Why do Americans hate Hillary so much?

[Revoltingest]

Criticize all you want. I object to the lie after lie being presented as "truth".

Hoo boy...do you misunderstand.
- I've oft said that I don't have "The Truth"...just estimations.
- Accusations of deliberate deception? That's weak, allowing no room for the subjectivity of these issues.

You really can't present any substantive proof for your fantasy version of the truth. You've got volumes of hearsay like Clinton wants to enable last day abortions, but absolutely nothing to back that up.

It's a lame straw man to attribute this objection to me.
I haven't addressed her position on abortion because I don't even care what it is.
Btw, I'm more extremely pro-choice than she is.

Nothing, nada and squat in precisely that order. Rather than give us that proof, you rail that we have debunked your unmitigated BS. Sorry about that. It's not my fault that you don't get it, but I'm still sorry that you don't.

Oh, dear....the claim of "BS" is full of irony, given that you attack views I don't hold.
You should read more thoroughly & carefully.
I say plenty of things you could disagree with, so there's no need to invent false positions.

What are you saying here? That all of her detractors are "white"??? What an admission. However, I've taken a cue from Trump himself. You can't solve a problem if you're unwilling to say the name. You believe in that right? So while he sees "Radical Islam" as the problem, I'm willing to label "White Wingers" as the real problem. Hell, if he can get away with it, why can't I? How does it feel to have it thrown back at you?

It seems you use one person's bigotry to justify perpetrating the same.
That is not cromulent.
It's still wrong to attack people based upon their race.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. They are all a bit too far off the rails for my taste.

Do any represent your views better than Hillary,
or is she your best fit candidate?

Note:
Not plotting any attack with these questions.
And I like my candidates to be off the rails.

 

[Underhill]

This is weird.
Perhaps I have greater clarity than thou hast because I just had some great
chicken soup (with extra mushrooms) & 2 pieces of perfectly adequate apple pie.
You say it's a "fact" she'll be less effective.
I'd say only she might be.
She could even be better than Obama.
Never discount the profound effect of random chance.

There you go again with your vocabulary. Okay, fact may not be the right word. But it is my opinion. Don't go holding my own words against me!

I'm working on about 2 hours of sleep today so I am going with that excuse.

Notice my superior grasp of reality?

Superior grasp of vocabulary... yes.

I don't disagree much on that.
Where I differ with her is on her agendas....past & likely future.
My finding both her & Trump to be dirt bags is irrelevant to my vote.

My apologies to bags of dirt, btw.

Some dirt is better than others...

 

[Revoltingest]

Some dirt is better than others...

I prefer the compostable variety

 

[Underhill]

Do any represent your views better than Hillary,
or is she your best fit candidate?

Note:
Not plotting any attack with these questions.
And I like my candidates to be off the rails.

My views are somewhere between her and old school 'republicans'. Probably a bit closer to her.

 

[Revoltingest]

My views are somewhere between her and old school 'republicans'. Probably a bit closer to her.

It's reasonable that you'd prefer her.

 

[Perditus]

As regards the late-term abortion issue, what he described wasn't too far off.

While I am pro-choice, I don't agree with aborting a child so close to birth. It seems a bit grisly. That I have such a visceral reaction to it tells me it's wrong.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hoo boy...do you misunderstand.

Now wait... you quote me responding to another person and ask "How?" By doing that, you have assumed their premise and arguments as your own. You were clearly alarmed that I disagreed with them and never indicated that you also disagreed with them. Ergo, your attempt with this bait and switch ultimately fails.

It seems you use one person's bigotry to justify perpetrating the same.

I certainly feel disdain, ridicule, derision and contempt for the group many refer to as the "right wing" but since I am white, you can't really ascribe racism or even bigotry to me. Why call them 'right' when that can be viewed as a positive? I think "white wing" is a far better name which discloses that they are predominately white both in color and preference. While you claim to be denser than most, certainly you can discern the underlying mockery in my narrative. If not, then you should probably put me on ignore so you won't be so offended by my snarky albeit subtle lampoons.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now wait... you quote me responding to another person and ask "How?" By doing that, you have assumed their premise and arguments as your own. You were clearly alarmed that I disagreed with them and never indicated that you also disagreed with them. Ergo, your attempt with this bait and switch ultimately fails.

I certainly feel disdain, ridicule, derision and contempt for the group many refer to as the "right wing" but since I am white, you can't really ascribe racism or even bigotry to me. Why call them 'right' when that can be viewed as a positive? I think "white wing" is a far better name which discloses that they are predominately white both in color and preference. While you claim to be denser than most, certainly you can discern the underlying mockery in my narrative. If not, then you should probably put me on ignore so you won't be so offended by my snarky albeit subtle lampoons.

