Both Clinton's Health

[fskimospy]

If, however, I say "here's some money for you in return for doing xyz for me", then it's illegal bribery. Our system is perched on that facade of legitimacy. So again, your claim of wrongdoing is baseless.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

HE LITERALLY STATED THAT HE GIVES PEOPLE MONEY SO THEY DO THINGS FOR HIM IN RETURN. HE MEETS YOUR DEFINITION EXACTLY.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't have a problem with hearing aids, either. OTOH, I do notice image sources as they're often indicative of a particular poster's intent & headset. Ones that are deliberately anonymized set a little bell tinkling in my head.

Why would anybody do that?

Maybe it was one of the first google results for that image search? I dunno, a hearing aid seems like perfectly normal, especially considering we have two elderly candidates. I think some are saying it wasn't in fact a hearing aid, but rather an ear piece so someone could feed her information. I don't buy that. The problem isn't that she's unaware of things or oblivious to the world, the problem is that she's a corrupt lying scumbag, and no amount of people chirping in her ear changes that.

 

[PokerGuy]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

HE LITERALLY STATED THAT HE GIVES PEOPLE MONEY SO THEY DO THINGS FOR HIM IN RETURN. HE MEETS YOUR DEFINITION EXACTLY.

Maybe it's time to stop taking the crazy pills, they are obviously taking a toll on you

I gave two examples. One completely legal, one not. His statement could refer to either one. You donate money to them to get influence. You can't be naive enough to believe anything else.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe it's time to stop taking the crazy pills, they are obviously taking a toll on you

I gave two examples. One completely legal, one not. His statement could refer to either one. You donate money to them to get influence. You can't be naive enough to believe anything else.

Yes, and his statement explicitly met your definition for the one you considered to be illegal. This is just the English language.

By your own definition he's guilty, there's no avoiding it. If you wanted to show otherwise you shouldn't have hung yourself with your own words.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe it was one of the first google results for that image search? I dunno, a hearing aid seems like perfectly normal, especially considering we have two elderly candidates. I think some are saying it wasn't in fact a hearing aid, but rather an ear piece so someone could feed her information. I don't buy that. The problem isn't that she's unaware of things or oblivious to the world, the problem is that she's a corrupt lying scumbag, and no amount of people chirping in her ear changes that.

I dod chase down the source. It's in the comments, here-

http://ijr.com/2016/09/689519-hilla...-forum-then-people-spot-something-in-her-ear/

It's a "some people are saying" Drudge-like site sponsored by an "Angel investment firm"-

http://ijr.com/2016/09/689519-hilla...-forum-then-people-spot-something-in-her-ear/

You know, a mouthpiece for the radical big money right wing.

 

[sm625]

Just when you thought she couldnt get any more gross:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=zsGUSdhHIt8

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, and his statement explicitly met your definition for the one you considered to be illegal. This is just the English language.

By your own definition he's guilty, there's no avoiding it. If you wanted to show otherwise you shouldn't have hung yourself with your own words.

Again, wrong. His statement could refer to either one. You're (predictably) choosing to interpret it one way. Just because you choose to interpret something one way doesn't mean that's the only way. The bottom line is, as I expected, you have no evidence of any wrongdoing, just your interpretation. Pretty much the same thing you accuse everyone else of doing. Typical

 

[PokerGuy]

I dod chase down the source. It's in the comments, here-

It's in the comments on a bunch of right-wing nutty sites. Again, who cares if someone wants to believe it that's up to them.

You know, a mouthpiece for the radical big money right wing.

As opposed to the mouthpieces for the radical left wing, CNN, NBC, NYT etc etc etc etc

 

[fskimospy]

Again, wrong. His statement could refer to either one. You're (predictably) choosing to interpret it one way. Just because you choose to interpret something one way doesn't mean that's the only way. The bottom line is, as I expected, you have no evidence of any wrongdoing, just your interpretation. Pretty much the same thing you accuse everyone else of doing. Typical

So your position is that when Trump said 'when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do' what he REALLY meant was 'when you give, they might consider your perspective' instead of the absolute crystal clear meaning of those words. Truly amazing mental gymnastics there.

