Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight

[bambi96 1,555]

.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Already debunked

I'll repost here.

See... this is my issue. What is that video? It's basically edited in such a sensationalist manner that I can't even take it seriously. 

Let's discuss the first segment regarding same-sexxx marriage. Don't you find it fascinating that the dates used at the beginning are all the way from 2002 and 2004. Do you not remember how the situation was at the time? Sanders himself was against same-sexxx marriage at the time as well. Most Americans at the time truly believed that marriage was an institution between men and women. Many Americans, mostly liberals, believed that gay people should be afforded the same rights and liberties in the form of civil unions, but marriage itself should not be infringed upon.

Here's a graph I picked up from google. It looks consistent from what I've read.

So you see, I don't understand why this issue is being held against her. Hillary had her own view on the matter. It wasn't what we wanted, but it was a common viewpoint at the time.

What changed that viewpoint? The efforts of liberals who were more progressive on this particular issue and the younger generation who were coming out more and more and making homosexuality seem like a normal thing as opposed to "the other".

What's interesting is that you are making the false correlation that her opinion regarding same-sexxx marriage somehow means that her principles have changed. They haven't. She still believes that marriage is a sacred bond. What changed is her acceptance of homosexuals as being part of that institution. Just like my own mother changed her opinion on homosexuality when I came out, so did Hillary on same-sexxx marriage as she garnered more information and experience on the issue. So did many other Americans.

Hillary has admitted that she wished she altered her opinion earlier. I think many people nowadays who were previously against it would make the same exact same statement. Would you call someone's mother out for her changing opinions when her son came out? You commend her. Why expect different from Hillary? Is it because she's a politician? As a liberal, is she always expected to be a part of a subsection of liberals that have ultra-progressive values on everything? Isn't that a little dismissive? Are subgroups of the Democratic party not allowed to have their own opinions, especially when they are not exactly unrepresentative of the people?

Here's the timeline of her change of opinion. Note how even when she disapproved of it, she stated that she would not block it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sexxx-marriage/

Major points to look at. Look at the times.

April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sexxx marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would supportsame-sexxx marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

"I support states making the decision," she said.

In fact...this is exactly the stance Bernie had. He was against same-sexxx marriage on a national level and wanted it to be left to the states. The difference is that in his opinion, it was a purely legislative matter. Hillary at least had her religious beliefs to fall back on. This made Sanders look heartless and robotic to me in comparison.

-----

Regarding the next part, let's make it clear. Hillary's voting record is the 11th most liberal during her tenure. That puts her in the top 10% of democrats in the Senate. Are you not for action as opposed to just words? Her actions clearly paint her as a liberal. That she has some conservative views bumps her down a notch. Does that render her entire stance unfavorable? 

Also Hillary is known to be someone who seeks compromise. She is a progressive who aligns with liberal values. Anderson says she is "kind of" moderate. Is that supposed to render her as not a progressive? Can someone not be a progressive and be "kind of" moderate on a couple of issues? I don't get how this constitutes as lying. It's nitpicking already unbounded descriptions to attempt to frame her as a liar. 

----

Regarding the e-mails, I don't get how she's lying. It's a private server. A significant portion of it was private. All of it was not classified. Some were retroactively classified. In the words of Obama, it was simply documents that were already publicly available but not ones you want to necessarily publicize. 

-----

Also I won't give the Benghazi trial any interest. It's already been professed by GOP personnel themselves that it was an elaborate plot overblown out of proportion to smear her. Here's one article I quickly picked up from Google.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/30/1426210/-Top-Republican-admits-Benghazi-Committee-is-all-about-attacking-Hillary-Clinton

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/trey-gowdy-finally-admits-truth-about

----

The next couple of issues use scenes from a decade ago to attempt to paint her as a hypocrite today. I'm sorry but 10 years is a significant amount of time to garner new information and change your stance on an issue. It's particularly susceptible in economics when changing times require different measures. What may have been acceptable or even necessary 10 years ago can be viewed as overly negative or unnecessary today.

I can't continue with this video. It's just too sensationalist for me.

-----

[PunkTheFunk 125,703]

50 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Already debunked

I'll repost here.

See... this is my issue. What is that video? It's basically edited in such a sensationalist manner that I can't even take it seriously. 

Let's discuss the first segment regarding same-sexxx marriage. Don't you find it fascinating that the dates used at the beginning are all the way from 2002 and 2004. Do you not remember how the situation was at the time? Sanders himself was against same-sexxx marriage at the time as well. Most Americans at the time truly believed that marriage was an institution between men and women. Many Americans, mostly liberals, believed that gay people should be afforded the same rights and liberties in the form of civil unions, but marriage itself should not be infringed upon.

Here's a graph I picked up from google. It looks consistent from what I've read.

So you see, I don't understand why this issue is being held against her. Hillary had her own view on the matter. It wasn't what we wanted, but it was a common viewpoint at the time.

