American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems
Discussion
Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Gandahar said:
Looking forward to the Clinton and Trump Superbowl . Two tough birds. This could be the fight of the Century. We will not be bored.
Trump attacks Clintons, calls Hillary an enabler.He makes dog faeces look good.
Sam All said:
Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Gandahar said:
Looking forward to the Clinton and Trump Superbowl . Two tough birds. This could be the fight of the Century. We will not be bored.
Trump attacks Clintons, calls Hillary an enabler.He makes dog faeces look good.
How was she supposed to? Moreover, WHY should she be expected to?
Personally I think it's a matter for Bill and Hillary, nobody else. However, for a multiple divorcee and self-confessed philanderer to Hilary for something her husband did is pathetic and just a tad hypocritical.
Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Gandahar said:
Looking forward to the Clinton and Trump Superbowl . Two tough birds. This could be the fight of the Century. We will not be bored.
Trump attacks Clintons, calls Hillary an enabler.He makes dog faeces look good.
Esseesse said:
Like I said, I am not sure there could be a better/easier opponent for this huckster to face. This is going to be quite a lot of fun to watch.Esseesse said:
Did she force them to sleep with Bill?Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Did she force them to sleep with Bill?Esseesse said:
Consider the source here. Breitbart is a notoriously ultra right wing propaganda outlet.ANYTHING they print is automatically suspect.
MadmanO/T People said:
Esseesse said:
Consider the source here. Breitbart is a notoriously ultra right wing propaganda outlet.ANYTHING they print is automatically suspect.
unrepentant said:
Breitbart, National Inquirer, Sunday Sport, Donald Trump's Twitter feed.
Basically all as credible as each other but stupid people will be taken in.
Not managed to figure out the difference between primary and secondary sources? Oh dear. Never mind. Basically all as credible as each other but stupid people will be taken in.
The link several people commented on had primary source material from women "terrorized" by Billary, it wasn't editorial content and had nothing to do with the secondary source.
Still, at least by indulging in 'shooting the messenger' as biased and unworthy of attention, you'll understand why some people take frequent one-sided ramblings with a large pinch of salt. Try figuring out which source that relates to.
unrepentant said:
Breitbart, National Inquirer, Sunday Sport, Donald Trump's Twitter feed.
Basically all as credible as each other but stupid people will be taken in.
It is obvious that you have the hots for Hillary - in particular what will she bring to the White House (took a lot away last time she left it) and the one policy that has turned you against Trump.Basically all as credible as each other but stupid people will be taken in.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Did she force them to sleep with Bill?And what possible reason could they have? Hmm, I wonder - could there be money in this, just maybe?
longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Did she force them to sleep with Bill?longblackcoat said:
And what possible reason could they have? Hmm, I wonder - could there be money in this, just maybe?
Yes, but there was an additional element, the commonality in the accounts.Money is always on the scene, there will more moolah for Billary if she keeps it all nice and tight. You know what I'm referring to of course
turbobloke said:
longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Did she force them to sleep with Bill?longblackcoat said:
And what possible reason could they have? Hmm, I wonder - could there be money in this, just maybe?
Yes, but there was an additional element, the commonality in the accounts.Money is always on the sccene, there will more moolah be for Billary if she keeps it all nice and tight. You know what I'm referring to of course
There's some degree on commonality, certainly, but there's commonality in the source, is there not? Perhaps the desire to present this in a particular way>
If I am right - and again, there may be something I'm not seeing - you'd surely not contend that these interviews follow anything close to a balanced agenda. I don't dispute that these people said what they said, more that there's every chance that they've been coached, or perhaps encouraged to all turn up to talk to the same person on the same radio show. After all, it's a living - they get paid for these sorts of appearances, and there's always a book to sell, an appearance fee on a reality show, and, of course, always the hope of a tasty out-of-court settlement.
Bill's a sleazebag, and I don't in any way condone his behaviour. What I have yet to see in anything remotely close to evidence that (a) Hillary was complicit in all of this (b) she "acted like a terrorist."
longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Esseesse said:
Did she force them to sleep with Bill?longblackcoat said:
And what possible reason could they have? Hmm, I wonder - could there be money in this, just maybe?
Yes, but there was an additional element, the commonality in the accounts.Money is always on the sccene, there will more moolah be for Billary if she keeps it all nice and tight. You know what I'm referring to of course
longblackcoat said:
There's some degree on commonality, certainly, but there's commonality in the source, is there not?
Which is irrelevant. There's commonality in Hansard as a secondary source but the speeches and replies are due to MPs.longblackcoat said:
Perhaps the desire to present this in a particular way
What other way is there?The only course of action as an alternative would be not to publish or play it down, as per what happens with the BBC and The Guardian regarding stories of a negative nature for Labour. I realise you weren't suggesting that non-publication of serious allegations would be a better idea, or that covering it up would be better.
longblackcoat said:
If I am right - and again, there may be something I'm not seeing - you'd surely not contend that these interviews follow anything close to a balanced agenda.
Several independent accounts were involved and though it's a case of CBA they may well be featured in other sources less vexing to the Left than the link. longblackcoat said:
I don't dispute that these people said what they said, more that there's every chance that they've been coached, or perhaps encouraged to all turn up to talk to the same person on the same radio show. After all, it's a living - they get paid for these sorts of appearances, and there's always a book to sell, an appearance fee on a reality show, and, of course, always the hope of a tasty out-of-court settlement.
It's possible that Billary had coaching in the execution of the "terrorism" against 'Bill's women' and in how to respond to the allegations once they surfaced, speculation is fun but the basic elements remain.longblackcoat said:
Bill's a sleazebag, and I don't in any way condone his behaviour. What I have yet to see in anything remotely close to evidence that (a) Hillary was complicit in all of this (b) she "acted like a terrorist."
You have witness testimony from the victim side, and beyond seeking more details we're no further on, but the allegations are no further to being dismissed either.In the end I C(ould)BA and there were several 'commonality' allegations against Billary from other secondary sources. It would appear that not covering these up is a good thing as per investigations into sexual predator and co-conspirator allegations in the UK, several of which have proved fruitful.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/kathleen-willey-hillary...
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/29/woman-who-had-a...
http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=701
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/21/hillary-clinto...
There may be grounds for certain readers not to approve of any one or more of the above secondary sources, that's not the point - which is that there are allegations in many media outlets, all with commonality, so the whitewash theory would have to be that all women involved were coached either by the same coach on behalf of all outlets or separately but in the same way. It's getting far-fetched as far as weak-as-gnat's-psss "shoot the messenger" (non-)defences go. And when Billary is playing the Wimmins Card in her campaign it's relevant to publish the accounts of these women.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/kathleen-willey-hillary...
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/29/woman-who-had-a...
http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=701
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/21/hillary-clinto...
There may be grounds for certain readers not to approve of any one or more of the above secondary sources, that's not the point - which is that there are allegations in many media outlets, all with commonality, so the whitewash theory would have to be that all women involved were coached either by the same coach on behalf of all outlets or separately but in the same way. It's getting far-fetched as far as weak-as-gnat's-psss "shoot the messenger" (non-)defences go. And when Billary is playing the Wimmins Card in her campaign it's relevant to publish the accounts of these women.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff