Author Topic: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter  (Read 2638 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17893
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #70 on: April 17, 2018, 12:10:20 PM »
...but even I have to concede, if two world class liars like Donald J. Trump and Hillary R. Clinton call you a "liar", you've got to look in the mirror.   :)

:rollin  Spot on.

 :lol what a circle jerk

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20421
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #71 on: April 17, 2018, 12:11:34 PM »
Jim Comey is the gift that keeps on giving... now HILLARY says he's a liar. 
 
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-world-fumes-over-comey-book-tour-hes-now-lying/ar-AAvYKv1?ocid=ientp

Look, the Left is big on the "guilt by association" tack, and I generally push back on that, but even I have to concede, if two world class liars like Donald J. Trump and Hillary R. Clinton call you a "liar", you've got to look in the mirror.   :)
Nah, not really. On one side you have a particularly conniving career politician. On the other a retard who can't tell the truth even when it's in his best interest. In the middle Comey, who seems to place a huge emphasis on staying above the fray, and up until Trump and Rush Limbaugh dumped all over him in 2016 enjoyed bipartisan support for his ability to do so. Simply put, this is a Crip and a Blood both complaining that the cop set them up.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5998
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #72 on: April 24, 2018, 08:17:06 AM »
Has anyone else read Comey's book?

IMO, no real surprises but a pretty good read all the same. In the end, he comes off as a bit impressed with his own righteousness, but interestingly he seems completely aware of it. A giant boy scout and proud of it all the same.

The biggest :facepalm: I got from it was that he spends most of the book talking about how the hard earned traditions of the justice system--even if they aren't codified in policy--should be protected and honored. Then at a moment when those traditions are put to the biggest test of his career he ditches the FBI's tradition of not talking about investigations. I understand his rationalizations, and sympathize with him as a person agonizing over "doing the right thing" but when there are no good choices he should have stuck with the organizations tradition.

Anyway, I wouldn't call him a liar but he does seem to be trying to spin his actions in the best possible light.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Hillary Clinton would probably be president if not for the Comey letter
« Reply #73 on: April 24, 2018, 09:36:02 AM »
Has anyone else read Comey's book?

IMO, no real surprises but a pretty good read all the same. In the end, he comes off as a bit impressed with his own righteousness, but interestingly he seems completely aware of it. A giant boy scout and proud of it all the same.

The biggest :facepalm: I got from it was that he spends most of the book talking about how the hard earned traditions of the justice system--even if they aren't codified in policy--should be protected and honored. Then at a moment when those traditions are put to the biggest test of his career he ditches the FBI's tradition of not talking about investigations. I understand his rationalizations, and sympathize with him as a person agonizing over "doing the right thing" but when there are no good choices he should have stuck with the organizations tradition.

Anyway, I wouldn't call him a liar but he does seem to be trying to spin his actions in the best possible light.

Look, if the standard of "liar" is expanded like it has to cover basically everything that comes out of Trump's mouth, then he's a liar, plain and simple.  I don't have a huge problem with that generally, unless and until you get into the area of perjury.   Comey is in weird water, since he's as you said a "boy scout", but he's playing in a very adult game, and being a "boy scout" doesn't cut the mustard.   He's like McLovin', who wants to swim in the deep waters but is woefully unprepared and unskilled to do so.   

I do think some of his "righteousness" is in reality "naivete".

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Still at it.  See her speech at the commencement at Yale.  Now, though, she's claiming to want to "save democracy" from the "unusual" election of 2016.   

Online Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3392
Still at it.  See her speech at the commencement at Yale.  Now, though, she's claiming to want to "save democracy" from the "unusual" election of 2016.

Why, Stadler, do you follow someone you claim to despise so much? I literally learn almost everything I know about Hillary's goings-on these days because you report on them. None of the liberal people I know even give a damn about what she says.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Still at it.  See her speech at the commencement at Yale.  Now, though, she's claiming to want to "save democracy" from the "unusual" election of 2016.

Why, Stadler, do you follow someone you claim to despise so much? I literally learn almost everything I know about Hillary's goings-on these days because you report on them. None of the liberal people I know even give a damn about what she says.

