Hillary loyalists tell us why people hate Hillary Clinton......

[Lightbringer]

And you are indulging in confirmation bias, the experts already said that the emails confirm donors were gaining access to Clinton yet there is no evidence she granted them special favors, by law ingratiation and access are not corruption. You and the others can insinuate and mischaracterize information but it legally does not hold water, just like making malicious accusations that the Clintons were involved in Seth Rich's murder, or that there is a conspiracy between the Clintons and the Rockefellers concerning aliens, or that Bill Clinton is actually the illegitimate son of a Rothschild, that they're part of the Illuminati, NWO, etc.

Well now you're putting words in my mouth.

So you're telling me Hillary and her department never lifted the ban on an Ecuadorian family that were one of their wealthy donors? Huh...

You must be registered for see links

Also....

[video=youtube;klsQXltCSJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsQXltCSJQ[/video]

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Well now you're putting words in my mouth.

So you're telling me Hillary and her department never lifted the ban on an Ecuadorian family that were one of their wealthy donors? Huh...

You must be registered for see links

Also....

[video=youtube;klsQXltCSJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsQXltCSJQ[/video]

It was Sen. Menendez who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who urged the State Department to lift the ban, Menendez said that the Isaias case was no different that thousands of other immigration requests that was handled and processed over the years.

And yes you were peddling conspiracy junk just a few weeks ago:

This is some real scary shit. We are truly living in a society where people get murdered for exposing the dark and corrupt secrets of our government.

When there was clearly no evidence that even Seth Rich's family denounced the conspiracy theories regarding their son's death :

Speaking for Seth’s family in Business Insider, Brad Bauman chastised those who had spread conspiracy theories about his untimely death. According to Bauman, Rich’s surviving relatives are pleading with the public to avoid spreading unfounded hearsay about the incident.

“The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation… That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth’s killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about [Rich]’s murder.”

Seeking to put a kibosh on the rumors, the Metropolitan Police Department also issued a statement Wednesday refuting any link.

“At this time, there is no indication that Seth Rich’s death is connected to his employment at the DNC,” read the statement. “However, we welcome information that could potentially lead to the identification of the individual(s) responsible for his death and are pleased when any outside contributors help us generate new leads.”

 

[Lightbringer]

It was Sen. Menendez who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who urged the State Department to lift the ban, Menendez said that the Isaias case was no different that thousands of other immigration requests that was handled and processed over the years.

And yes you were peddling conspiracy junk just a few weeks ago:

Not the ones you've mentioned though.

Theories are made through observable evidence and by connecting points into making a conclusion. I just find it incredibly funny that you who made a reputation of making theories in this site can't seem to connect any points to Hillary Clinton and her corruption, even though it's more than just a theory at this point but a proven fact.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Not the ones you've mentioned though.

Theories are made through observable evidence and by connecting points into making a conclusion. I just find it incredibly funny that you who made a reputation of making theories in this site can't seem to connect any points to Hillary Clinton and her corruption, even though it's more than just a theory at this point but a proven fact.

Because this is political reality, and in politics there are forces that are bent on spreading disinformation, division and pushing their hidden agendas just like the Birther Movement a few years ago and now they're targeting Mrs. Clinton's health and spreading these so-called medical reports about her health that were proven to be fabricated.

 

[Lightbringer]

Because this is political reality, and in politics there are forces that are bent on spreading disinformation, division and pushing their hidden agendas just like the Birther Movement a few years ago and now they're targeting Mrs. Clinton's health and spreading these so-called medical reports about her health that were proven to be fabricated.

You speak of political reality yet you at the same time deny evidence.

Forces? You do realize that it's not just the right-wing who dislikes Hillary, it's also people to the left of her?

Hillary and Trump have among the highest disapproval rating in U.S. history, and I believe the highest in all presidential party nominees. Really speaks volumes.

