argue the toss on it).

What I disagree with, is the narrative, and opinion that you have come to regarding to what explains those facts. You've chosen a backdrop of criminal corruption, and pathological dishonesty.

As I outlined, that narrative of corruption that I have explained in detail, is wrong; I don't think the inconsistencies, and the holes in that narrative mean it make sense. I've repeated them about 4 times now, and you don't seem to be acknowledging them.

As I said, a career politician populist under siege by the republican part for 20 years can quite easily explain all of the facts that you've cited.

I knew she's a Hawk, I know her comments about Honduras, I know she's lied and to the extent to which she did, and what about. She is a carrier politician; and while I don't hold her in the highest of regards relatively speaking compared to someone like Bernie (incidentally I was on his side too), I don't think the evidence is there to really indicate any sort of corruption or significant malfeasance that you are asserting.

To me, what would help show it, is the real motivation, and the gain for her actions. She's not the joker, and I doubt anyone would make the argument she's just doing it to watch the world burn.

In most cases, claims of real personal gains from actions, are pretty much solely either incoherent or unfounded.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:22:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 1:47:43 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
Seth Rich was a DNC staffer who was killed July 11th. As a staffer at the Democratic National Committee, Rich worked tirelessly on a project to help voters easily find their polling places. He also described himself as a "data analyst". Supposedly, he was killed during a robbery, but no items were taken. There was apparently a struggle and he was shot multiple times, one of which was in his back. Two days before Rich died, he posted a plea on Facebook to end gun violence, saying, "I have family and friends on both sides of the law. Please, stop killing each other." Clinton used him as an example of the issue with gun violence, and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that Rich was a "dedicated, selfless public servant who worked tirelessly to protect the most sacred right we share as Americans." (http://heavy.com...).

Of course, his death has espoused some conspiracy theories. One of these theories is that Rich was on his way to the FBI apparently intending to speak to special agents about an "ongoing court case" possibly involving the Clinton family. Some even say that he was assassinated simply to support Clinton's case on "getting guns off the street". Another says that Rich may have been the "DNC leaker", claiming that no Russian hacker could release the emails. Reddit compiled a timeline claiming that Rich was coerced by environmentalists to release the emails and thus caused Clinton to "order a hit" https://m.reddit.com... (http://heatst.com...). The full theory is as follows: "The Clintons have known the Kleebs since at least 2008. Scott Kleeb started a business the Clinton Global Initiative was found fraudulently supporting. Seth Rich was deeply entrenched with the Kleebs from their Nebraska Democratic work. Seth Rich was hired onto a position in the DNC out of a job from a data consulting firm which had previously worked with President Clinton, which was opened up because the Clintons pushed for the Voter Expansion project so that 2008 didn"t happen to Hillary in 2016. Seth Rich has at least 2 connections to the Clintons. Jane Kleeb is a voracious environmentalist/Sanders supporter who might"ve prompted Seth Rich to leak the emails, especially after their business was one month earlier revealed for fraudulency. The best way to cover their tracks would be to make this seem like another right-wing conspiracy. His murder was deemed a robbery, but nothing was missing from his person (http://hiddenamericans.com...)".

"WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich" (actual quote from twitter), two weeks after the email leak. However, the organization and founder Julian Assange has come under fire recently from critics who say Wikileaks is reckless with the information it makes public and also biased against Clinton (http://www.ibtimes.com...). D.C. police are offering their own $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone responsible for the shooting death of the DNC staffer, adding "We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," said D.C. Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham. "At this time, we don't have any information to suggest that the case is any way connected with his work at the DNC."(http://thehill.com... and http://www.fox5dc.com...).

Long story short, do you think DNC staffer Seth Rich was specifically targeted by "the Democrats", or do you think he was murdered by someone else? Do you think he was actually the DNC "leaker", or was he "assassinated" for some other reason (such as "getting too close" to something)? Or do you simply say he was murdered during a failed robbery? Do you think WikiLeaks should have offered 20K, or does this show a bias or something? Would you give the information to the police or WikiLeaks? Discuss.

