Sfdebris.net

If she was eletcted by a small margin could you not try to invalidate her election just like it was done with Trump?

-Because it does not involve anything actually illegal (as far as I'm aware, anyway).
-Because it does not involve a foreign adversary of the United States.
-Because it does not create the same conflicts of interest once she's in power.

Next question? Got any more gems from "Generic Alt. Right false equivalencies 101"?

In any case, its irrelevant. "Hillary did something bad too", even if true, is not an excuse for Trump's actions. Which have greater significance, because Trump is one the one who actually "won" and is in power.

Raising "Hillary did something bad" every time someone accuses Trump is a dishonest deflection tactic, nothing more.

This seems like another tu quoque fallacy to me.

Even if Hillary had collaborated with Ming the Merciless and his mighty space empire to win the election, the fact remains... she didn't win, she isn't President. The focus is on the guy who *is* President and what he may have done.
It's not like Hillary becomes President if Trump steps down.

Might as well ask if Hillary is a secret Slitherine or a pod person or if she has a soul. It's not relevant. The uranium stuff was a better angle.

Indeed.

I'll add, though, that while Hillary Clinton is certainly at times dishonest, and has some dubious associations, but all that is a long way from actual criminality.

Look, I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton. I voted for her to keep Trump out of office, and I do not regret that decision, but I voted for Bernie in the primary.

But I'll give her her due: She has been hounded, relentlessly, for thirty-odd years, by Republicans and conservatives desperately looking for anything to undermine her. She has faced probably dozens of investigations, some of them blatantly partisan ones headed by Republicans. Vast amounts of time and money spent by some of the most powerful people in the country to discredit or imprison her.

They have come up with NOT ONE indictable offense.

Either Hillary Clinton is one of the greatest criminal geniuses in human history, or... there's nothing there to indict.

Not really, to be honest. There are better things to be focused on anyway, like the DNC scandal and the Russian uranium deal.

In my opinion, this is blown out of proportions by both sides. There is no evidence of any collaboration between Trump and the Russians, and while Clinton has done or is suspected of many dirty dealings during the campaign, nothing points to anything illegal. Though to sort of answer your question, I do believe that there are plenty of skeletons in Clinton's closet that, in some nightmare scenario, she was elected president, would hound her in a similar manner as the Russia conspiracy theory is hounding Trump. However, since she was thankfully not elected, we really don't have much reason to harp of her about that. Clinton's political career is basically over, it would be a waste of time perusing anything with her anyway. And like stated earlier, you can't simply say that since the other side did it, that it is then perfectly fine for you to do it too. Everyone answers for their own sins.

Got any more gems from "Generic Alt. Right false equivalencies 101"?

I'm beginning to think "alt-right" is becoming the left's equivalent of "sjw." A catch-all word with no accepted definition used 99% of the time as a derogatory term towards those with differing opinions.

The Romulan Republic wrote:-Because it does not involve anything actually illegal (as far as I'm aware, anyway).
-Because it does not involve a foreign adversary of the United States.
-Because it does not create the same conflicts of interest once she's in power.

Next question? Got any more gems from "Generic Alt. Right false equivalencies 101"?

In any case, its irrelevant. "Hillary did something bad too", even if true, is not an excuse for Trump's actions. Which have greater significance, because Trump is one the one who actually "won" and is in power.

Raising "Hillary did something bad" every time someone accuses Trump is a dishonest deflection tactic, nothing more.

There is no way someone on the left should feel disturbed about what happened? What the flying fuck is alt right about whenever Democrats saying Repubs to moderate Repubs will have this to point why they should not?

Morgaine wrote:This seems like another tu quoque fallacy to me.

Even if Hillary had collaborated with Ming the Merciless and his mighty space empire to win the election, the fact remains... she didn't win, she isn't President. The focus is on the guy who *is* President and what he may have done.
It's not like Hillary becomes President if Trump steps down.

S o it would had been okay if she gets the questions before debating Bernie Sanders...

Right?

Agent Vinod wrote:There is no way someone on the left should feel disturbed about what happened? What the flying fuck is alt right about whenever Democrats saying Repubs to moderate Repubs will have this to point why they should not?

S o it would had been okay if she gets the questions before debating Bernie Sanders...

Right?

That is not at all, what he has written. Are you willfully ignoring what he writes just to create an attackable strawman or are you really that fixed on your course?

Madner Kami wrote: That is not at all, what he has written. Are you willfully ignoring what he writes just to create an attackable strawman or are you really that fixed on your course?

If you trawl through his comments in other threads I’m fairly sure you’ll find he tends to pick whatever side is opposite the majority; don’t recall which thread it was in, but I’m fairly sure I’ve seen him swap sides mid thread to go against the majority. No idea if he’s doing it to play devil’s advocate, or if he’s trying to troll people.

Dînadan wrote:

Madner Kami wrote: That is not at all, what he has written. Are you willfully ignoring what he writes just to create an attackable strawman or are you really that fixed on your course?

If you travel through his comments in other threads I’m fairly sure you’ll find he tends to pick whatever side is opposite the majority; don’t recall which thread it was in, but I’m fairly sure I’ve seen him swap sides mid thread to go against the majority. No idea if he’s doing it to play devil’s advocate, or if he’s trying to troll people.

With recent developments in terms of communicative AI, I sometimes wonder who of these "trolls" is just a machine in a learning process.