The Shadow Strikes

No she is not her husband. Bu she has said:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported."

So did she believe the women who have levelled allegations (at the least allegations) at Bill? No, I didn't think so.

You didn't even watch the video, you just read the title. They are Calling Hillary the victim, and attacking the women that Bill slept with, one hosts even uses the word Tramp. And that non-vote concept is still alluding you, isn't it?

Because of your bias, you can't see it, but the majority of the media supports Clinton. I am not biased, i'm impartial, so i'll post this video of John Oliver trashing Trump (no doubt it'll make you warm and fuzzy inside):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNBJFLU7Oc

Mentally competent adults tend to take responsibility for their own actions. That is generally how it works. And I don't want to upset the crusading, but it is still mysogony when it is women that are attacking women just like in the video in my previous post.

Cristofle

Hillary has actually said very little one way or the other about those particular three women. I'm not going to say I think they're lying about Bill, because I WON'T say that any woman is lying about being sexually assaulted or harassed. And Bill's behavior even with the consensual sex he's admitted isn't worthy of defense. What was never believable, even when she first started reporting it, let alone when she later embellished it, was the notion that Hillary threatened JB. Which doesn't mean JB was lying, not at first. Hearing "thank you for supporting my husband" may have just been too much for her. But from Hillary's perspective, it was a campaign event and it was literally her job to make everyone there feel personally appreciated and personally like they're making a difference, even if she thinks they only donated $5. Objectively, claiming that her saying "Thank you for everything you do to support my husband" AT A CAMPAIGN EVENT (which is all JB said that she said, for years, until no one would agree it sounded like a threat) is just not a threat in any way, shape, or form.

Beyond all this, Hillary is still not comparable to Trump, who is the ACTUAL SEXUAL PREDATOR of the two. And saying they are the same, or implying it which you do repeatedly (which means you are NOT unbiased- you being British certainly doesn't make you unbiased as you've tried to claim in the past), undermines what HE has done. HE has been accused of rape 3 separate times, and been accused of sexual harassment by at least 9 other separate women, and has bragged on tape about sexual abuse.

ETA: incidentally, you know who DID call these women names, back in the 90s? Trump. He called them unattractive and liars, and called Bill a victim.

mjgchick

https://vt.tumblr.com/tumblr_oew97r1DWm1ubp3uj.mp4#_=_

This woman's vines are hilarious. She did the Pokémon one.

Cristofle

Whoever started this clown ****, I WILL hunt down at one point. *shudders*

The Shadow Strikes

I HAVE NEVER said that simply being British is why I am impartial. I would ask how you came to that conclusion, but as usual, you'd have nothing to back that up. I AM impartial (this after having posted a video of John Oliver attacking Trump) because I am NOT stuffed to the eyeballs on the propaganda from EITHER candidate, incapable of listening to reason. I believe that BOTH candidates are not suited to the job, and have said this repeatedly. I have also said a number of times that I AGREE with you on Trump, but I guess you missed that... each time I have said it.

And how does feeling that both candidates are not suitable, excuse what he has done? IT DOESN'T. Oh wait, I forgot...



... "a non-vote = a Trump vote"

so it doesn't have to make sense.

Cristofle

That at the bare minimum, would make you biased against both candidates. But claiming they're equally bad on this shows a greater bias against Hillary, since she is not the sexual predator of the two of them.

The Shadow Strikes

I have never said that Hilary has said or done exactly the same as Trump has, but it IS possible for them to be both unsuitable, though for different reasons. She is politically savvy in ways that he isn't, I agree with all the criticisms you have with Trump, but she is just like a typical politician. Everything is for the camera, and/or simply to get your vote. From my point of view, if you (that's a generalised you) didn't have faith in her, then why would you vote for her?. And clearly Trump is out of the question, so that would only leave one other option, which, as yet, an unknown people are taking.


And that Clown craze need to stop a.s.a.p. It started in the US, But has since found it's way over to the UK. One pregnant woman even went into a premature labour, because some cnut dressed as a clown jumped out on her. A vigilante has hit the streets dressed as Batman, looking for these clowns. But now he has been joined by Spiderman, I kid you not.

I am not a 'people person', but it is times like these, where my faith in humanity is restored. That is, until I hear about another Darwin Award winner.