Sanders healthcare plan would've cost more than $20 trillion which would increase the deficit and raise taxes for the middle-class, HRC was just being cautious and wants to do things in a responsible way and paid for in ways that are affordable and she already said she's willing to lower the Medicare age allowing people who are 50/55 to buy in to the program because that'll lower the cost for Americans who have private insurances. Like I said, incrementalism over Sanders' unworkable idealism.

@Bold Oh and one final elbow struck by good ol' Hillary herself.

What was that about being responsible and cautious?



It's just like Obama said. She will say anything to get votes and change nothing.





I think that is a wrap.

You must be registered for see images

 

[The Necromancer]

No, that's just wasting votes which directly helps Trump.

Sanders already said last month that we're going to have either a Hillary or Trump Presidency, there is no third option because we're not a parliamentary system and that the choice is binary.



And Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that anything you do that helps Trump get closer to the White House is a danger to us all.

Great attitude for hindering change.

At this point Hillary is just as bad as Trump.

 

[Adam Driver]

Waiting for them crooked Hillary emails

You must be registered for see images

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

@Bold Oh and one final elbow struck by good ol' Hillary herself.

What was that about being responsible and cautious?



It's just like Obama said. She will say anything to get votes and change nothing.





I think that is a wrap.

You must be registered for see images

She is proposing Medicare buy-in for adults 55 and older, expanded insurance access for all Americans and give $40 billion funding for community healthcare for the next decade.

It seems you have a penchant for quoting past political statements and using it as bludgeon against someone, the reality is in politics there are no permanent friends and enemies, you might find it ironic that someone would support a past rival but progress is achieved through pragmatism and compromise because in a Democracy that's what adults do.

"And there is only one candidate in this race who believes in that future, and has devoted her life to it; a mother and grandmother who'd do anything to help our children thrive; a leader with real plans to break down barriers, blast through glass ceilings, and widen the circle of opportunity to every single American, the next president of the United States, Hillary Clinton.

That's the Hillary I know. That's the Hillary I've come to admire. And that's why I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America." -President Obama

"Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here tonight." - Bernie Sanders

 

[Lightbringer]

She is proposing Medicare buy-in for adults 55 and older, expanded insurance access for all Americans and give $40 billion funding for community healthcare for the next decade.

It seems you have a penchant for quoting past political statements and using it as bludgeon against someone, the reality is in politics there are no permanent friends and enemies, you might find it ironic that someone would support a past rival but progress is achieved through pragmatism and compromise because in a Democracy that's what adults do.

And you have a penchant to rehearse the same lines as the DNC Elites.

Let me just re-post those flip-flops again and call you out on your bullshit.

Sanders healthcare plan would've cost more than $20 trillion which would increase the deficit and raise taxes for the middle-class, HRC was just being cautious and wants to do things in a responsible way and paid for in ways that are affordable and she already said she's willing to lower the Medicare age allowing people who are 50/55 to buy in to the program because that'll lower the cost for Americans who have private insurances. Like I said, incrementalism over Sanders' unworkable idealism.

So let's recap:

-Hillary guaranteed universal healthcare back in 1994 and said it was also cost-effective. No change.

-Hillary said in 2008 that attacking others on universal healthcare is undermining Democratic values and is absolutely shameful.

-In 2015 she attacked Bernie Sanders for wanting universal healthcare and said it will never ever happen.

-3 days later, she flip-flopped and said she knew for a fact that she can institute universal healthcare.




[video=youtube;hFOujExdPpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOujExdPpw[/video]

You must be registered for see images

How's Hillary's elbow feel?

You must be registered for see images

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

And you have a penchant to rehearse the same lines as the DNC Elites.

Let me just re-post those flip-flops again and call you out on your bullshit.



So let's recap:

-Hillary guaranteed universal healthcare back in 1994 and said it was also cost-effective. No change.

-Hillary said in 2008 that attacking others on universal healthcare is undermining Democratic values and is absolutely shameful.

-In 2015 she attacked Bernie Sanders for wanting universal healthcare and said it will never ever happen.

-3 days later, she flip-flopped and said she knew for a fact that she can institute universal healthcare.




