Knicks · Where the heck is Hillary Clinton? (page 111)

Cuban cigars $100 limit illiminated by Obama..

holfresh wrote:Creepy Don...

he admitted on Stern he gets to walk on them in the dressing room.

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:Creepy Don...

he admitted on Stern he gets to walk on them in the dressing room.

Miss teen USA said he walked in on them too...15 year olds...

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

The evidence is overwhelming against Hillary/Bill and their club, but you won't look at it. You won't go into the unknown.
If it is not mainstream, it is a conspiracy theory (and remember, it is documented that the CIA created the term to discount theories regarding the JFK assassination.) Everything should be looked at, as we are talking about the leader of a nuclear power.

This discussion, is at times, like when one goes to the doctor/dentist with a problem and if the problem doesn't fit their previous checklist, must be either psychosomatic or hypochondriac or perhaps they are kind and say "mystery illness". Something stinks with Hillary and half the country can see it. She just hasn't been convicted yet, cause of the deep corruption.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

The evidence is overwhelming against Hillary/Bill and their club, but you won't look at it. You won't go into the unknown.
If it is not mainstream, it is a conspiracy theory (and remember, it is documented that the CIA created the term to discount theories regarding the JFK assassination.) Everything should be looked at, as we are talking about the leader of a nuclear power.

This discussion, is at times, like when one goes to the doctor/dentist with a problem and if the problem doesn't fit their previous checklist, must be either psychosomatic or hypochondriac or perhaps they are kind and say "mystery illness". Something stinks with Hillary and half the country can see it. She just hasn't been convicted yet, cause of the deep corruption.

What law did she break???

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

Take the sleeze/Creepy factors out, and discuss the policies.

What does trump bring to the table?
Forget what he says about his success?
what do we see? What have we read?

Who is endorsing him?
Who is not?

Briggs, as a descendant from those who were lost in the Holocaust, are not bothered by various white supremacy groups endorsing him?
Not that he is evil himself, but that he is empowering them?? David Duke?

Your pushing the same button in the voting booth as david duke?

Trump called it when he said he could shoot someone on 5th ave. and nothing would change...

Regarding some of the leaks, just for starters, this is a very interesting connection - just a snippet.

Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $25 million dollars to the Foundation.

The Clinton campaign has not replied to a Daily Caller inquiry about whether the Clinton Foundation will return donations from these two nations that, according to Hillary Clinton, fund ISIS.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/#ixzz4N59xfNxz

In light of the talk about women, how does Hillary accept money from Saudi Arabia AND on top of that accept money from them knowing they fund terrorism?
From the new leaks:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release.

Maybe one email isn't going to take her down, but this has got to be taking its toll.

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

The evidence is overwhelming against Hillary/Bill and their club, but you won't look at it. You won't go into the unknown.
If it is not mainstream, it is a conspiracy theory (and remember, it is documented that the CIA created the term to discount theories regarding the JFK assassination.) Everything should be looked at, as we are talking about the leader of a nuclear power.

This discussion, is at times, like when one goes to the doctor/dentist with a problem and if the problem doesn't fit their previous checklist, must be either psychosomatic or hypochondriac or perhaps they are kind and say "mystery illness". Something stinks with Hillary and half the country can see it. She just hasn't been convicted yet, cause of the deep corruption.

What law did she break???

Is there a law that says you can't accept 25 million from terrorist funding nations? Or from nations that routinely repress woman, homosexuals, etc?
I wonder if there is a law against this... hmmm...

earthmansurfer wrote:Regarding some of the leaks, just for starters, this is a very interesting connection - just a snippet.

Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $25 million dollars to the Foundation.

The Clinton campaign has not replied to a Daily Caller inquiry about whether the Clinton Foundation will return donations from these two nations that, according to Hillary Clinton, fund ISIS.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/#ixzz4N59xfNxz

In light of the talk about women, how does Hillary accept money from Saudi Arabia AND on top of that accept money from them knowing they fund terrorism?
From the new leaks:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release.

Maybe one email isn't going to take her down, but this has got to be taking its toll.

Hillary doesn't accept money from those countries. She and Bill take zero dollars from the organization. The money goes to things like HIV medicine and natural disaster victims. Trump himself made a 6 figure donation to the foundation, BTW.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

The evidence is overwhelming against Hillary/Bill and their club, but you won't look at it. You won't go into the unknown.
If it is not mainstream, it is a conspiracy theory (and remember, it is documented that the CIA created the term to discount theories regarding the JFK assassination.) Everything should be looked at, as we are talking about the leader of a nuclear power.

This discussion, is at times, like when one goes to the doctor/dentist with a problem and if the problem doesn't fit their previous checklist, must be either psychosomatic or hypochondriac or perhaps they are kind and say "mystery illness". Something stinks with Hillary and half the country can see it. She just hasn't been convicted yet, cause of the deep corruption.

What law did she break???

Is there a law that says you can't accept 25 million from terrorist funding nations? Or from nations that routinely repress woman, homosexuals, etc?
I wonder if there is a law against this... hmmm...

You answered your own point. No matter how crooked you think the Clinton Foundation is where else would you prefer to see that money go? And by the way... those books are open and for everyone to see. This is a REALLY weak argument dude.

The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation,[2] and called beginning in 2013 the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation[3]) is a nonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to "strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence."[4] Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.

Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals.[5] The acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been a source of controversy.[5][6] The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support".[5]

Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7] The charity watchdog group Charity Navigator gave the Foundation its highest possible rating, four out of four stars, after its customary review of the Foundation's financial records and tax statements. A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016. In 2015, based on revenue of $223 million and an expense ratio of 12% the foundation spent in excess of $26 million to complete its mission.[9]

This is just from Wikipedia (probably run by the illuminati Clintons) but the thing with charity is there is transparency. You are really barking up the wrong tree. Every dollar given from a terrorist state as you say is one dollar less for terror and one dollar more for philanthropy. So your point is....?

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

See posts from Bonn and myself. Now it appears you are grasping for anything that casts doubt and shade on her. Whatever their motives they generate a massive amount of money for philanthropy. You are really whiffing here and its becoming apparent you have no interest in truth. Cmon man

I can't believe this got more pages than Tony Wroten.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

It is a relevant "deal" when you demonstrate an inability to compartmentalize and follow a sequence of events properly. I've been very clear in my response to you and it is all there on permanent record for reference.

Conflating factoids is exactly the problem with the alt right.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

I think the Clinton foundation received between $10-25m from Saudi Aradia before 2008. To say "Hillary accepted it' is disingenuous or ignorant and demonstrative of how you get and process your information.

My heart says if societies with human rights violations are going to give up millions of dollars that can help people affected by human rights violations, I'll take it and put it to good use.

If you know if money from Saudi Arabia or Qatar taken during her tenure of Secretary of State or if you know if any quid pro quo benefits either received from the donation, please identify that here.

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

See posts from Bonn and myself. Now it appears you are grasping for anything that casts doubt and shade on her. Whatever their motives they generate a massive amount of money for philanthropy. You are really whiffing here and its becoming apparent you have no interest in truth. Cmon man

Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

What is 25 million accepted from a terrorist organization? Yeah, it would just be someone else.
And it would be another country abusing woman, homosexuals, etc.
And it is old news, not like Trumps 11 year old saying of... oh wait.

Looks like Clinton supporters are guiding things...

Curious though, what does your heart say?

earthmansurfer wrote:Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

Seriously?

After a full week of this what you've walked away from is the outrage is over the fact he said the worry PUSSY rather than context of how and why he used the word?

This is willful ignorance at best and and a lot worse at worst.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

It is a relevant "deal" when you demonstrate an inability to compartmentalize and follow a sequence of events properly. I've been very clear in my response to you and it is all there on permanent record for reference.

Conflating factoids is exactly the problem with the alt right.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

I think the Clinton foundation received between $10-25m from Saudi Aradia before 2008. To say "Hillary accepted it' is disingenuous or ignorant and demonstrative of how you get and process your information.

My heart says if societies with human rights violations are going to give up millions of dollars that can help people affected by human rights violations, I'll take it and put it to good use.

If you know if money from Saudi Arabia or Qatar taken during her tenure of Secretary of State or if you know if any quid pro quo benefits either received from the donation, please identify that here.

My problem is in constantly defending some points, while you skip over others. That is on the record too.
How do you unknowingly accept 25 million? That is disingenous and ignorant. Those projections should be directed at Hillary.

The Saudi Arabia stuff is like Donald Trump ^10. It is a bit disheartening that you can rationalize this.
They were known terrorist funders, again, stop rationalizing inhumane actions.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

Seriously?

After a full week of this what you've walked away from is the outrage is over the fact he said the worry PUSSY rather than context of how and why he used the word?

This is willful ignorance at best and and a lot worse at worst.

Don't make this about me. We are all aware of what Trump said 11 years ago. But to Clinton supporters something that happened in the past 2 years is old news and not worth discussion. And I've been pretty honest about Trump, but Clinton supporters can't say anything wrong about her. And there are conditions on her accepting 25 million from terrorist funding organizations. It just gets better.

I thought this was a close race? Not here.
But to Clinton supporters something that happened in the past 2 years is old news and not worth discussion.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

It is a relevant "deal" when you demonstrate an inability to compartmentalize and follow a sequence of events properly. I've been very clear in my response to you and it is all there on permanent record for reference.

Conflating factoids is exactly the problem with the alt right.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

I think the Clinton foundation received between $10-25m from Saudi Aradia before 2008. To say "Hillary accepted it' is disingenuous or ignorant and demonstrative of how you get and process your information.

My heart says if societies with human rights violations are going to give up millions of dollars that can help people affected by human rights violations, I'll take it and put it to good use.

If you know if money from Saudi Arabia or Qatar taken during her tenure of Secretary of State or if you know if any quid pro quo benefits either received from the donation, please identify that here.

My problem is in constantly defending some points, while you skip over others. That is on the record too.

I've never skipped over a question you have of me, ever. Your last post asked me a question, I answered it in detail. That's called a conversation.

How do you unknowingly accept 25 million?

I can't answer that because I never wrote that. You're asking and answering your questions now.

The Saudi Arabia stuff is like Donald Trump ^10. It is a bit disheartening that you can rationalize this. They were known terrorist funders, again, stop rationalizing inhumane actions.

So you'd rather them direct that $10-25m to terrorists instead?

Listen, you're more than entitled to your opinion on the matter. But it is a moral/ethical question, not a legal one.

But this has been your sole response to the question what law has she broken. Your only answer has been the one that doesn't exist and your personally think should exist, one that doesn't seem to be shared by say... the U.N., for one. Nor the nations that have accepted money from the Clinton Foundation.

If that is disqualifying to you, that's legitimate.

See, I didn't respond "But Trump did..." once during any discussion of Clinton.

That's how a conversation works.