(November 5, 2016 at 7:13 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 7:05 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Also, I notice you're willing to brand B. Clinton as a rapist despite the fact that he was never formally charged, but you are okay to overlook the rape allegation against Trump that is currently under investigation.

And likewise you're a hypocrite because you'll go on about these allegations against Trump as though they're anything substantial, when the ones against B Clinton are far more worrying.

It's not hypocritical at all, because Bill is not on the ballot; Hilary is. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

(November 5, 2016 at 7:13 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 7:05 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Also, I notice you're willing to brand B. Clinton as a rapist despite the fact that he was never formally charged, but you are okay to overlook the rape allegation against Trump that is currently under investigation.

And likewise you're a hypocrite because you'll go on about these allegations against Trump as though they're anything substantial, when the ones against B Clinton are far more worrying.

Quote:(The alleged rape of a child, btw).

 

Alleged, and also dropped

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who...1788603598

When a lawsuit like that is connected to a former Jerry Springer producer who has made outlandish claims against other celebrities, I just don't think it was going to go anywhere...

"Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguar...ent=safari

(November 5, 2016 at 7:29 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 7:13 am)Napoléon Wrote: And likewise you're a hypocrite because you'll go on about these allegations against Trump as though they're anything substantial, when the ones against B Clinton are far more worrying.

It's not hypocritical at all, because Bill is not on the ballot; Hilary is. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

If we have the misfortune of a Hillary presidency Bill will be living in the White House again and will more than likely play a big role in her administration. How many times will that have to be explained to you?

(November 5, 2016 at 7:29 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: It's not hypocritical at all, because Bill is not on the ballot; Hilary is. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

It's a fair point Bill isn't on the ballot but to pretend he doesn't have any involvement in this when he's Hillary's husband, and considering the current political role the 'first lady' plays, it's a little sketchy to ignore his controversies and then jump on Trumps for less.

I really dislike having to defend Trump. I agree with most of the opinions here on him.

However, as a man and father, on the issue of on the treatment of women and if one of my daughters were involved, Trump would have merely caught a beating whereas Bill's ticket to the next life gets punched. I really am surprised that Mrs Clinton can get any female to support her.

Also as a member of the military, Mrs Clinton's statements on Benghazi and the cluster there and her "what does it matter now" comments have never sat well with me. I also abhor her condescending attitude when questioned about her actions on the email situation.

Some also state there were no charges or evidence or blah blah blah. This is mere wordplay and truly does not imply innocence. In fact I suspect most of us think she is guilty as hell on all accusations known and even more unknown. Moreover my experience says this is guilt and someone just trying to skirt the accusations without outright lying. Where are the categorical denials of guilt or action? I believe in innocence until proven guilty but only in a court of law, our opinions do not require the same standard of proof.

(November 5, 2016 at 1:37 am)Cecelia Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 1:04 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: However I do believe he surrounds himself with top talent and will listen to and follow their council.

Do you live in some alternate reality?  Because that's the only thing that could possibly explain this stupid comment.  Trump doesn't listen to ANYONE.  His own campaign staff bemoan the fact that he won't listen to them.  He's so arrogant to think that he knows more than everyone--he knows more than the generals!  Did you miss that, or are you stuck in your own little world?

Yes he does: It's called Christianity.

My emphasis.

P.S. Cecelia, your post with your parody reasons for why Trump is awesome was utterly hilarious.

You're such an awesome poster. I hope you stay active here. I like you. You're cool.

(November 5, 2016 at 6:01 am)A Theist Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 5:42 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Understanding the definition of "positive case" should be a prerequisite for voting, maybe.

Understanding the definition of "consequences" if Hillary's elected should also be a prerequisite for voting.

And SteelCurtain's point was that a negative case against Hilary is NOT a positive case for Trump.

So yeah... understand the definition of a positive case.

(November 5, 2016 at 1:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 1:04 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote:  However I do believe he surrounds himself with top talent and will listen to and follow their council.

I think you're crediting his listening skills a touch too much, myself. He doesn't seem very able to handle contrary views or criticism.

I agree with you somewhat. He does not appear to handle criticism well on the fly and during the debates. However behind closed doors I do think he enlists quality advisors and does listen and consider their advice. He is after all a successful businessman.

As a retired USAF Firefighter I cannot fathom how you could consider a vote for Clinton. Not that you are, I do not know whom you are supporting for President.

(November 5, 2016 at 7:10 am)Napoléon Wrote: Because people like yourself just cannot stand a differing opinion.

Actually this describes you to a T. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You admitted it yourself which is why I posted about it in the hall of shame:

(June 25, 2016 at 4:53 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 2:23 pm)Napoléon Wrote: That actually makes me think you have more respect for me. I'd rather be told by someone that I'm a cunt than treated as if they respect my intelligence in one breath but in another telling me that what I think is stupid.

My bold. It's no better than the theists who take an attack on the stupidity of their religious beliefs as an attack on them as a person. There's loads of people I respect who have some opinions I think are stupid. Taking offence after being told "what I think is stupid" would be extremely pathetic thin-skinned and butthurt of me if I honestly meant it and disingenuous, insincere and resorting to feigning emotion to make an appeal to emotion like a sophist if I didn't honestly mean it. Either way it's worthy of the Hall of Shame for being so shamefully ridiculous and pathetic.

P.S. I think a lot of Napo's opinions are stupid... I should have just called him a cunt instead

The only person who can't stand a difference of opinion here is you. Clearly. And you even admit it. You said yourself here you'd rather I called you a cunt. You say yourself here that you'd rather someone insulted you than your opinions. That is not someone who is capable of debating. And this is why it's pointless ever arguing with your opinions and less of a waste of time if I simply laugh at them.

Quote: This forum never used to be such a circle jerk, but it seems you only ever post to join in on it.

Actually, you just label anyone who disagrees with you as being part of a circle jerk. I've never known anyone be so opinionated and hated it so much when others have opinions too and got all offended when others disagree with them... well, I've known a few people who have been close but you're the worst for it. You're so bad for it that you admit it... and then you seriously try to tell me that I'm the one who can't stand a difference of opinion? You're so full of shit.

It's hilarious that you always label others as butthurt when you're so butthurt you get more offended by a difference of opinion than being called a cunt. I can't disagree with you without hurting your fragile little ego because you can't stand it when people think your opinions are stupid. The truth hurts right? They are fucking stupid. That is me attacking your opinions, not you... but you wonder why I resort to laughing at you when you admit yourself that you're going to take it more personally whenever someone disagrees with or laughs at your opinions than when they insult or laugh at you anyways?

(November 5, 2016 at 7:10 am)Napoléon Wrote: You've obviously been bottling that up for a while, let it all out. 

I think you massively over-estimate how much I give a shit about you to be honest. There is no vendetta, I feel it's quite the opposite. Whenever I post you seem to have an opinion of your own to throw back at me, often without anything other than ad-homs or laughs like you did earlier in the thread. 

The only person being an arse in this thread is you to be fair. I never insulted you once here yet you come out with this tirade of shit against me. We obviously have different world views but you seem to be the only guy with a problem about it.

As for me being a cunt, a pisstaker, an asshole. Are you quite finished? Are are you not done undermining your own argument with your hypocrisy?

This is the kind of butthurt I love to be honest, you know why? Because people like yourself just cannot stand a differing opinion. This forum never used to be such a circle jerk, but it seems you only ever post to join in on it.

You're the best cunt, pisstaker and asshole. <3