[video=youtube;hFOujExdPpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOujExdPpw[/video]

You must be registered for see images

How's Hillary's elbow feel?

You must be registered for see images

She was wary that Sanders' proposal would dismantle not only Obamacare but the CHIP program too as well as Medicare and giving Republicans a means to do that not to mention the tax hikes that will come with it that's why the two camps tried to make a workable solution for a healthcare platform that is agreeable to both camps which they did because, like I said, that's how Democracy works and how adults get things done.

Stop being focused on the past, as Bernie said "I have come here not to talk about the past but to focus on the future" and the future is a Hillary Clinton Presidency working together, stronger together.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Lightbringer]

She was wary that Sanders' proposal would dismantle not only Obamacare but the CHIP program too as well as Medicare and giving Republicans a means to do that not to mention the tax hikes that will come with it that's why the two camps tried to make a workable solution for a healthcare platform that is agreeable to both camps which they did because, like I said, that's how Democracy works and how adults get things done.

Stop being focused on the past, as Bernie said "I have come here not to talk about the past but to focus on the future" and the future is a Hillary Clinton Presidency working together, stronger together.

You must be registered for see images

Stop being focused on the past? Lol. That's golden. People are defined by their actions mate. Hillary has proven to not only be an ineffective leader but also a morally abhorrent individual and has remained as such, to this day, in the present.

I bet if we were talking about Trump and his recent flip-flop on his immigration stance, then you'd be skewering him right now. But apparently in your own words, we should stop being focused on the past.

If you keep doing something consistently, a pattern then occurs. In this case, Hillary's flip-flops, false promises, and scandals.

If you think Sanders endorsed Hillary because he agrees with her or did so because he wanted to, then you are sadly naive.

A Pro-Clinton Super PAC has admitted to spending over a million dollars to hire online trolls and supporters on social media to defend Hillary Clinton.

How sad is that?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Stop being focused on the past? Lol. That's golden. People are defined by their actions mate. Hillary has proven to not only be an ineffective leader but also a morally abhorrent individual and has remained as such, to this day, in the present.

I bet if we were talking about Trump and his recent flip-flop on his immigration stance, then you'd be skewering him right now. But apparently in your own words, we should stop being focused on the past.

If you keep doing something consistently, a pattern then occurs. In this case, Hillary's flip-flops, false promises, and scandals.

If you think Sanders endorsed Hillary because he agrees with her or did so because he wanted to, then you are sadly naive.

A Pro-Clinton Super PAC has admitted to spending over a million dollars to hire online trolls and supporters on social media to defend Hillary Clinton.

How sad is that?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

So because my views on Mrs.Clinton don't accord with yours you're insinuating that I'm possibly a paid Clinton troll/supporter? that's being petty and childish, I've been trying to have a civilized discussion with you regarding this issue but you've been constantly barraging me with ad hominems and accusations.

 

[Lightbringer]

So because my views on Mrs.Clinton don't accord with yours you're insinuating that I'm possibly a paid Clinton troll/supporter? that's being petty and childish, I've been trying to have a civilized discussion with you regarding this issue but you've been constantly barraging me with ad hominems and accusations.

You called me a hipster liberal crybaby before, you called me childish for supporting a third party candidate, you called me biased, you insinuated that I "peddle in conspiracy junk" while naming conspiracies that I've never spoken of nor believe in.

So those are not classified as ad hominems? How convenient for you!

That makes you a hypocrite.

You never gave me anything of substance in your arguments. All you did was just deny what I said. I gave you sources that backs up my arguments including videos of Hillary contradicting her policies in 3 days of one another.

And you go on to tell me that's essentially ok for her to do so.....

Rather than giving people valid reasons to vote for Hillary, like policy substance, you instead pivot to saying vote for Hillary because she's not Trump and everyone else is just a vote for Trump.

Yeah that's not a good argument. That's just fear mongering.

You deny any evidence of corruption attributed to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. You act like they're all some morally pure individuals with pristine records.