This definitely deserves a bookmark for the next time you complain about anyone twisting the meaning of words, because...holy shit.

 

[Kazukian]

I don't have a problem with hearing aids, either. OTOH, I do notice image sources as they're often indicative of a particular poster's intent & headset. Ones that are deliberately anonymized set a little bell tinkling in my head.

Why would anybody do that?

Because I, ahem, use software that makes it prudent to use a VPN?

Just thought the pic was odd, and there's pics of Trump doing the same thing during the primaries if that's what it was. I dunno, shrug.

 

[PokerGuy]

So your position is that when Trump said 'when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do' what he REALLY meant was 'when you give, they might consider your perspective' instead of the absolute crystal clear meaning of those words. Truly amazing mental gymnastics there.

This definitely deserves a bookmark for the next time you complain about anyone twisting the meaning of words, because...holy shit.

Intentionally obtuse again are ya? Of course what he says is true, you give them lots of cash and you generally get what you want. That's how the system works, like it or not. It rises to illegal if there's a specific quid pro quo. There's nothing in his statement that proves that ever happened. You just choose to want to believe that because of your political blinders. Still, no evidence of any wrongdoing presented, just your interpretation. Again, if there was any actual evidence, I'm sure there are lots of D and R's who would LOVE to hear about it. Have you approached the authorities yet???

 

[Jhhnn]

It's in the comments on a bunch of right-wing nutty sites. Again, who cares if someone wants to believe it that's up to them.



As opposed to the mouthpieces for the radical left wing, CNN, NBC, NYT etc etc etc etc

So, the MSM is radical left wing?

That explains everything in an eyes wide shut sort of way.

 

[fskimospy]

Intentionally obtuse again are ya? Of course what he says is true, you give them lots of cash and you generally get what you want. That's how the system works, like it or not. It rises to illegal if there's a specific quid pro quo. There's nothing in his statement that proves that ever happened. You just choose to want to believe that because of your political blinders. Still, no evidence of any wrongdoing presented, just your interpretation. Again, if there was any actual evidence, I'm sure there are lots of D and R's who would LOVE to hear about it. Have you approached the authorities yet???

There is no evidence of any wrongdoing other than his blatant, explicit admission of wrongdoing. You did forget that part, no? My 'interpretation' is taking the plain English meaning of words directly out of his own mouth. If you want to twist yourself into knots to pretend they mean something else that's your business. As to why he wouldn't be prosecuted, legal action requires much more specificity than he gave. You can't simply be prosecuted for saying 'I bribed people' like he said, it has to be 'I bribed person X at time Y by performing the following actions'. Those details aren't there. It's also very possible that he's lying about it because...well...Trump, but that's only relevant to a legal proceeding, not to my point.

Finally, I never asked you to build a legal case against Clinton. I asked for things that weren't innuendo or right wing speculation. Say for example if Clinton had ever publicly stated that she routinely engaged in bribery.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because I, ahem, use software that makes it prudent to use a VPN?

Just thought the pic was odd, and there's pics of Trump doing the same thing during the primaries if that's what it was. I dunno, shrug.

So there's no copy/paste with a VPN?

 

[PokerGuy]

There is no evidence of any wrongdoing other than his blatant, explicit admission of wrongdoing. You did forget that part, no?

Nope, I didn't forget anything. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, since his statement can easily mean several things, not necessarily anything wrong.

My 'interpretation' is taking the plain English meaning of words directly out of his own mouth.

Correction, it is taking the plain English meaning of the words he spoke and applying your biased interpretation.

Those details aren't there. It's also very possible that he's lying about it because...well...Trump, but that's only relevant to a legal proceeding, not to my point.