He's one of many that Hllary has picked off. Notice the common denominator with all these "mysterious deaths" over the years. Her.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled the country to not have to testify against Bill, secret "speeches" with big banks in which cell phones and recording devices were confiscated for entry, Waco, Benghazi, Libya, Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood, email scandal, China scandal, Russian construction scandal, I'm tired of typing...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled the country to not have to testify against Bill, secret "speeches" with big banks in which cell phones and recording devices were confiscated for entry, Waco, Benghazi, Libya, Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood, email scandal, China scandal, Russian construction scandal, I'm tired of typing...

Well stop, then.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:44:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled the country to not have to testify against Bill, secret "speeches" with big banks in which cell phones and recording devices were confiscated for entry, Waco, Benghazi, Libya, Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood, email scandal, China scandal, Russian construction scandal, I'm tired of typing...

You forgot the part where Hillary eats babies, started WW2 and invented aids.
willbedone
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:45:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 1:47:43 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
Seth Rich was a DNC staffer who was killed July 11th. As a staffer at the Democratic National Committee, Rich worked tirelessly on a project to help voters easily find their polling places. He also described himself as a "data analyst". Supposedly, he was killed during a robbery, but no items were taken. There was apparently a struggle and he was shot multiple times, one of which was in his back. Two days before Rich died, he posted a plea on Facebook to end gun violence, saying, "I have family and friends on both sides of the law. Please, stop killing each other." Clinton used him as an example of the issue with gun violence, and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that Rich was a "dedicated, selfless public servant who worked tirelessly to protect the most sacred right we share as Americans." (http://heavy.com...).

Of course, his death has espoused some conspiracy theories. One of these theories is that Rich was on his way to the FBI apparently intending to speak to special agents about an "ongoing court case" possibly involving the Clinton family. Some even say that he was assassinated simply to support Clinton's case on "getting guns off the street". Another says that Rich may have been the "DNC leaker", claiming that no Russian hacker could release the emails. Reddit compiled a timeline claiming that Rich was coerced by environmentalists to release the emails and thus caused Clinton to "order a hit" https://m.reddit.com... (http://heatst.com...). The full theory is as follows: "The Clintons have known the Kleebs since at least 2008. Scott Kleeb started a business the Clinton Global Initiative was found fraudulently supporting. Seth Rich was deeply entrenched with the Kleebs from their Nebraska Democratic work. Seth Rich was hired onto a position in the DNC out of a job from a data consulting firm which had previously worked with President Clinton, which was opened up because the Clintons pushed for the Voter Expansion project so that 2008 didn"t happen to Hillary in 2016. Seth Rich has at least 2 connections to the Clintons. Jane Kleeb is a voracious environmentalist/Sanders supporter who might"ve prompted Seth Rich to leak the emails, especially after their business was one month earlier revealed for fraudulency. The best way to cover their tracks would be to make this seem like another right-wing conspiracy. His murder was deemed a robbery, but nothing was missing from his person (http://hiddenamericans.com...)".

"WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich" (actual quote from twitter), two weeks after the email leak. However, the organization and founder Julian Assange has come under fire recently from critics who say Wikileaks is reckless with the information it makes public and also biased against Clinton (http://www.ibtimes.com...). D.C. police are offering their own $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone responsible for the shooting death of the DNC staffer, adding "We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," said D.C. Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham. "At this time, we don't have any information to suggest that the case is any way connected with his work at the DNC."(http://thehill.com... and http://www.fox5dc.com...).

Long story short, do you think DNC staffer Seth Rich was specifically targeted by "the Democrats", or do you think he was murdered by someone else? Do you think he was actually the DNC "leaker", or was he "assassinated" for some other reason (such as "getting too close" to something)? Or do you simply say he was murdered during a failed robbery? Do you think WikiLeaks should have offered 20K, or does this show a bias or something? Would you give the information to the police or WikiLeaks? Discuss. : :

Anyone associated with the Clinton's are risking their lives and that's why those associated with them are so easily manipulated. They know they could be killed for revealing information that could get the Clinton's in trouble. This is exactly how the mafia operates.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 3:10:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:44:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled t
You forgot the part where Hillary eats babies, started WW2 and invented aids.

