Let's talk about the Clintons

[Harry Bosch]

Well, technically this thread is about Clinton, so I guess Clinton is off topic.

To quote the thread:

"Let's talk about the Clintons. Can anyone come up with an example of another "president" trying to re-litigate his predecessor's secretary of State and the President of >15 years in the past?

No? Then I'd implore you to consider all possible reasons why someone might do that. Seems to me that the most likely reason is to distract from his own crimes.


This thread is about why Trump finds the need to attack his predecessor.

The question is why are you so defensive about Trump?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The question is why are you so defensive about Trump?

I'm not. I attack Trump in the thread about Trump and I attack Clinton in the thread about Clinton. You are still so defensive about Clinton that you see attacking Clinton as defending Trump. My initial post in this thread was to say the last several Secretaries of State were, in my opinion, all war criminals for the last several unprovoked invasions of foreign countries. Since that included not just Iraq but also Libya, that made people see me as if I were defending Trump.

Now why would you feel that way? What is it about Clinton that makes attacking Clinton seem like defending Trump to you? Let us explore how defensive you are about Clinton?

 

[Elixir]

The question is why are you so defensive about Trump?

I'm not. I attack Trump in the thread about Trump and I attack Clinton in the thread about Clinton.

What thread would THAT be? This one isn't it, as I already EXPLAINED TO YOU.

 

[funinspace]

The question is why are you so defensive about Trump?

I'm not. I attack Trump in the thread about Trump and I attack Clinton in the thread about Clinton.

What thread would THAT be? This one isn't it, as I already EXPLAINED TO YOU.

Yah, butt your thread Title makes it soooooo confusaling....

 

[Elixir]

I'm not. I attack Trump in the thread about Trump and I attack Clinton in the thread about Clinton.

What thread would THAT be? This one isn't it, as I already EXPLAINED TO YOU.

Yah, butt your thread Title makes it soooooo confusaling....

Well... my bad for failing to consider how overt one has to be when talking about this sort of thing. I know that some experience a lot of difficulty divining unstated-yet-obvious implications, but didn't take that into account. I apologize to the afflicted for leaving them behind...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This part was snipped and ignored.

You are still so defensive about Clinton that you see attacking Clinton as defending Trump. My initial post in this thread was to say the last several Secretaries of State were, in my opinion, all war criminals for the last several unprovoked invasions of foreign countries. Since that included not just Iraq but also Libya, that made people see me as if I were defending Trump.

Now why would you feel that way? What is it about Clinton that makes attacking Clinton seem like defending Trump to you? Let us explore how defensive you are about Clinton?

To elaborate, I was bipartisan, criticizing unprovoked war, an action I find offensive no matter who is in office. I didn't focus on Clinton. But then someone came back with "Bengazi!!11!!1!" as if that is the only place in Libya. There is more to Libya than Bengazi, but Bengazi is the only place anyone else knows about.

So I elaborated, pointing out that it wasn't just Bengazi but Libya as a whole. I wasn't even paying attention to the bit about Bengazi, I was paying attention to the whole military action. I even pointed out that while Bengazi was investigated the war as a whole wasn't investigated because war is bipartisan. I tried to make it bipartisan again by saying investigating the last several Secretaries of States for war crimes would go far to refurbishing the tarnished image of the USA in the eyes of the world.

But that meant I was discussing Clinton and why she should be investigated, which means that somehow I was praising Trump. Even though I didn't mention Trump, by criticizing Clinton I was praising Trump.

So I think the real psychological issue is why any criticism of her holiness is seen as homage to the devil.

 

[Elixir]

What is it about Clinton that makes attacking Clinton seem like defending Trump to you?

I can't speak for anyone else, but to me it's the fact that Clintons are not a factor the direction of the country going forward, combined with the fact that BENNN GOZZEEEMAILS!!! and "What about Bill?" are the most frequent responses from Trumpsuckers to any criticism leveled at their Tangerine Tyrant. The direction of the country (circling the drain as far as being a representative republic, IMO) is dire, alarming and a matter that urgently needs attention/intervention, while Clintons are just a straw dog for easy beating by mindless vengeful losers, and no attention to them is needed or of service to any important function.
Certainly, emulating the behavior of garden-variety trumpsuckers is no reason to assume that you are one of them, so I apologize for having done that. But now you know why.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But I already clarified - TWICE - that I am referring to Libya and not Bengazi.

You are aware that Bengazi is simply one city in the whole of the country of Libya? That there are other cities in Libya?

I even pointed out that the reason the Republicans only investigated Bengazi instead of the war as a whole is because they are pro-war, just like the Democrats. You managed to find praise for Trump in there somehow. My record is clearly and consistently anti-war, I called the Republicans pro-war, you see me as complimenting the Republicans.