Cristofle

I mean, vote for her to stop the country from lapsing into fascism, lol. Even if the country hasn't been running as well as everyone would like, it has been, you know, RUNNING. Vote for the one who isn't likely to start a war if she gets mildly insulted on a personal level, unlike her opponent (see: his latest meltdown over the Trump SNL skits). This man doesn't even have the political savvy of Sarah Palin, who knew it was smarter to join Tina Fey than whine about her. I don't think Hillary Clinton will be a wholly ineffective President, but even if one does, it's better than a fascist who doesn't seem to grasp our laws on any level.

mjgchick

https://youtu.be/uJBL7kuzvsg

Bless SNL. They are on their A-Game right now.

Cristofle

I was DYING. The Mike Pence part was the funniest, and Baldwin's Trump telling Tiffany to stay home at the end, lolol.

mjgchick

Yes Mike Pence sitting with his legs folded and poor Tiffany. That's why he disgust her because even she hates him.

The Shadow Strikes

That's easy to do, you just have to believe that she would follow through on her policies. If people don't want to vote for Trump, and you can't force them to overlook what you can overlook about Clinton, then there is only that other option, whether you like it or not.

I watched the SNL sketch, after watching the actual debates themselves. While Baldwin and the comedienne playing Clinton sort of looked the part, I didn't find it funny. But then, what I have seen from SNL, I didn't find funny either. I chalked it up to the difference in UK / US humour.

Sam_MC

Your implication that you're impartial because you hate the candidates equally is not what it means to be impartial. And your endorsement for not voting also doesn't make you impartial.

It just highlights that you're in a position whereby the winning candidate doesn't negatively impact you. If you had something to lose, you'd have a side.

Only people who are in a protected class have the luxury of not picking a side.

And that's your prerogative, I guess. But it doesn't make you impartial. It just makes you a white guy who likes to keep the balance of power in your favour. Pretty much the poster child for implicit bias.

The Shadow Strikes

I treat them with equal distrust, so that makes me impartial. Or if you don't think the word impartial, then unlike yourself, just think of me has not having a bias.

Hilary isn't the only candidate. You might not have heard, but her opposition is a man named Donald Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump


I might be in the middle group, but there is still an outside chance that Trump might win. The president of the US is also the president of the free world. So how could that man as the US president not negatively impact you? It is not a win-win for me. Before you bring up Hilary, as I said previously, she is politically savvy, but into order to vote for her, someone in my position would have to believe in her. And not matter how many times you repeat yourself. you just can't force people to see her in the same light as you do.

You do have a point, sort of. But neither of them are interested in the middle or working classes. They are only interested in looking after their own people.

I don't think I have ever quoted myself from the same post, but

I treat them with equal distrust, so that makes me impartial. Or if you don't think the word impartial, then unlike yourself, just think of me has not having a bias.

It is no surprise you see it this way, as you have fully bought into the Clinton propaganda. How on earth can YOU talk about me not being impartial, when it is YOU who have taken a side.

*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough* The odour of sanctimony in this last bit is too much. And what does the colour of my skin have to do with it? A) NOTHING, B) NOTHING or C) NOTHING. So now it's about race? Well, you know how you are ecstatic about having a female president? Then surely I should be moreso at though of a white president or a... good lord, the other one is white as well. It would be a win-win situation. But it isn't for those in the middle, who are not doped up to the eyeballs on the propaganda of Trump & Clinton. So what I have said about both, has nothing to do with race.

Cristofle

Sam has never claimed to be impartial, though. LOL. He's made it very clear which candidate he prefers. We aren't arguing we ARE impartial- we're arguing you're not either, and furthermore that there's no real value in being impartial in this particular election. Only those who will never be impacted by the election can be impartial, and that certainly isn't me as I'm a US citizen.

ETA: and both candidates being white doesn't really have much to do in terms of which candidate keeps certain systems in power, because only one of these two spearheaded the birther movement and only one re-tweets white supremacists. Hillary Clinton is by no means perfect on racial issues, but there's a reason that African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and indeed there's a reason why Democrats have been winning virtually every demographics other than white males in the past several elections. There is nothing in the Republican platform to indicate they care about the rights of minorities, about the rights of women, about religious freedom other than forcing their particular view of Christianity on everyone else.