See...there's a difference. These are things she is responsible for in real life on planet Esrth, right now...today. You knocked down the strawman you created...and? Dodged the actual real man cast in front of you. Tell us which part of her Egypt, Libya, and/or Waco strategy you thought she did well with. According to herself they were all mistakes...so leap her opinion and give us yours.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 3:15:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 3:10:17 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:44:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled t
You forgot the part where Hillary eats babies, started WW2 and invented aids.

See...there's a difference. These are things she is responsible for in real life on planet Esrth, right now...today. You knocked down the strawman you created...and? Dodged the actual real man cast in front of you. Tell us which part of her Egypt, Libya, and/or Waco strategy you thought she did well with. According to herself they were all mistakes...so leap her opinion and give us yours.

You're an incredulous troll, who doesn't live in the same reality that just believes what you want to believe, regardless of facts, or evidence. It's not possible to argue with a person who wouldn't understand what a cogent and rational argument if it came round your house and tries to take your guns away.

You're confusing my utter contempt for your sociopathy, and my unwillingness to engage in your deluded fantasy land, and thus lend it legitimacy with dodging.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 3:31:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 3:15:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:10:17 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:44:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled t
You forgot the part where Hillary eats babies, started WW2 and invented aids.

See...there's a difference. These are things she is responsible for in real life on planet Esrth, right now...today. You knocked down the strawman you created...and? Dodged the actual real man cast in front of you. Tell us which part of her Egypt, Libya, and/or Waco strategy you thought she did well with. According to herself they were all mistakes...so leap her opinion and give us yours.

You're an incredulous troll, who doesn't live in the same reality that just believes what you want to believe, regardless of facts, or evidence. It's not possible to argue with a person who wouldn't understand what a cogent and rational argument if it came round your house and tries to take your guns away.

You're confusing my utter contempt for your sociopathy, and my unwillingness to engage in your deluded fantasy land, and thus lend it legitimacy with dodging.

I didn't think so.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 3:35:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 3:31:23 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:15:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:10:17 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:44:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled t
You forgot the part where Hillary eats babies, started WW2 and invented aids.

See...there's a difference. These are things she is responsible for in real life on planet Esrth, right now...today. You knocked down the strawman you created...and? Dodged the actual real man cast in front of you. Tell us which part of her Egypt, Libya, and/or Waco strategy you thought she did well with. According to herself they were all mistakes...so leap her opinion and give us yours.

You're an incredulous troll, who doesn't live in the same reality that just believes what you want to believe, regardless of facts, or evidence. It's not possible to argue with a person who wouldn't understand what a cogent and rational argument if it came round your house and tries to take your guns away.

You're confusing my utter contempt for your sociopathy, and my unwillingness to engage in your deluded fantasy land, and thus lend it legitimacy with dodging.

I didn't think so.

If you ever came up with a never ending tirade of unsupported assertions, left wing conspiracy, non-sequitur associations, incoherent ramblings, and general foaming at the mouth nonsense, perhaps we could talk; but until that time, I'm just going to dismiss you as the odious little troll you appear to be, simply because an argument with someone to whom facts are irrelevant is not possible.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 3:41:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 3:35:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:31:23 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:15:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:10:17 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:44:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:28:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:37:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/12/2016 8:40:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:21:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


You're entire argument consists of 'You're a republican Trump supporting conspiracy nut' you didn't fully address any of my points and you say I use alt sources, NPR, New York Times, Washington post,the Observer these are all credible sources. Every single one of my points ha a source and you dodge with ignorant crap like she skirted ethics but not the law - as if that's a reason to trust her. By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means. You didn't address he retarded gaffs or the policy of over throwing a democratic government then saying it was legal.