You tried to claim before that only true progressives support Hillary Clinton, even though virtually none of her policies are progressive and she even claimed to be a moderate.

And then you try to spoon feed me the line of incremental and minimal change rather than actual change....you know, what progressives actually believe in.....

Among all of that, you still have the gull to tell me you're just being pragmatic and civilized? GTFO!

No, like I said before and I'll say it again; You're either woefully naive or you're being purposely deceitful.

And I believe you're being purposely deceitful.

So spare me the act of you being on the mature and logical side of this debate.

 

[Оdin]

I can't even imagine why people voted for these two pieces of shit.

 

[V h o]

Honestly only supporting Hillary because Sanders endorsed her. The idea of voting for a third party is nice but I don't know how much awareness or willingness to vote other than Democratic or Republican the people have. Potentially people may not vote or vote Hillary or Trump with a small amount voting for a third party. It's terrible that third parties don't get enough representation through media but murica puts too much emphasis on money and not ideas.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

You called me a hipster liberal crybaby before, you called me childish for supporting a third party candidate, you called me biased, you insinuated that I "peddle in conspiracy junk" while naming conspiracies that I've never spoken of nor believe in.

So those are not classified as ad hominems? How convenient for you!

That makes you a hypocrite.

You never gave me anything of substance in your arguments. All you did was just deny what I said. I gave you sources that backs up my arguments including videos of Hillary contradicting her policies in 3 days of one another.

And you go on to tell me that's essentially ok for her to do so.....

Rather than giving people valid reasons to vote for Hillary, like policy substance, you instead pivot to saying vote for Hillary because she's not Trump and everyone else is just a vote for Trump.

Yeah that's not a good argument. That's just fear mongering.

You deny any evidence of corruption attributed to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. You act like they're all some morally pure individuals with pristine records.

You tried to claim before that only true progressives support Hillary Clinton, even though virtually none of her policies are progressive and she even claimed to be a moderate.

And then you try to spoon feed me the line of incremental and minimal change rather than actual change....you know, what progressives actually believe in.....

Among all of that, you still have the gull to tell me you're just being pragmatic and civilized? GTFO!

No, like I said before and I'll say it again; You're either woefully naive or you're being purposely deceitful.

And I believe you're being purposely deceitful.

So spare me the act of you being on the mature and logical side of this debate.

Honestly only supporting Hillary because Sanders endorsed her. The idea of voting for a third party is nice but I don't know how much awareness or willingness to vote other than Democratic or Republican the people have. Potentially people may not vote or vote Hillary or Trump with a small amount voting for a third party. It's terrible that third parties don't get enough representation through media but murica puts too much emphasis on money and not ideas.

The only way to advance the progressive agenda is to support Mrs. Clinton, Sanders knows this, Warren knows this, any level-minded progressive knows this. Jill Stein is running a vanity campaign based on empty platitudes and fairy tale policies, voting green only gets you orange (Trump) just like what Nader did for Gore back in 2000. If Stein or the Green Party wants to be taken seriously then they should first start acting like a real political party instead of just popping-out every four years and disappearing after elections.

Not only that but Stein is extremely naive if not downright arrogant by saying, and I quote, "I don't believe it is rocket science" referring to the managing and administration of the federal government, Jill Stein does not comprehend the magnitude of the duties of POTUS, she might be a Harvard-trained physician but it's apparent that she does not have a very deep understanding of how legislation works. Her ideas are inept and dangerous like cutting military spending by half which weakens America's capability of preventing and dealing with foreign threats thereby endangering national security.

Also Stein saying that the total decarbonizing of the United States by next 10-15 years is an inept and far-fetched goal which would require removing gasoline and diesel vehicles of US roads including public transportation by the hundreds of millions which is extremely expensive that it would drain the GDP therefore it is unrealistic and untenable just like her saying giving a federal job to anyone who wants one. She is so ignorant and detached from political reality in that she thinks executive powers are all she needs to get policies through that's why she never truly addresses how she is going to work with Congress if elected because she doesn't really have an idea that's why she only talks about "social justice, values, integrity, etc" and practically no legislative agenda like homeland security, financial sector regulation, etc.

