Hillary Clinton

Hillary will continue on with typical American foreign policy, which is hawkish by nature

Who knows what Trump will try to do, however he doesn't have very much congressional support even among Republicans so there's always that. Yay, checks and balances

 

just because trump is the biggest hawk around dosnt make cliton less of a hawk.

did anyone see her say she is raising taxes on the middle class? probly just enough to make everyone except the rich to be poor.
people actually cheered that. i mean its a dream to be poor and hope to be rich.
but it is realistic to be poor and become middle class, now these poor people have nothing but dreams of moving up in the world, and are happy about it.

 

No, I am unconcerned with the question of whether ACORN was bad or wrong, which I've already stated. It is not my point that Breitbart and Peter Schweizer are infallible sources, or any other nonsense that I haven't said that you would like to claim is my position.

Let me break this down:

You made the following statement

That statement insinuates the following argument:

1. Peter Schweizer's criticism of HRC can be discredited, because he writes for Breitbart

2. Breitbart can be discredited, because they released the ACORN videos

3. The ACORN videos can be discredited because they "wrongly accused ACORN of misdeeds"

Therefor if one can reasonably conclude that the ACORN videos rightly demonstrated misdeeds by ACORN staff, your argument collapses.

My point is that one can reasonably conclude that ACORN was rightly accused of misdeeds, and therefor your argument is invalid.

That one can reasonably conclude that ACORN was rightly accused of misdeeds is supported by the following evidence:

From wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

...and since your keen on the "five investigations" which you suggest "know all the facts", here's a link to a PDF of a report from the California Office of the Attorney General about ACORN and the videos
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/n1888_acorn_attachments.pdf

...which corroborates the validity of the quotes from wikipedia above.

The five investigations made no claim to knowing "all the facts". Your claim is unsubstantiated, and therefor your argument is invalid.

Further, the investigations were about prosecutable offenses, not "misdeeds". I've already made that point.

Your statement was that Breitbart "wrongly accused ACORN of misdeeds". Prosecutable offenses and "misdeeds" are not necessarily the same thing.

If you would like to argue that it can not reasonably be considered a "misdeed" for a government-funded organization to give advice on how to run an underage prostitution ring and evade detection by the police, please do. That way I can have a good laugh and be done with this tedious argument.

The video indicated that ACORN staffers gave advice on various aspects of running an underage prostitution ring, which in fact, they did.

What it comes down to is that you insinuated that criticism of HRC should be dismissed out of hand, because the guy who wrote it writes for Breitbart, and we should dismiss Breitbart because they "wrongly accused ACORN of misdeeds". I have argued successfully that one can reasonably conclude that Breitbart rightly accused ACORN of misdeeds. Therefor we can not dismiss either Breitbart or Peter Schweizer out of hand on that basis.

The five investigations did not investigate Breitbart's legitimacy as news organization, your statement is false.

I made no particular claim about the Clinton Cash video.

When I responded to 6ES's video that suggested that HRC had a seizure on camera, I noted that according to Snopes, the accusation was unsubstantiated. Much to his credit, 6ES did not belabor the point, or accuse me of being an HRC supporter, or any other nonsense that I didn't say.

 

Those plans are all to get votes. When it's time to actually make shit happened things always change. And that's not a comment against clinton. That's against every president that has been in office since I been alive.

 

Ever since the conventions ended Trump's been in a downward spiral. I feel more confident now that he won't get elected, but I know Hillary could still blow it. Four years of Hillary. Hmmm. I hope we don't spend those years comforting ourselves by saying, "Well Trump would have been worse!"

 

Guess what? It wasn't the Russians! It was a DNC staffer all along
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

 

Haha how will Trump react to this news after the things he said? Yes I can laugh at all this as it isn't my country's politics. What a bunch of clowns on either 'side'!

 

Man, another post with a dubious 'news' source from 6-eyed... Should have known better.

 

I have yet to see concrete evidence that it was the Russians.
So until I see the concrete evidence, Putin's involvement is still a baseless conspiracy theory.

 

What Snopes claims to have discredited is that Seth Rich was en route to a meeting with the FBI when he was killed.

It confirms, however, that he was killed without an apparent robbery motive (his watch, money, phone, and other possessions were not taken).

Whether Seth Rich was the wikileaks source or not has not been established. He was a low-level staffer, yet Asange seems to have taken a particular interest in discovering who his killer was.

 

In an interview, Asange discounted the idea that the Russians were responsible.

While he asserted that wikileaks never reveals its sources, he pointed out that the DNC has been hacked multiple times. He also claimed that wikileaks possessed documents that post-dated all known hacks of the DNC, including the hack by the Russians.

He also noted that the Clinton people/DNC has not identified their so-called expert source linking wikileaks to the Russians.

 

Seth Rich isn't the only person with Clinton connections to die under mysterious circumstances in the last couple of months

I've never paid attention to the Clinton death trail conspiracy before, but the recent deaths are odd.

 

Of course, but same counts for your source. It's not concrete evidence. It works both ways. People should mind what they read and use as their source, and of course ideally also use some nuance in the comments accompanying their links. If it's not certain at all why pose it as such?

 

Because my source has enough substantial evidence to back it up. Whereas the only evidence Hillary supporters have that Putin hacked the email server is the notion that he and Trump get along.

 

So it is certain and your source is what made it certain? I thought it wasn't.

 

Lets just say Julian Assange has been a more credible source of information than Snopes or Slate.com