If you really want me to respect you position go line by line response of my post about why I don't like Clinton. You talk to me as if I'm a republican, and it's pretty clear you're not even reading my points or pay any attention to the things I say in other threads.

Actually, if you paid attention, my main claims are stating that there are many outrageous claims about Clinton from the right wing; she has been the subject of innumerable Witch-hunts that have come up with almost no evidence of any of the real implications of corruption or crookedness that everyone is talking about. I have covered all three major aspects of the claims against her, together with my reasoning for why they aren't as bad as the hysterical right wing believe they are, with a justification for them.

You're pretending as if I haven't said any of it.

I did, and it's all there above; my argument is that Clinton is not nearly as bad as the right wing press claim she is; if she was, she'd be in Prison with all the investigations she's been part of. For believing this right wing propaganda, and it is mostly propaganda wrapped around a kernel of truth, you are just the same as those right wing whacko conspiracy nuts.

I've spelt out why I don't think Clinton's that bad, and you're reply in both cases is that I'm dodging, together with hurling insults.

Here's the point, I accept most of the things you're claiming; and gave you an alternative explanation as I am trying to fit all the evidence together to try and come up with an explanation that best fits all of facts, rather than just the bits that fit into my own apriori opinion.

As a result I am of the opinion that she's not nearly as bad as you claim, and given how utterly absurd some claims, such as assassination, or hard core corruption actually are, that I pointed out at length in my previous post.

But I'm sure you're simply going to say "oh I'm just dodging" and insult me again.

You see, I'm using the same facts from mostly the same reputable sources. But what you're omitting is the details and inconsistencies in your general story. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I'm basically agree with the things you're saying happened, but very much not from the conclusions you are drawing.

"By the way, its not just skirting ethics, its illegal corruption to use a charity as a front for political means."

Where is the evidence of changing state department policy as a result of donors? What has she done that was unreasonable or outrageous or even outside the pattern you would expect to see from the state department now, before, or since? The absolute worst that I can see is that Algerian government gave the charity money as the state department was engaging with them; to me it seems much more likely that it was attempt to curry favor, rather than a solicited donation.

The narrative is incoherent, because your position requires Clinton to be a mastermind of criminal manipulation, and then one of the most stupid people at almost exactly the same time. Want to nefariously and criminally cover up devastatingly damaging emails indicating criminal misconduct? : first step is probably not telling the FBI that you've deleted them! Send a hit man out to kill someone who works for you AFTER they release damaging emails? Make it look like a robbery, but don't actually take any.

The logic is so atrocious here, that it seems you have simply picked the data that matched what you already believe, rather than actually obtain the truth.

But of course, yes, even though I've answered pretty much every broad accusation you've made, and explained what I think the true narrative is based on the facts you've presented; feel free to call me names, and claim I'm dodging while you answer not an iota of it.

The Clinton foundation net worth over $2 billion, campaign paid for mostly by foreign oligarchs, one person decided on prison rather than testify against her, another fled t
You forgot the part where Hillary eats babies, started WW2 and invented aids.

See...there's a difference. These are things she is responsible for in real life on planet Esrth, right now...today. You knocked down the strawman you created...and? Dodged the actual real man cast in front of you. Tell us which part of her Egypt, Libya, and/or Waco strategy you thought she did well with. According to herself they were all mistakes...so leap her opinion and give us yours.

You're an incredulous troll, who doesn't live in the same reality that just believes what you want to believe, regardless of facts, or evidence. It's not possible to argue with a person who wouldn't understand what a cogent and rational argument if it came round your house and tries to take your guns away.

You're confusing my utter contempt for your sociopathy, and my unwillingness to engage in your deluded fantasy land, and thus lend it legitimacy with dodging.

I didn't think so.

If you ever came up with a never ending tirade of unsupported assertions, left wing conspiracy, non-sequitur associations, incoherent ramblings, and general foaming at the mouth nonsense, perhaps we could talk; but until that time, I'm just going to dismiss you as the odious little troll you appear to be, simply because an argument with someone to whom facts are irrelevant is not possible.

Tell us about her successes then.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...