The Stein Campaign is just a vanity campaign based on romantic idealism that is neither feasible or tenable nor grounded on political and economic reality. Ultimately in the end we will either have a HRC or Trump Presidency, there is no third choice.

 

[Lightbringer]

The only way to advance the progressive agenda is to support Mrs. Clinton, Sanders knows this, Warren knows this, any level-minded progressive knows this. Jill Stein is running a vanity campaign based on empty platitudes and fairy tale policies, voting green only gets you orange (Trump) just like what Nader did for Gore back in 2000. If Stein or the Green Party wants to be taken seriously then they should first start acting like a real political party instead of just popping-out every four years and disappearing after elections.

Not only that but Stein is extremely naive if not downright arrogant by saying, and I quote, "I don't believe it is rocket science" referring to the managing and administration of the federal government, Jill Stein does not comprehend the magnitude of the duties of POTUS, she might be a Harvard-trained physician but it's apparent that she does not have a very deep understanding of how legislation works. Her ideas are inept and dangerous like cutting military spending by half which weakens America's capability of preventing and dealing with foreign threats thereby endangering national security.

Also Stein saying that the total decarbonizing of the United States by next 10-15 years is an inept and far-fetched goal which would require removing gasoline and diesel vehicles of US roads including public transportation by the hundreds of millions which is extremely expensive that it would drain the GDP therefore it is unrealistic and untenable just like her saying giving a federal job to anyone who wants one. She is so ignorant and detached from political reality in that she thinks executive powers are all she needs to get policies through that's why she never truly addresses how she is going to work with Congress if elected because she doesn't really have an idea that's why she only talks about "social justice, values, integrity, etc" and practically no legislative agenda like homeland security, financial sector regulation, etc.

The Stein Campaign is just a vanity campaign based on romantic idealism that is neither feasible or tenable nor grounded on political and economic reality. Ultimately in the end we will either have a HRC or Trump Presidency, there is no third choice.

It's funny how you're so quick to criticize Stein and smear her but not Hillary even though Hillary's record is atrocious when it comes to progressiveness and common sense.

Her ideas are inept and dangerous like cutting military spending by half which weakens America's capability of preventing and dealing with foreign threats thereby endangering national security.

This line tells me everything I need to know and how incredibly unbelievably ill informed you are about our military and our economy.

Even Bernie Sanders argued to cut the military spending in half because we already spend more on our military than the first 9 biggest country militaries COMBINED! And even if we cut the spending in half, our military would still be biggest in the world by a large margin.


That way, we would able to both simultaneously cut unnecessary spending and invest the money into something more productive.

So again, you're a Clinton bot that just eats up whatever she says.

Not cutting the military is a right-wing stance. Always have been.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

54% of discretionary spending is military spending.

You must be registered for see images

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

It's funny how you're so quick to criticize Stein and smear her but not Hillary even though Hillary's record is atrocious when it comes to progressiveness and common sense.




This line tells me everything I need to know and how incredibly unbelievably ill informed you are about our military and our economy.

Even Bernie Sanders argued to cut the military spending in half because we already spend more on our military than the first 9 biggest country militaries COMBINED! And even if we cut the spending in half, our military would still be biggest in the world by a large margin.


That way, we would able to both simultaneously cut unnecessary spending and invest the money into something more productive.

So again, you're a Clinton bot that just eats up whatever she says.

Not cutting the military is a right-wing stance. Always have been.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

54% of discretionary spending is military spending.

