Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal emails at st dpt

[First]

LOL. U mad bro?

Cry moar kiddie, you're out of your league.

 

[xBiffx]

Cry moar kiddie, you're out of your league.

LOL. He mad.

 

[piasabird]

It doesn't matter if the president is a Muslim or not. A lot of his policies are pro Muslim and anti-Christian. Judge a man by what he does.

 

[First]

LOL. He mad.

Aw poor kiddie can't debate.

 

[fskimospy]

It doesn't matter if the president is a Muslim or not. A lot of his policies are pro Muslim and anti-Christian. Judge a man by what he does.

Wut.

 

[xBiffx]

Aw poor kiddie can't debate.

Sorry, its tough to debate someone who thinks polls mean anything over a year away from a general election. Especially polls that only dilute one side. Also tough to debate someone who thinks 2008 electoral college = 2016 electoral college.

Damn you are dumb.

 

[First]

Sorry, its tough to debate someone who thinks polls mean anything over a year away from a general election. Especially polls that only dilute one side. Also tough to debate someone who thinks 2008 electoral college = 2016 electoral college.

Damn you are dumb.

Yikes, you're even dumber than I imagined. First polls don't matter, then 2008 =/ 2016?

Brilliant!

 

[xBiffx]

Yikes, you're even dumber than I imagined. First polls don't matter, then 2008 =/ 2016?

Brilliant!

Nice rebuttal.

 

[First]

Nice rebuttal.

You can't rebut stupid.

Especially with scientific polls and actual money on the line all saying the same thing.

 

[bshole]

It doesn't matter if the president is a Muslim or not.

Thank you for that. You wouldn't believe this but many right wingers believe that Muslims should automatically be barred from the presidency simply because of their religion. It is good to see that you are more evolved than that.

 

[xBiffx]

You can't rebut stupid.

Especially with scientific polls and actual money on the line all saying the same thing.

Oh snap, all I have to do is add the word "scientific" to things or bet on them and they all of a sudden gain more meaning or guarantee things will happen? Kewl.

Please do tell, what exactly was the point of that post?

 

[soundforbjt]

Please tell us which republican you think will win the election, surely with nearly 20+ possible candidates there must be one you like.

 

[First]

Oh snap, all I have to do is add the word "scientific" to things or bet on them and they all of a sudden gain more meaning or guarantee things will happen? Kewl.

Please do tell, what exactly was the point of that post?

To show you're stupid, Tannen, as only boring partisans deny the efficacy of well documented history and scientific polling.

 

[theeedude]

Please tell us which republican you think will win the election, surely with nearly 20+ possible candidates there must be one you like.

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. After two Bush terms, no one should.

 

[nickqt]

It doesn't matter if the president is a Muslim or not. A lot of his policies are pro Muslim and anti-Christian. Judge a man by what he does.

"A lot of his policies are pro Muslim and anti-Christian."

Name one, delusional conservative.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It doesn't matter if the president is a Muslim or not. A lot of his policies are pro Muslim and anti-Christian. Judge a man by what he does.

Why do you lie?

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't matter if the president is a Muslim or not. A lot of his policies are pro Muslim and anti-Christian. Judge a man by what he does.

Why do you lie?

He merely repeats a lie because he believes it.

It's a common affliction on the right wing. First they believe in whatever emotionally satisfying thing they hear, then they rationalize, thrash about for "reasons" to believe. It's an exhibition of instantaneous commitment to truthiness.

Stupid wishy-washy liberals want to think about it before they believe it, before they commit to it, interrupting the exploitable pathways to their emotions.

 

[TheSlamma]

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. After two Bush terms, no one should.

Never seeing an Indy gain ground is an even better example. Instead we just have you rep and dem sheep.

 

[werepossum]

Never seeing an Indy gain ground is an even better example. Instead we just have you rep and dem sheep.

Which Indy? The Libertarian Party seems to be emphasizing freedom for corporations more than for individuals, and the Greens are straight up communists.

The problem isn't the system, it's us voters. We get to choose between Bush 3.0 and the Hildabeast because as a society, that's who we choose. If we wanted better choices, we would have them. You and I and most people on this forum are outliers.

 

[nickqt]

...and the Greens are straight up communists.