Never mind. Since Bengazi is a city in Libya, any time any person discusses Libya, they are clearly discussing "Bengazi!!!111!!122@@!!"

 

[Ford]

I just think it is great that we're finally talking about the Clinton scandals for a change. Does anyone else find it odd that Vince Foster died? I mean, has anyone looked into what happened there?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I just think it is great that we're finally talking about the Clinton scandals for a change. Does anyone else find it odd that Vince Foster died? I mean, has anyone looked into what happened there?

Why it is almost as if I'm not the only one talking about Libya (not just Bengazi) and that the whole Libya (not just Bengazi) issue has received extensive coverage.

 

[Ford]

I just think it is great that we're finally talking about the Clinton scandals for a change. Does anyone else find it odd that Vince Foster died? I mean, has anyone looked into what happened there?

Why it is almost as if I'm not the only one talking about Libya (not just Bengazi) and that the whole Libya (not just Bengazi) issue has received extensive coverage.

Serious question:

Do they not have sarcasm in Libertopia?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Only if you are able to recognize the sarcasm in my own post.

 

[ZiprHead]

I just think it is great that we're finally talking about the Clinton scandals for a change. Does anyone else find it odd that Vince Foster died? I mean, has anyone looked into what happened there?

Why it is almost as if I'm not the only one talking about Libya (not just Bengazi) and that the whole Libya (not just Bengazi) issue has received extensive coverage.

Here's your sign.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's another person who thinks if you criticize Hillary without even mentioning Trump that means you are praising Trump.

Clue people, the sentence "Hillary is bad" does NOT mean "Turnip is good".

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's another person who thinks if you criticize Hillary without even mentioning Trump that means you are praising Trump.

Clue people, the sentence "Hillary is bad" does NOT mean "Turnip is good".

And here's a person who doesn't understand the OP.

 

[Elixir]

Here's another person who thinks if you criticize Hillary without even mentioning Trump that means you are praising Trump.

Clue people, the sentence "Hillary is bad" does NOT mean "Turnip is good".

And here's a person who doesn't understand the OP.

I'll take the bullet for that. The OP wasn't dumbed down enough for neo-cons to grasp it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's another person who thinks if you criticize Hillary without even mentioning Trump that means you are praising Trump.

Clue people, the sentence "Hillary is bad" does NOT mean "Turnip is good".

And here's a person who doesn't understand the OP.

Here's another person who thinks if you criticize Hillary without even mentioning Trump that means you are praising Trump.

Clue people, the sentence "Hillary is bad" does NOT mean "Turnip is good".

And here's a person who doesn't understand the OP.

I'll take the bullet for that. The OP wasn't dumbed down enough for neo-cons to grasp it.

And you BOTH failed to notice that my first post in this thread didn't mention Hillary at all.

In my opinion the last several Secretaries of State are all guilty of war crimes. It would actually be a good thing to help clean up the reputation of the US were previous criminals to be tried instead of considered "off limits" due to being no longer in office.

See? I didn't mention Hillary. But "last several" includes not just the SecState of Bush and SecState of Trump but also includes the SecState of Obama so therefore includes Hillary. Seeing the statement included Hillary Elixir replied "OMGWTFBBQ Ben Gazi!!!!11!!!22@@!!!"

So we went down a very extensive rabbit trail where I tried very hard to explain that I wasn't focusing just on Hillary and I tried to explain that I wasn't focusing on Bengazi.

Sadly not a single explanation took.

So, to try once again to get you to understand what I am describing, this means:
Rex Tillerson
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Condoleeza Rice
Colin Powell
Madeleine Albright
James Baker

and maybe a few more.

My list means "war is bad". Neocons love war. Therefore if you dislike my statement, that makes you an ally of the neocons.

 

[Elixir]

Here's another person who thinks if you criticize Hillary without even mentioning Trump that means you are praising Trump.

Clue people, the sentence "Hillary is bad" does NOT mean "Turnip is good".

And here's a person who doesn't understand the OP.

I'll take the bullet for that. The OP wasn't dumbed down enough for neo-cons to grasp it.

And you BOTH failed to notice that my first post in this thread didn't mention Hillary at all.

Failed to note, not notice.
OK - noted here. Secretaries of State tend to push the agenda of whoever is President at the time, and all recent presidents have been beholden to the military-industrial complex. You should have voted for Bernie. None of which is particularly relevant to the thread.
Anything else?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, if you're calling me a Bernie supporter at least you've gotten over the delusion that I'm a Trump supporter. That's some progress.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, if you're calling me a Bernie supporter at least you've gotten over the delusion that I'm a Trump supporter. That's some progress.

Yea, that begs the question of who do you support? For years I've heard that you hate Clinton, Obama, Carter and every other democrat. But I've never seen a thread on someone that you support?