Not following; I turned on the news today and it was literally the first story I saw.  I got a blurb on my phone and it was one of three stories in the blurb (along with a wedding that I literally couldn't give a shit less about and another potential FBI investigation). 

Don't get me started about the "liberal people"; they SHOULD be giving a damn.   You shouldn't be able to call a significant portion of the population "deplorable" then scream and cry about  the "hate" and "vitriol" in society/politics today. 

Online Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3392
Still at it.  See her speech at the commencement at Yale.  Now, though, she's claiming to want to "save democracy" from the "unusual" election of 2016.

Why, Stadler, do you follow someone you claim to despise so much? I literally learn almost everything I know about Hillary's goings-on these days because you report on them. None of the liberal people I know even give a damn about what she says.

Not following; I turned on the news today and it was literally the first story I saw.  I got a blurb on my phone and it was one of three stories in the blurb (along with a wedding that I literally couldn't give a shit less about and another potential FBI investigation). 

Don't get me started about the "liberal people"; they SHOULD be giving a damn.   You shouldn't be able to call a significant portion of the population "deplorable" then scream and cry about  the "hate" and "vitriol" in society/politics today.

We've gone back and forth on this enough times that I'm just going to tell you to breathe out slowly and come to terms with your true feelings for Hillary. ;)

Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1499
  • Gender: Male
Definitely the best way to keep up with Hillary is to follow right wing sites or forums. Is a former politician giving a speech at some college graduation really big news? I guess it obviously made the headlines if Stadler found out about it, but the stories the media put out are going to be driven by what draws eyeballs - and when it comes to headline stories about Hillary Clinton, you can bet that research has told them most of the eyeballs that care about that story are going to be ones bulging with rage at the sight of her name.

Anyway, since I saw about it here I scrolled through a couple of articles about it to see the terrible content of this speech:

Quote
“Healing our country is going to take, what I call, radical empathy,” she said. Even in times of great polarization, “as hard as it is, this is a moment to reach across divides of race, class and politics. To try to see the world through the eyes of people very different from ourselves and to return to rational debate, to find a way to disagree without being disagreeable, to try to recapture a sense of community and common humanity.”
Saying something like this at a college graduation? What a cunt.

And what I suppose is the quote in question:

Quote
"No, I'm not over it. I still think about the 2016 election. I still regret the mistakes I made,” she said. “I still think, though, that understanding what happened in such a weird and wild election in American history will help us defend our democracy in the future."

Still not owning up or taking responsibility for anything then, maybe she should learn a lesson from the real president. And the idea of finding out about something or trying to defend against it better in the future? Sickening stuff.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Definitely the best way to keep up with Hillary is to follow right wing sites or forums. Is a former politician giving a speech at some college graduation really big news? I guess it obviously made the headlines if Stadler found out about it, but the stories the media put out are going to be driven by what draws eyeballs - and when it comes to headline stories about Hillary Clinton, you can bet that research has told them most of the eyeballs that care about that story are going to be ones bulging with rage at the sight of her name.

Well, she spoke at Yale, and I live 45 minutes from the campus.  I don't watch or listen to "right wing sites or forums", except for "Outnumbered" on Fox News and today they've been arguing with Juan Williams about the FBI investigating/infiltrating Trump's campaign.  the rest of my time is largely spent on CNN, NY Times and Washington Post. 

Quote
Saying something like this at a college graduation? What a cunt.

C'mon man, be fair.  Find me one post where I've stooped to that level of assessment of her.  You seem to forget that but for her perjury I would have voted for her.   But coming from someone that so freely called 32 million people "deplorable", and continued to double down on that, well, calling for "debate" is rich. 

Quote
Quote
"No, I'm not over it. I still think about the 2016 election. I still regret the mistakes I made,” she said. “I still think, though, that understanding what happened in such a weird and wild election in American history will help us defend our democracy in the future."

Still not owning up or taking responsibility for anything then, maybe she should learn a lesson from the real president. And the idea of finding out about something or trying to defend against it better in the future? Sickening stuff.