You must be registered for see images

Comparing the US military spending to the combined military budget of other countries is a categorical error, same way that the US budget on health care is greater than several countries combined but that doesn't mean the government should spend less on health care. The United States serves the vital interest of not only itself but also of its allies and the free world, robust military spending allows preemptive measures against worldwide threats especially during these dangerous times when the global threat level is high and the American Military Power and its capability to defend itself, its interests and its allies is bordering from marginal to weak:

You must be registered for see images

 

[Lightbringer]

Comparing the US military spending to the combined military budget of other countries is a categorical error, same way that the US budget on health care is greater than several countries combined but that doesn't mean the government should spend less on health care. The United States serves the vital interest of not only itself but also of its allies and the free world, robust military spending allows preemptive measures against worldwide threats especially during these dangerous times when the global threat level is high and the American Military Power and its capability to defend itself, its interests and its allies is bordering from marginal to weak:

You must be registered for see images

Oh yeah that's right I almost forgot, you support Hillary's hawkish activities of regime change which created more problems "cough" Libya "cough".

No, the fact is we still have the biggest military in the world and most of the other big military countries are our allies.

What you posted means absolutely nothing. You're entire argument as usual is based around fear.

Comparing healthcare to the military is also a fundamental categorical error. Like you really care anyways, considering you were arguing against a single-payer universal healthcare.

And obviously you didn't look nor read at what I posted since most veterans don't even get proper benefits from serving.

If you can't see anything ethically wrong with the graph I posted, then you need to take a good time and reflect on your principles.

 

[V h o]

The only way to advance the progressive agenda is to support Mrs. Clinton, Sanders knows this, Warren knows this, any level-minded progressive knows this. Jill Stein is running a vanity campaign based on empty platitudes and fairy tale policies, voting green only gets you orange (Trump) just like what Nader did for Gore back in 2000. If Stein or the Green Party wants to be taken seriously then they should first start acting like a real political party instead of just popping-out every four years and disappearing after elections.

Not only that but Stein is extremely naive if not downright arrogant by saying, and I quote, "I don't believe it is rocket science" referring to the managing and administration of the federal government, Jill Stein does not comprehend the magnitude of the duties of POTUS, she might be a Harvard-trained physician but it's apparent that she does not have a very deep understanding of how legislation works. Her ideas are inept and dangerous like cutting military spending by half which weakens America's capability of preventing and dealing with foreign threats thereby endangering national security.

Also Stein saying that the total decarbonizing of the United States by next 10-15 years is an inept and far-fetched goal which would require removing gasoline and diesel vehicles of US roads including public transportation by the hundreds of millions which is extremely expensive that it would drain the GDP therefore it is unrealistic and untenable just like her saying giving a federal job to anyone who wants one. She is so ignorant and detached from political reality in that she thinks executive powers are all she needs to get policies through that's why she never truly addresses how she is going to work with Congress if elected because she doesn't really have an idea that's why she only talks about "social justice, values, integrity, etc" and practically no legislative agenda like homeland security, financial sector regulation, etc.

The Stein Campaign is just a vanity campaign based on romantic idealism that is neither feasible or tenable nor grounded on political and economic reality. Ultimately in the end we will either have a HRC or Trump Presidency, there is no third choice.

I don't know anything about Stein to be honest, so no comment on that. Although I like the green party :lol

Edit

It's funny how you're so quick to criticize Stein and smear her but not Hillary even though Hillary's record is atrocious when it comes to progressiveness and common sense.




This line tells me everything I need to know and how incredibly unbelievably ill informed you are about our military and our economy.

Even Bernie Sanders argued to cut the military spending in half because we already spend more on our military than the first 9 biggest country militaries COMBINED! And even if we cut the spending in half, our military would still be biggest in the world by a large margin.


That way, we would able to both simultaneously cut unnecessary spending and invest the money into something more productive.

So again, you're a Clinton bot that just eats up whatever she says.

Not cutting the military is a right-wing stance. Always have been.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

54% of discretionary spending is military spending.

You must be registered for see images

Hate that these statistics haven't really changed since I last looked at them. Before social security, unemployment, etc. was 2%. I always found it terrible yet funny how murricans wanted to decrease the 2% spending because too much money was spent on it yet wanted to spend more in military because we needed more spending. Ignoring the surplus in military even ROFL