I've found something inspiring in this mess of mudslinging - Page 6

@Hundmutter You are mistaken, I do not defend the Trump campaign. It merely is what it is. I certainly do take issue against Hillary. She deserves to be examined.

---

Relying for all your decisions based on needing a committee, without a solid personal core of something, like integrity or a strong moral compass to draw upon is the problem, not that leaders will have advisors. There is a difference.

Making an assertion as though it is factual, i.e., Hillary NEEDS a committee, is something that is pointless to bring up since it has not be proven as fact so until that happens, if it happens, it can be considered untrue. It causes an argument to descend to Prager levels of (il)logic.

And in this election cycle, with the two candidates we have, is it really wise to bring up integrity and a strong moral compass with regard to Hillary? Because, if those are essential traits for a leader then Trump has come up short. This was Trump's problem from the start. He based his strategy during the primaries on everything but policy. He referenced the Enquirer in attacking Cruz. He made remarks about how candidates looked (Rand, Fiorina, Rubio). It worked to get him nominated but then his past and his mouth (and his teenage girl Twitter rants) finally caught up to him. So if he now wants to talk about policy why are we still talking about Bill? Why are we talking about integrity and character? Those ships have sailed for Trump. Had he not run a negative campaign from the start maybe he wouldn't be talking about his morality and attitudes towards women. Then again, had he based his campaign on the issues he wouldn't have made it this far.

If someone wants to talk about policies that's one thing but I don't see it from Trump supporters. They want to talk about how Hillary is a criminal. Really? What crime has she been convicted of? She hasn't even been charged. She's corrupt? No one has shown that either. These accusations are not facts. They aren't even based on facts. The Clinton Foundation took money from the Saudis? Trump was bailed out by a Saudi. The US has sold them jet fighters. They are considered an ally and you can Google plenty of pictures of GWB holding hands with them and kissing them. How many Americans have iPhones? They were made by Chinese workers who have no rights or freedoms like we have in America. You buy an iPhone and you put money into China, a communist nation with an abysmal record on human rights. You buy almost anything at Walmart and you are helping to fund a nation that one day might be at war with us.

It's amazing, or scary, how people can arrive at conclusions about a person based on hearsay and rumor and flat out lies. Every person who claims Hillary is corrupt (or at least more corrupt than any other politician ever) and a criminal should ask themselves why they believe that. It won't be because of facts. Prager would love to try and win an argument with me for once yet he hasn't produced one fact that proves she is a criminal and believe me, he has the motivation to do it. The funny thing is that it wouldn't bother me as I don't fear the truth. And because I don't fear the truth I don't need to believe things that are not proven to be true.

I think there is much to be pointed out about Hillary's penchant for talking in the "we" voice. That is very much a fact and you can go read all about it in any speech she makes. It was a valiant attempt though, by It'sYouForSure, to complain about something they themselves are guilty of doing on a regular basis. Even bringing up Prager to me is a low blow, so at this time, I choose to go "HIGH".

It really is all about denying reality and buying the script. Good luck with that. Anthony Weiner and his emails are going to take up days worth of sex talk, and this time it isn't... you know who!

Oh, and the never ending addendum's on any value judgment with a comparison to an opposition party is intended to be an automatic equalizer, but it is only a device that can't hide its own  disingenuousness. One simply cannot make two wrongs into something we should deem acceptable. 




 

No, I am not complaining about things that I also do. It's nice to say that as if it's true and since this isn't a term paper you don't have to actually worry about sources and producing facts to support assertions.

I say that those who are unwilling to say that Reagan should have been put in jail or GWB should be in jail but Hillary should be are hypocrites who don't care about actions and behaviors but who committed them. Me? I don't say any of them should be in jail. See? There is no double standard on my part. There is no two wrongs make a right on my part as I don't judge either as wrong. Of course one vital difference between Hillary and the others is that nothing has been proven with regard to her and we know for a fact that Iran-Contra happened and that the Iraq invasion was BS. So if someone can find a wrong on her part that is equal to those mentioned then I'll give her the same pass I give them, the same pass they gave them. Again, no hypocrisy on my part.

And to think that my mention of Prager was somehow a personal blow directed at you is silly. If anything it was directed at Prager. The guy who banned anyone who disagreed with him, and made him look dumb in the process, from his forum which he has claimed is a bastion of free speech.

Finally, unlike some here I have never posted anything that I said was true when in fact it wasn't. No stories from fake news sites. No opinions phrased as fact. In fact, I don't even post my own opinions without factual support.

Silly me, I forgot to write, IMHO on my post.

If you choose to not use deceptive language then it isn't necessary to make that clarification.

LOL@ "deceptive language" because you are the one who is always changing horses in midstream. Good thing I am not grading papers for confusing the subject. I have no interest in falling down that rabbit hole after you, that's for sure. IMHO

Huma has lawyered up. Let's see what ethics are ignored and what laws get skirted around, now. Hillary without her right arm, hmmm, this could get real interesting in the next couple of days.

Wrong again. If one says that Hillary is corrupt or a criminal but provides no evidence, because they came to those conclusions without evidence, then that is being deceptive. I have figured out why some posters here, as well as at Prager's forum, have an issue with me and it's because I point out the irrationality that governs their judgement and reasoning.

Yes you beetree are irrational. You don't like Hillary, we all get that, but the reasons you give are not based on facts.

Thousands of emails yet not one has shown anything illegal. Benghazi has had more committees than 9/11 yet no charges have been brought. Yet somehow she is a criminal. It is irrational. Even now you assume that there are going to be some shenanigans. Your sense of reason has an anti-Hillary filter that you are a slave to. What a great country this would be if people could get convicted of crimes based on rumor and wishful thinking.

Here is an example of deceptive language: "Huma has lawyered up." It is meant to imply she must be guilty of something because we all know that innocent people never hire lawyers. I kind of expect that sort of obvious bias from joanro but I guess the infection has spread.

Get a life. It was a statement for a conversation starter, and not even specific for you. More like the opposite. I stopped being interested in your diatribes the moment you started listening to earwigs telling you I was interested in you or other aspects of your life. Don't over complicate things. You don't like the way I think or write. Got it. Now get this, I don't care and now please stop your own disengenuous crap by inserting Prager or Joanro into every sentence or paragraph you start with me. That is your subliminal, sneaky, not a nice guy style, so I tell you knock it off, or I will not reply in any way shape or form back to you. If that is your goal, then be happy and know how easy that will be.