What changed that viewpoint? The efforts of liberals who were more progressive on this particular issue and the younger generation who were coming out more and more and making homosexuality seem like a normal thing as opposed to "the other".

What's interesting is that you are making the false correlation that her opinion regarding same-sexxx marriage somehow means that her principles have changed. They haven't. She still believes that marriage is a sacred bond. What changed is her acceptance of homosexuals as being part of that institution. Just like my own mother changed her opinion on homosexuality when I came out, so did Hillary on same-sexxx marriage as she garnered more information and experience on the issue. So did many other Americans.

Hillary has admitted that she wished she altered her opinion earlier. I think many people nowadays who were previously against it would make the same exact same statement. Would you call someone's mother out for her changing opinions when her son came out? You commend her. Why expect different from Hillary? Is it because she's a politician? As a liberal, is she always expected to be a part of a subsection of liberals that have ultra-progressive values on everything? Isn't that a little dismissive? Are subgroups of the Democratic party not allowed to have their own opinions, especially when they are not exactly unrepresentative of the people?

Here's the timeline of her change of opinion. Note how even when she disapproved of it, she stated that she would not block it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sexxx-marriage/

Major points to look at. Look at the times.

April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sexxx marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would supportsame-sexxx marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

"I support states making the decision," she said.

In fact...this is exactly the stance Bernie had. He was against same-sexxx marriage on a national level and wanted it to be left to the states. The difference is that in his opinion, it was a purely legislative matter. Hillary at least had her religious beliefs to fall back on. This made Sanders look heartless and robotic to me in comparison.

-----

Regarding the next part, let's make it clear. Hillary's voting record is the 11th most liberal during her tenure. That puts her in the top 10% of democrats in the Senate. Are you not for action as opposed to just words? Her actions clearly paint her as a liberal. That she has some conservative views bumps her down a notch. Does that render her entire stance unfavorable? 

Also Hillary is known to be someone who seeks compromise. She is a progressive who aligns with liberal values. Anderson says she is "kind of" moderate. Is that supposed to render her as not a progressive? Can someone not be a progressive and be "kind of" moderate on a couple of issues? I don't get how this constitutes as lying. It's nitpicking already unbounded descriptions to attempt to frame her as a liar. 

----

Regarding the e-mails, I don't get how she's lying. It's a private server. A significant portion of it was private. All of it was not classified. Some were retroactively classified. In the words of Obama, it was simply documents that were already publicly available but not ones you want to necessarily publicize. 

-----

Also I won't give the Benghazi trial any interest. It's already been professed by GOP personnel themselves that it was an elaborate plot overblown out of proportion to smear her. Here's one article I quickly picked up from Google.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/30/1426210/-Top-Republican-admits-Benghazi-Committee-is-all-about-attacking-Hillary-Clinton

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/trey-gowdy-finally-admits-truth-about

----

The next couple of issues use scenes from a decade ago to attempt to paint her as a hypocrite today. I'm sorry but 10 years is a significant amount of time to garner new information and change your stance on an issue. It's particularly susceptible in economics when changing times require different measures. What may have been acceptable or even necessary 10 years ago can be viewed as overly negative or unnecessary today.

I can't continue with this video. It's just too sensationalist for me.

-----

What about the Bosnia segment

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, PunkTheFunk said:

What about the Bosnia segment

I dunno. Probably a wrong recollection. Maybe a lie like you said.

This Bosnia segment isn't a policy discussion or anything remotely of value. This is sensatonalism pure and simple. Digging into one irrelevant innocuous misstatement about a MEMORY in order to try to paint her as a liar.

How is that important? I never claimed Hillary never lies. 30 years of being under public scrutiny and you're going to catch someone tell a lie. Aren't we human?  

This sensationalist video is attempting to string together incoherent points in order to frame her as a liar. I took it down by debunking that. There are occasional lies that's going to happen. In fact this is the only one that has some credibility in that video. 

Does it justify the "liar" tag though?

Like...? Tell me something that happened 12 years ago and odds are you'll be "lying" about it as well.

Hillary is actually no more or less honest than Sanders.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

Take that as you will and don't promote sensationalism.  

[Whispering 18,865]

6 hours ago, SISTERV said:

I can't convince you because you are one of those people on here that literally is set on an idea and would never open your mind up, but literally everything you said is complete liberal hysteria and completely made up.  Please don't ask me to go over it again. The receipts have been given to you about half a ****ing million times from both Bernie and Trump and even Kasich supporters on this site. It's pretty obvious the Hillary stans manipulate and lie about anyone who disagrees with them, just like their queen.  

And if you seriously find these characteristics all so problematic apparently.....why would you ever support Hillary Clinton? She is guilty of all of this X10 . I mean....if you want a tax return (that most candidates don't release until October) because there could be some shady **** in there, then why aren't you concerned about the possibilities of 30,000 emails deleted on Hillary's server, mysterious suicides during the Clinton administration with those called upon to testify against the Clinton's, the number of shady Wall Street or foreign donations given to Hillary, or the fact that the Clinton's have been investigated by the FBI more than any political family in American history? 