Again, your hyperbole is misguided (and perhaps bordering on off-putting).    What exactly was "weird" or "wild" about this election?   Seriously?  That the American people rejected the continuing "identity politics" of special interests in favor of the economic politics and well-being of over half of the nation?  That the American people rejected HER lying in favor for Trump's lying?   To even imply that the outcome was "weird" and "wild" is to imply that there was something inevitable about Hillary being President, and I have news for you; for a very good number of people in this country - including me - the fact that she has, for several years now, sent the clear message that she DID in fact think her ascension to the Presidency was "inevitable" is a big part of her imaging problem.  In even a reasonably free representative republican democracy, there should be NOTHING "inevitable" about any one person assuming the Presidency.   

I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him in November (and wouldn't vote for him now), but in the limited sense of "undermining the entitlement of one who has clearly lost touch with the common folk she has promised to lead", I couldn't be happier with Trump as President. 

Online Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3392
Stadler: haven't you called her a cunt, though? Or some equally terrible things - if not here, then other places? Seriously. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a nagging feeling I'm not.

But it is remarkable to me that you consider Hillary a 'lesser' or, dare I say, 'more deplorable' person than Trump. Hillary even said right there she regrets the mistakes she made - Trump to my knowledge has never once, ever, publicly said he has made mistakes and that he regrets them. So it just shocks me that you will find any opportunity to talk about Hillary or 'how bad she makes herself look' but equally jump at any opportunity to rebut criticisms of Trump's rhetoric or actions...

Quote
but in the limited sense of "undermining the entitlement of one who has clearly lost touch with the common folk she has promised to lead", I couldn't be happier with Trump as President.

This leaves a sickening taste in my mouth. It almost reads as if you'd rather have the schadenfreude that comes with Hillary losing the election rather than someone of sound temperament in the Oval Office (which we certainly don't have right now).

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Stadler: haven't you called her a cunt, though? Or some equally terrible things - if not here, then other places? Seriously. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a nagging feeling I'm not.

I respectfully think you are mistaken.  I make mistakes like everyone else - I'm human - but I try very hard to not devolve into ad hominem attacks, and even in the rare case I do, I try to stay away from things like that, especially against a woman politician.   That was never a huge word with me, but since I became the dad of a daughter, I've maybe used that word - and words like it - less than five times.  I have enough criticisms of her as a person and a politician that anything hateful I might say will be an attack on her integrity, not on her person.

Having said all that, I may have made a "pant suit" joke here or there.   ;)

Quote
But it is remarkable to me that you consider Hillary a 'lesser' or, dare I say, 'more deplorable' person than Trump. Hillary even said right there she regrets the mistakes she made - Trump to my knowledge has never once, ever, publicly said he has made mistakes and that he regrets them. So it just shocks me that you will find any opportunity to talk about Hillary or 'how bad she makes herself look' but equally jump at any opportunity to rebut criticisms of Trump's rhetoric or actions...

I don't at all consider her "more deplorable".   If you've followed any of my criticisms of her, you would know that's not a statement I would make.  I'm not voting for saints here, I'm voting for politicians that I feel will do the best for as many people in as many areas as is humanly possible.    For me, economics trump (no pun) identity politics EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.   I accept the "little white lies" and "situational opportunism/hypocrisy" that politics engenders.   What I draw the line on is an open and contemptuous pissing on the system that we have adopted as ours for the past 240 some-odd years.   I think Bill Clinton will go down as one of the ten or even five best Presidents we've had so far, and his biggest black mark, in my opinion?  Not Monica (consenting adults), not any of the other affairs (again, consenting adults), but rather, why did he opt to lie under oath?   Do what you do, but subvert yourself to the system we have for juris prudence.  I think in no small part we're seeing some of that contempt for the system - shown in the OJ trial as well - coming to fruition in our society.   Don't like weed laws?  Fuck 'em!   Who cares?  Then get activists arguing that the penalties were too strict!  Don't like the bathroom that society deems is appropriate (and which works for 99.3% of the population, roughly? Fuck it!  Use the one you want, and when you get caught, don't accept your punishment, make it a human rights violation!   

Quote
Quote
but in the limited sense of "undermining the entitlement of one who has clearly lost touch with the common folk she has promised to lead", I couldn't be happier with Trump as President.