Yes, it's very relevant to the point. The point is, you make accusations about Trump without any factual evidence, then ask for evidence when others make similar accusations of others. There is in fact no evidence of any kind of wrongdoing. Period. There's him making a statement about something that may or many not be wrong. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, legal or otherwise.

Finally, I never asked you to build a legal case against Clinton. I asked for things that weren't innuendo or right wing speculation. Say for example if Clinton had ever publicly stated that she routinely engaged in bribery.

It's funny you should talk about building a legal case against her. The only reason she's actually not in court at this point is because of who she is, her political clout and her status as likely the next potus. No reason to hash through all that stuff -- as a fervent hildebeast supporter nothing she does will convince you that she's unqualified for office. It's a moot point.

 

[agent00f]

Nope, I didn't forget anything. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, since his statement can easily mean several things, not necessarily anything wrong.

Correction, it is taking the plain English meaning of the words he spoke and applying your biased interpretation.

Yes, it's very relevant to the point. The point is, you make accusations about Trump without any factual evidence, then ask for evidence when others make similar accusations of others. There is in fact no evidence of any kind of wrongdoing. Period. There's him making a statement about something that may or many not be wrong. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, legal or otherwise.

It's funny you should talk about building a legal case against her. The only reason she's actually not in court at this point is because of who she is, her political clout and her status as likely the next potus. No reason to hash through all that stuff -- as a fervent hildebeast supporter nothing she does will convince you that she's unqualified for office. It's a moot point.

At this point I have to doubt whether you actually play poker or at least any good at it to be so unable to read that trump has fraud/scam written all over him.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope, I didn't forget anything. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, since his statement can easily mean several things, not necessarily anything wrong.

Correction, it is taking the plain English meaning of the words he spoke and applying your biased interpretation.

Saying 'when I give people money they do whatever I want' does not mean 'when I give people money they might consider my perspective' in English under any dialect I am aware of. Saying 'when I give people money they do whatever I want' means 'when I give people money they do whatever I want'. Money -> action. It's as simple as can be if you aren't engaging in motivated reasoning.

It is frankly hilarious that you've tied yourself up into knots trying to come up with an alternate meaning for his very clear words and then try to accuse someone else of bias. Again though, I will be sure to trot this out any time you complain about someone else twisting the meaning of words.

Yes, it's very relevant to the point. The point is, you make accusations about Trump without any factual evidence, then ask for evidence when others make similar accusations of others. There is in fact no evidence of any kind of wrongdoing. Period. There's him making a statement about something that may or many not be wrong. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, legal or otherwise.

This is only true if you do not consider explicit public statements by the individual in question as evidence. Just declaring that things don't count doesn't fly.

It is considered factual evidence by every court system I am aware of on the entire planet but I'm willing to consider otherwise so please link to the evidentiary standard that you are using which does not consider public statements to be evidence. Take as much time as you need.

It's funny you should talk about building a legal case against her. The only reason she's actually not in court at this point is because of who she is, her political clout and her status as likely the next potus. No reason to hash through all that stuff -- as a fervent hildebeast supporter nothing she does will convince you that she's unqualified for office. It's a moot point.

Funny that the FBI disagrees with you on that but I'm sure you know better than they do.

This is a perfect example of someone in the ultra right wing media bubble, by the way. If the FBI chooses to prosecute her then it shows that she's a criminal. If the FBI declines to prosecute her she's still a criminal, it's now just that the FBI is in on the conspiracy as well. This way you never have to consider that your opinion was wrong, it's simply a question of how wide-ranging the conspiracy is. Crisis of contrary evidence averted! haha.

Then of course after concluding this reasoning that's impervious to any facts you topped it off with saying that I'M the one that won't accept contrary evidence. Seems like textbook psychological projection to me, wouldn't you agree?

 

[PokerGuy]

Saying 'when I give people money they do whatever I want' does not mean 'when I give people money they might consider my perspective' in English under any dialect I am aware of. Saying 'when I give people money they do whatever I want' means 'when I give people money they do whatever I want'. Money -> action. It's as simple as can be if you aren't engaging in motivated reasoning.