I don't think that word means what you think it means, if you think the Green Party is in the same galaxy as communism.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think that word means what you think it means, if you think the Green Party is in the same galaxy as communism.

It's a technique pioneered by the Great Rushbo- Label and dismiss.

 

[Cozarkian]

I'm curious, what do Hillary defenders think of this Huffington Post article?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-soft-corruption-of-clinton-inc_b_7215108.html

To hit the highlights, the Huffington Post calls Hillary a master of using soft corruption and basically says she is the worst possible President that isn't a Republican. They call for a serious Democrat contender for two reasons:

1. Hillary will put Wall Street before the people
2. Hillary could actually lose to a Republican like Marco Rubio or Scott Walker who appear to be less corrupt even though they are actually more beholden to money than she is.

 

[First]

I'm curious, what do Hillary defenders think of this Huffington Post article?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-soft-corruption-of-clinton-inc_b_7215108.html

To hit the highlights, the Huffington Post calls Hillary a master of using soft corruption and basically says she is the worst possible President that isn't a Republican. They call for a serious Democrat contender for two reasons:

1. Hillary will put Wall Street before the people
2. Hillary could actually lose to a Republican like Marco Rubio or Scott Walker who appear to be less corrupt even though they are actually more beholden to money than she is.

All that was pretty unconvincing, HuffPost (at least that article in particular) didn't really attempt to refute some of those points; e.g. beating up on the finance industry is great political theater (and deserved, to be sure) but it is indeed true it doesn't accomplish jack shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm curious, what do Hillary defenders think of this Huffington Post article?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-soft-corruption-of-clinton-inc_b_7215108.html

To hit the highlights, the Huffington Post calls Hillary a master of using soft corruption and basically says she is the worst possible President that isn't a Republican. They call for a serious Democrat contender for two reasons:

1. Hillary will put Wall Street before the people
2. Hillary could actually lose to a Republican like Marco Rubio or Scott Walker who appear to be less corrupt even though they are actually more beholden to money than she is.

Gawd. I know why you didn't actually quote the article-

If the only choice we have for President in 2016 is between a corporate neoliberal like Hillary Clinton and a reactionary corporate Republican who wants to roll back the New Deal and deny minorities, immigrants and gays basic human rights, Clinton is still the less bad choice. If nothing else, the prospect that the next President could get as many as three Supreme Court nominees is reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton over a right-wing Republican.

The fact that the Clintons can schmooze cash out of the plutocracy is a good sign. The rest of us won't see much of it any other way. How far do you think we'll get otherwise with a reactionary Repub congress, anyway?

 

[1prophet]

Gawd. I know why you didn't actually quote the article-

I'm curious, what do Hillary defenders think of this Huffington Post article?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-soft-corruption-of-clinton-inc_b_7215108.html

To hit the highlights, the Huffington Post calls Hillary a master of using soft corruption and basically says she is the worst possible President that isn't a Republican. They call for a serious Democrat contender for two reasons:

1. Hillary will put Wall Street before the people
2. Hillary could actually lose to a Republican like Marco Rubio or Scott Walker who appear to be less corrupt even though they are actually more beholden to money than she is.

If the only choice we have for President in 2016 is between a corporate neoliberal like Hillary Clinton and a reactionary corporate Republican who wants to roll back the New Deal and deny minorities, immigrants and gays basic human rights, Clinton is still the less bad choice. If nothing else, the prospect that the next President could get as many as three Supreme Court nominees is reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton over a right-wing Republican.

The fact that the Clintons can schmooze cash out of the plutocracy is a good sign. The rest of us won't see much of it any other way. How far do you think we'll get otherwise with a reactionary Repub congress, anyway?

Are you pretend liberals that stupid, the difference between Democrats like the Clintons and republicans is this,

one goes through the backdoor quietly while the other smashes your front door while they rob you and you dipshits say at least there was no physical damage while they were stealing our stuff.

The lesser of two evils is a false choice that has been used to destroy the unions and middle class, while pretending to be for those very things.

The Clintons are nothing more than Judas goats leading the sheep to the slaughter, you know the same liberal sheep that are too smart to follow the GOP, both parties are in the back pocket of corporate America, one is just more open about it.