Knickoftime wrote:GoNyGoNyGo wrote:
In My Opinion - there is a long line of corrupt acts and lies, you can choose to research it or not.
.
You are too funny. IT's called sarcasm!!.... I was doing exactly what she did, you are correct. Funny how you see when I do it...that was my point.
No, as I clearly stated, I am holding YOU to your standard for her. YOU just repeated what I said but tried to derive the opposite meaning from it. You can answer or not, that's your right. But it is fair to reflect your own standard back to you when you do.
I believed FM's questions to be rhetorical.
I believe you were asked the same questions by others. I'm more than willing to concede to them if they were rhetorical or not, but they struck me as genuine and straightforward.
she could have condemned the acts in the videos at least.
To what end? C'mon, don't be politically naive. Nobody is suggesting Clinton isn't a political animal.
To somehow appease people that are prone to speculate about larger meaning of the video? C'mon, that's a rhetorical game. There was no upside to giving voice to something she hasn't even been accused of. You know that.
The rule of law - really? I am in no position to enforce the rule of law other than with my vote.
Really.
You're asserting she has broken laws and the law says she has not and in some cases has not even been charged with. That's ignoring the rule of law.
Its called reading and research and an open mind. Should we blindly accept the National Enquirer story? Its based on eye witness testimony apparently.
No, having an "open mind" doesn't mean concluding someone was involved in something they haven't been connected with because the idea they might fits into a pre-conceived profile you've crafted.
That is the opposite of an open mind. That is confirmation bias.
That people can't distinguish the two is the problem I'm citing.
If you'd like to name the person cited in the National Enquirer, I'll gladly consider his or her testimony.
Yep, some people. One at the highest level of a HRC superpAc and his main agitator on the ground. Logical conclusion is this, nothin will happen to anyone higher up as they have the plausible deniability in place - the double blind.
That anyone higher up was involved is not a logical conclusion, it is an assumption.
People admitting-bragging about certain acts on video when they don't know they aren't being recorded doesn't mean any more than bragging was occurring, correct? It does not prove an act, or have I misunderstood that edict?
I think you and I would agree with this, however - just bragging about disqualifies the braggart(s) and the boasts should be properly investigated.
Really? We should assume that all they do is right and rosy?
No. I neither said nor implied that.
Do you hold DJT to the same standards?
Yes.
Did you hold GWB to those standards?
Yes.
I think we should question their authority especially when they don't appear to live up to the same laws that we must. that is the people's role in a democracy after all or so I think.
Again, you're quoting law and at the same time reject the findings of the law as if that's irrelevant.
Works both ways.
Based on my experience reading your posts, I can tell that you like to control the way a discussion goes.
You're asserting she has broken laws and the law says she has not and in some cases has not even been charged with. That's ignoring the rule of law.
From what I can tell, you have an issue with anyone saying that HRC is guilty or "corrupt" corrupt because in the latest scandal, the FBI has cleared her and that is all that we have to base our opinions on. Because the FBI chose not to prosecute her for this case, we the people, need to then follow the "rule of the law" and also make the same determination. To do otherwise, shows that we would have bias against her. In a court of law, you would be correct, I could not say she is guilty if she has not been convicted of a crime. I would have to use the words "alleged" or "allegedly".
I think you will agree that the UK forum is NOT a court of law . It is a discussion board about the NY Knicks on the internet. It is in the court of public opinion. To be clear, "IMO" means in my opinion. We all have a right to our own opinion. I infer from many of your posts that you do not like the way I and maybe some others form our opinions.
In the past, HRC and WJC have ALLEGEDLY been involved in numerous scandals or incidents. Honestly there are too many to list. I am sure if you Google it, you can find some. You will also find that she was never convicted of any crimes. They were fined and forced to give things back and she was even called a "congenital liar" by the NY times. But nothing ever stuck for conviction. however, many lower level associates also involved were convicted and imprisoned.
This all leads to my "confirmation bias", as you like to call it. Or as I call it, my duty as a citizen to keep an eye on the government and its leaders. You can choose to do otherwise, if you wish.
"That anyone higher up was involved is not a logical conclusion, it is an assumption. People admitting-bragging about certain acts on video when they don't know they aren't being recorded doesn't mean any more than bragging was occurring, correct? It does not prove an act, or have I misunderstood that edict?
"
This seemingly simple statement is, IMO, leading. It is meant to lead people into drawing a conclusion other than the one that when you actually see the video you are logically drawn to. The person on the video, when asked does Hillary know about this, the answer is affirming. The next line is an attempt to then qualify the leading by drawing a comparison to the Trump lewd language video and the "locker room talk" defense of it. So the attempt is to lead someone to think, the two are comparable "locker room" banter...so according to "my" standards, (assuming I was on who made the locker room talk defense) they must be the same thing, i.e. don't assume and don't draw "illogical" conclusions, its just locker room talk.
But it's not. It's not because then we learn that the very same people on the video made hundreds...HUNDREDS..of visits since 2009 to the WH and met on more than 20 times with POTUS. So when putting the affirming answer and the visits together, one logical conclusion is that the higher ups at least know about it if not direct it. But, maybe not. Plausible Deniability still exists. I mean who is going to testify against a sitting POTUS or one running for POTUS? See I can keep an open mind (pat on back).
Again, you're quoting law and at the same time reject the findings of the law as if that's irrelevant.
Works both ways.
I don't see it this way. I did not quote any law. I am stating that when we see that those in the ruling class appear (and Yes, appearances are enough to question it, IMO. ) to have a different standard of law applied to them and this is precisely what the HRC email case makes many people think ( not you, I know), then they MUST make their voices heard. When they see other people convicted of similar acts, they must take a stand. They must be active in a democracy. They must vote, they must peacefully assemble and they must make their voices heard otherwise their freedoms will be taken.
I choose to stand against the alleged corruption that I see and the lewd behavior (on both sides) that I see. I do not have the power to indict them or gather enough of the facts myself. AT this point, I have to rely on others to do so. I do however, read what is gathered after analyzing that through MY lenses, I decide with MY opinion, MY voice and MY vote.
No one gets to censor me. That's called Facism and its something, I think you will agree, that no one wants.