Again, wrong. "They do whatever I want" is an obvious general statement, not "I gave the guy $50,000 and in turn he voted for this bill". Nothing illegal or wrong about it, unless you're a fervent leftist.

It is frankly hilarious that you've tied yourself up into knots trying to come up with an alternate meaning for his very clear words and then try to accuse someone else of bias. Again though, I will be sure to trot this out any time you complain about someone else twisting the meaning of words.

Are you speaking in the mirror again? That exact paragraph applies to you 100%.

This is only true if you do not consider explicit public statements by the individual in question as evidence. Just declaring that things don't count doesn't fly.

It is considered factual evidence by every court system I am aware of on the entire planet but I'm willing to consider otherwise so please link to the evidentiary standard that you are using which does not consider public statements to be evidence. Take as much time as you need.

Statements by an individual are evidence, but since his statement in fact does NOT provide any evidence of any wrongdoing, you fail again. Essentially you're saying "since he said himself he engaged in criminal activity, his statement is evidence!".... except of course that his statement doesn't says what you want it to.

Funny that the FBI disagrees with you on that but I'm sure you know better than they do.

You expect them to come out and say "yeah, we wanted to prosecute, but we can't"? Of course not. If it was just some shlep they would have been in jail, but if you are powerfully connected you can get away with it. Regardless of why they chose not to charge her with a crime, we already know her actions were willfully negligent, careless, reckless and possibly even criminal. Her subsequent lies about the motivation for her actions speak volumes about her character as well.

 

[agent00f]

Again, wrong. "They do whatever I want" is an obvious general statement, not "I gave the guy $50,000 and in turn he voted for this bill". Nothing illegal or wrong about it, unless you're a fervent leftist.

Are you speaking in the mirror again? That exact paragraph applies to you 100%.

Statements by an individual are evidence, but since his statement in fact does NOT provide any evidence of any wrongdoing, you fail again. Essentially you're saying "since he said himself he engaged in criminal activity, his statement is evidence!".... except of course that his statement doesn't says what you want it to.

You expect them to come out and say "yeah, we wanted to prosecute, but we can't"? Of course not. If it was just some shlep they would have been in jail, but if you are powerfully connected you can get away with it. Regardless of why they chose not to charge her with a crime, we already know her actions were willfully negligent, careless, reckless and possibly even criminal. Her subsequent lies about the motivation for her actions speak volumes about her character as well.

Try to gain some perspective on the matter. Literally every other thing Trump is involved in whether it's trump U or various other overpriced/underquality branding exercises or literally scamming contractors should paint a pretty clear picture of what he's about, yet here you are grasping at straw of why the clintons are the real crooks. No doubt they have their own interests too, but few people rise to the level of the donald for complete sleeze.

Or think about it this way, if your life savings were on the line, would you rather invest it in some trump venture or with the clintons. Remember that one openly releases their tax info, and the other obviously has something to hide. Any poker skills you might have should come in handy here.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, wrong. "They do whatever I want" is an obvious general statement, not "I gave the guy $50,000 and in turn he voted for this bill". Nothing illegal or wrong about it, unless you're a fervent leftist.

You may think that someone saying 'I give elected officials money so they do what I want' shows nothing wrong, but I doubt many other people do. I find it deeply ironic that you are so convinced of Clinton's corruption based on innuendo but are so willing to ignore it even when Trump comes straight out and says he's corrupt.

Such are the wages of partisanship, I guess. Sigh.

Are you speaking in the mirror again? That exact paragraph applies to you 100%.

Yes, clearly the person taking the literal meaning of someone's public words has the problem here, not the guy saying that 'do whatever I want' means 'will consider my position'. lol.

Statements by an individual are evidence, but since his statement in fact does NOT provide any evidence of any wrongdoing, you fail again. Essentially you're saying "since he said himself he engaged in criminal activity, his statement is evidence!".... except of course that his statement doesn't says what you want it to.