Oh, don't worry liebchen....I'll never put you (or anyone else) on <ignore>.
Who else would be here for you...you know, for your personal growth?

 

[SkepticThinker]

As regards the late-term abortion issue, what he described wasn't too far off.

While I am pro-choice, I don't agree with aborting a child so close to birth. It seems a bit grisly. That I have such a visceral reaction to it tells me it's wrong.

Partial birth abortions are normally used when the woman has miscarried and the fetus needs to be removed by giving "partial birth" or when something has just gone terribly wrong for the mother and/or the baby. I believe it's pretty much outlawed in the US. But it's not like women are just deciding after 8 months of carrying a fetus that they just don't feel like having it anymore and just go out and find a bunch of doctors willing to abort it. It's not the most pleasant of procedures and it's reserved from some pretty grisly situations. I would think partially giving birth to a baby you had been looking forward to having for all that time would be pretty heart wrenching and difficult.

 

[metis]

P-B abortions are legal if the woman in labor is in danger, and they obviously are very rare.

 

[Scuba Pete]

This is a pretty good article, even though it's from 2006: http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

But "partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.

//snip//

The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb.

//snip//

The New Republic magazine in 1996, the NRLC's Douglas Johnson explained that the term was thought up in hopes that "as the public learns what a 'partial-birth abortion' is, they might also learn something about other abortion methods, and that this would foster a growing opposition to abortion."

 

[Sonofason]

Another interesting fact that is just as true: If you say gullible slow enough, it sounds just like oranges. No, rly. You should try it, but you have to say it very slowly. No, slower than that. Let me know when you get it. Just don't give up until you get it right.

While I fully understand why Trump lies, I don't get why sheeple believe those lies. Most of it, I am certain, comes from their unreasonable and incessant hate of Clinton. They say she lies like it's a given, but when pressed for substantive examples, they can only come up with manufactured ones like Benghazi. They are so deceived by the White Wingers that they don't even realize they have been lied to. It would be humorous to a number of us, if they didn't infect others with their vituperative lies, but it's like a cancer that's growing at an alarming rate. How incredible sad for our nation.

You think that Benghazi was the result of a video tape produced by a Pastor in Florida? That's what she told us. But then before she told us that she affirmed with the leader of Saudi Arabia, and her daughter that it was in fact a terrorist attack. Quick, put your fingers in your ears and say Lalalalalalala and you wont have to hear what I'm writing.

 

[Scuba Pete]

@Sonofason, Benghazi was the direct result of a Republican controlled congress and Senate de-funding our Diplomatic Security. Sure, they want to blame anyone but themselves, but that's the truth. It might not be convenient for your ultra, hyper white wing agenda, but that's the honest truth.

 

[Sonofason]

@Sonofason, Benghazi was the direct result of a Republican controlled congress and Senate de-funding our Diplomatic Security. Sure, they want to blame anyone but themselves, but that's the truth. It might not be convenient for your ultra, hyper white wing agenda, but that's the honest truth.

Why are you talking about the why of the attacks and not her lie about the attacks?
Do you actually think what she did is okay?
What a stupid question...of course you do.

 

[idav]

Why are you talking about the why of the attacks and not her lie about the attacks?
Do you actually think what she did is okay?
What a stupid question...of course you do.

She lied about what, terrorist attacks? Terrorists are to blame. Military was not given support as requested.

Critical claims of Benghazi are false.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

 

[Sonofason]

She lied about what, terrorist attacks? Terrorists are to blame. Military was not given support as requested.

Critical claims of Benghazi are false.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

Why did she and the state department insist it was the result of a video tape put online by a Pastor from Florida? That was a fabricated lie. Why don't you care about that?

And then when they could no long maintain the lie, they confessed it was a terrorist attack and pretended it always was a terrorist attack. Why do you lie for them? Are you really that oblivious and naive?

 

[idav]

Why did she and the state department insist it was the result of a video tape put online by a Pastor from Florida? That was a fabricated lie. Why don't you care about that?

Cause its silly. I showed you the snopes, so ask yourself who is being naive when I'm not the one avoiding facts. Who cares if they thought it was because of a protest, it erupted into an attack.

 

[Sonofason]

Cause its silly. I showed you the snopes, so ask yourself who is being naive when I'm not the one avoiding facts. Who cares if they thought it was because of a protest, it erupted into an attack.

It did not even begin as a protest. You are misinformed again. Listen to the liars, and you become one.

 

[columbus]

Why did she and the state department insist it was the result of a video tape put online by a Pastor from Florida? That was a fabricated lie. Why don't you care about that?

No not really.
There was a demonstration against something in the west, which was used as cover by the attackers. When a spokesman for the state department was barraged with questions in the immediate aftermath she gave her best guess.
A day or so later when what really happened was known, that was put out there for everyone to learn.

Tom