This leaves a sickening taste in my mouth.

It should.  That's what we've come to.  EDIT (since I didn't see your edit):   It's not at all about "schadenfraude" (great word, though!).  I've said before I feel strongly that one's first elected office EVER ought NOT be the most powerful position on the planet.  But you assume a false equivalency.  I don't at all consider her of "sound temperament" in the context of her inability/unwillingness to be honest with herself or us about her place in all this.    She's alluded to "mistakes", but never ACTUALLY parsed them through in any detail (and when she has, they're of the kind you say at job interviews:  "My biggest weakness? I work too hard and care too much!").   I'm really passionate about this idea that we can't point fingers at others and excuse our own behavior.  You don't get to single out "hypocrisy" for scorn, and yet be a hypocrite in your very being.    She keeps doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on the moral aspect of the democrat position, while simultaneously betraying two of the most basic tenets of any moral code:  tolerance and veracity.  We're tolerant - unless and until we're talking about morals that aren't ours, in which case you're deplorable.  We want TRUTH and honesty - unless it's our ass in the sling and it will jeopardize our entitlement to lead, in which case we perjure ourselves to save our own ass!
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 11:03:13 AM by Stadler »

Online Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3392
Oh, Stadler... I'm gonna go eat my lunch.  :natalieportman:  :biggrin:

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 817
  • Gender: Male
Stadler: haven't you called her a cunt, though? Or some equally terrible things - if not here, then other places? Seriously. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a nagging feeling I'm not.

I have a "nagging feeling" that this is one of the most insulting and ludicrous excuses for "discussion" I've seen in this forum.

Online Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3392
I've known Stadler for a good number of years at this point. I've talked with him on three different forums now. I wasn't trying to be insulting. *tips hat* Sorry that offended you so much, but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic. It was a legitimate question. (EDIT: because I have seen Stadler rail against ad hominem attacks particularly on Trump, yet I have seen quite a few attacks on Hillary, as well as some ad hominem attacks on Trump himself. I thought it was relevant. Disregard.)
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 03:47:12 PM by Kattoelox »

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 817
  • Gender: Male
Okay, this seems like a good time to elaborate on my thought. I saw your "idea" as similar to that of a lot of people these days (maybe just USA). But I see it in this section A LOT. People are prone to make assumptions, even myself. BUT, it's problematic when people make assumptions from a place of "lesser" (for lack of a better word) thought. I see it when people try to justify away people's actions or reactions or opinions. "It's natural for humans to think X if Y happens." People use that as an excuse to not be better. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and not make the "least" of us the standard. I'm having a hard time verbalizing this, but maybe the word I'm looking for is PROJECTING. People, who don't go the extra mile to think critically, make assumptions about other people based on how they would act themselves. So, when I read your post, what I heard was:

"Stadler, you seem to really dislike Hillary. When I disagree with someone, I don't form rational opinions, I just resort to name-calling. Therefore, I assume you must have called Hillary a Cunt at some point. I have no evidence or real indicator from any of your posts that you are incapable of critiquing Hillary on anything of substance,   but I have to assume that to be true anyways. I HOPE that I'm wrong, which acknowledges that I find the idea to be quite a bad thing. But I have a nagging feeling, with no evidence, that you are indeed capable of said bad thing."

I see it less as you actually thinking that, and more similar to what I see as giving general humanity a pass on some of these TERRIBLE personality traits that we rationalize away because they're "understandable".

Quite the tangent I've gone on, but I saw it as an opportunity to discuss something that's been bothering me a lot, not necessarily YOU. Maybe I'll need to keep that in mind in these discussions and try to come up with more specific examples regarding how we ALL discuss these things.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
For the record, I got what KTLX was saying; we do have (good) history, and we've had this conversation, in various forms, before.   So no harm no foul from him.

While I don't think your point applies to him, specifically, I do think, though, Sylvan, your point might have merit on a more general level.  I'd also add that the predilection to attribute traits to people based on what they believe or who they might be siding with is terribly problematic.   I can, for example, agree with Trump's economic policies and not be simpatico with how he allegedly treats some women (if you believe the claims).