In English it does.

You expect them to come out and say "yeah, we wanted to prosecute, but we can't"? Of course not. If it was just some shlep they would have been in jail, but if you are powerfully connected you can get away with it. Regardless of why they chose not to charge her with a crime, we already know her actions were willfully negligent, careless, reckless and possibly even criminal. Her subsequent lies about the motivation for her actions speak volumes about her character as well.

Thank you for proving my point so easily. Totally impenetrable by factual information.

 

[0roo0roo]

I do like the way you upload images to imgur to anonymize the source.

Actually people do that so their links don't go dead for arbitrary reasons. Anyone who has linked pictures from sites/social media for a while would eventually figure this out.

A) does the source really matter? B) does her wearing a hearing aid matter? I don't see a problem with her (or anyone else) wearing a hearing aid.

Is the claim that she is hard of hearing as well now?

lol! It's pretty easy to tell when the new talking points folder for the GOP rabble are disseminated. The usual suspects are always out in these threads at the same time, suddenly making the exact same posts over and over again.
So, now Hillary is to be referred to as "elderly" "unhealthy" "senile."

Who are you kidding at this point, outside the obvious appearance of collusion, wikileaks has confirmed it
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...gged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion

Video where she freezes? Is that the one where someone was rushing the stage and SS surrounded her? I know I saw some right wing sites showing that video claiming she just froze that didn't mention anything about the circumstances.

It's been heavily dissected, this is one by a doctor. The techniques used to snap her out and her response which included parroting his words seem to fit the diagnoses, and of course its a combination of all the evidence we are seeing.
Hillary Clinton's Illness Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM

What the hell is that? Mucous, cough drops?

Could be.

Also could be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amineptine#Unapproved.2Foff-label.2Finvestigational
https://www.google.com/patents/US6191153

 

[Jhhnn]

You expect them to come out and say "yeah, we wanted to prosecute, but we can't"? Of course not. If it was just some shlep they would have been in jail, but if you are powerfully connected you can get away with it. Regardless of why they chose not to charge her with a crime, we already know her actions were willfully negligent, careless, reckless and possibly even criminal. Her subsequent lies about the motivation for her actions speak volumes about her character as well.

What part of "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case" do you refuse to comprehend?

The truth is that Comey & the FBI deliberately avoided what you wanted them to do, which would have been celebrity hunting-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...mes-comey-clinton-no-celebrity-hunting-225241

No indictment. Get over it, and get over yourself in the process. Or keep slandering the integrity of Comey & the FBI.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually people do that so their links don't go dead for arbitrary reasons. Anyone who has linked pictures from sites/social media for a while would eventually figure this out.

Bullshit. The thread will likely go dead long before the link.

Is the claim that she is hard of hearing as well now?

Who are you kidding at this point, outside the obvious appearance of collusion, wikileaks has confirmed it
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...gged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion

Or maybe a group of observers sees a duck. When asked, they all say it's a duck. That's obvious collusion, huh?

It's been heavily dissected, this is one by a doctor. The techniques used to snap her out and her response which included parroting his words seem to fit the diagnoses, and of course its a combination of all the evidence we are seeing.
Hillary Clinton's Illness Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM



Could be.

Also could be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amineptine#Unapproved.2Foff-label.2Finvestigational
https://www.google.com/patents/US6191153

Remote diagnosis. Medical professionals swear by it, right?

 

[Meghan54]

Remote diagnosis. Medical professionals swear by it, right?

Remote diagnosis by a physician that doesn't spend one second of time doing diagnosis and treatment of disease in patients.

 

[PokerGuy]

Or maybe a group of observers sees a duck. When asked, they all say it's a duck. That's obvious collusion, huh?

Yeah, and they all use the exact same word in their headlines in an amazing coincidence. Look, you don't need to pretend anymore. All the leaked emails and information already showed that most of the media is composed of simple hildabeast / democrat lapdogs and propaganda outlets. Why maintain the pretense that they are not?