You're worried about whether Trump really donated, as a private citizen, to which organizations, with his own money, yet Hillary's constant shaky relationship over the course of four decades doesn't bother you....at all? 

This is exactly why people don't like her. It's literally so bad it's impossible for her to be honest. I literally guarantee you if the truth was told, Trump might have a skeleton his closet, but Hillary has an entire ****ing graveyard. 

Your comments and claims are made up and complete conservative spins, just like what one would hear on Fox News. Their are no receipts for your made up facts, other than quoting other conservation nut job groups. The receipts for Trump being the leader of lies, dishonesty and flip-flopping are given to you over and over. All you have to do is look at any respectful news site to see the receipts. Start with Politifact! 

Trump was completely disrespectful to the family of the man who committed suicide and you are falling right in line with his BS. There have several investigations into the suicide of Vince Foster suicide including ones by Republicans haters that were hoping to find something other than suicide. Every one of them declared the death a suicide. The conspiracy theories you are quoting are hilarious....let me guess, you are also a birther like Trump. 

Might have a skeleton? Shady deals, tax evasion, illegal business and discriminatory real estate practices, and associated with the mob....yeah there are plenty of skeletons! 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Whispering said:

Your comments and claims are made up and complete conservative spins, just like what one would hear on Fox News. Their are no receipts for your made up facts, other than quoting other conservation nut job groups. The receipts for Trump being the leader of lies, dishonesty and flip-flopping are given to you over and over. All you have to do is look at any respectful news site to see the receipts. 

Trump was completely disrespectful to the family of the man who committed suicide and you are falling right in line with his BS. There have several investigations into the suicide of Vince Foster suicide including ones by Republicans haters that were hoping to find something other than suicide. Every one of them declared the death a suicide. The conspiracy theories you are quoting are hilarious....let me guess, you are also a birther like Trump. 

Might have a skeleton? Shady deals, tax evasion, illegal business and discriminatory real estate practices, and associated with the mob....yeah there are plenty of skeletons! 

Why are you responding to that troll  

[dopega 3,789]

8 hours ago, Sizzily said:

I think you mean C3C. 

That gif 

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, bambi96 said:

I didn't say I do; in fact I don't, I'm just saying I don't think it's necessary.

The majority of this forum is entertainment based. You should stay in the areas that revolve around entertainment. That is the solution to your issue. 

[Whispering 18,865]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Why are you responding to that troll  

Every once in a while, it gets so ridiculous, it calls for a response.  

(It, referring to the made up BS) 

[PunkTheFunk 125,703]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

I dunno. Probably a wrong recollection. Maybe a lie like you said.

This Bosnia segment isn't a policy discussion or anything remotely of value. This is sensatonalism pure and simple. Digging into one irrelevant innocuous misstatement about a MEMORY in order to try to paint her as a liar.

How is that important? I never claimed Hillary never lies. 30 years of being under public scrutiny and you're going to catch someone tell a lie. Aren't we human?  

This sensationalist video is attempting to string together incoherent points in order to frame her as a liar. I took it down by debunking that. There are occasional lies that's going to happen. In fact this is the only one that has some credibility in that video. 

Does it justify the "liar" tag though?

Like...? Tell me something that happened 12 years ago and odds are you'll be "lying" about it as well.

Hillary is actually no more or less honest than Sanders.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

Take that as you will and don't promote sensationalism.  

I'll be completely honest, I'm just trying to stir up some sh*t on this cult site -- I'm not even American 

But I will say on the record that I don't like her at all. Maybe she'll make a great president but I just can't stand her.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is completely whack but for some reason he doesn't get on my nerves like Hillary does (and it's not because she's a woman -- there are plenty of women in power that I admire but Hillary is simply not one of them).

But that's just me

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, PunkTheFunk said:

I'll be completely honest, I'm just trying to stir up some sh*t on this cult site -- I'm not even American 

But I will say on the record that I don't like her at all. Maybe she'll make a great president but I just can't stand her.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is completely whack but for some reason he doesn't get on my nerves like Hillary does (and it's not because she's a woman -- there are plenty of women in power that I admire but Hillary is simply not one of them).

But that's just me

Well that's your opinion and I respect it as long as it's not formed from bigotry or bias  

[bambi96 1,555]

.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, bambi96 said:

I don't think you understand. I don't care about myself and what I see; heck, I'm not even in America. It just fuels hatred.

Gaga's dress size and Katy's releases fuel more hatred on this cult site than politics ever will  

[FameHookah 4,841]

And gaga approves this? 

 

Mess

[Himeros26 1,688]

16 hours ago, AJH219 said:

You don't have to read the politics sub forum  

It clogs up the Latest Topics and Currently Active Topics tho

I'm waiting for the Hillary supporters to get angry though. I've realized I just need to watch people on a pop forum discuss politics. It's FAR more entertaining.