Can you explain why Hillary sucks?

[Aroura]

I never said you called her bitchy. Someone else did that, not every comment I made responding to other people is about you.

Then you should consider making that a separate section of your reply, or a separate post altoghter, instead of quoting me and then putting that into that specific reply.

And your initial responses to my I query were not about policy, but about her lying and her personal life. So I responded to those. You didn't say anything about any of that other stuff you just listed, so don't move the goalposts now. I mean, great, if you also feel that way, but we were talking about your initial comment and my initial response.

Of course, and that's because even though I find some of her policies unpalatable, my biggest objection to her is a matter of character. It's not "moving the goalposts" -- which fallacy you're deploying wrongly, because I'm not asking you to prove something and then raising the bar -- but rather, fleshing out my response.

I'm not in this thread to talk about Trump, why even bring that up? Can we not talk about Clinton without always bringing him UP? This is a thread about Clinton, so I'm in this thread to talk about why people hater her. And I've never defended her on anything except personal attacks, nor would I Harang anyone who isn't voting for her. Your vote your choice. I'm not even a fan of hers, I just asked a question!

I'm not asking you simply about this thread. Can you link to any post of yours at all wherein you defend Trump by asserting that folks are attacking his character rather than his policies?

My point, since you obviously missed it, is that you're applying a double-standard. It's okay, apparently, by your lights, to attack Trump on grounds of character, but should someone be cautious of Hillary on the same grounds, suddenly that's not a good reason.

I asked why people don't like her, requested good policy reasons. I'm honestly curious, and a few people have given me good answers. So I do appreciate that.
I don't really appreciate you flipping out, but I see you felt attacked, so you went on the attack. I'll try not to take it personal.

I didn't feel attacked -- I was attacked. You treated me as a statistic and not a person, making a negative assertion about me, and when I defended my own character, you call it "flipping out". No, I'm not "flipping out" -- I'm standing up against an attack on my individual character, a baseless attack that you cannot support with any post of mine. Hopefully next time you'll know better than to put someone into a box based on a study you've read and an opinion you don't like.

You shouldn't take any of this personally ... but you should think about this exchange, and ponder what you yourself can do better next time in order to abet the conversation better. Not making baseless assumptions about people might be a good start. Give it a try!

pps, I have a hard time with the quote system on my tablet. That being said, my comment about people calling her bitchy and such was NOT in a response to any quote from you. Go back and read it. It's a stand alone comment with no quote at all. A separate post altogether is what I made, just as you suggest here, so why are you saying it was in response to you.

Also, I do think it's fine to attack Hillary on grounds of character. Character matters. I just personally found her sticking with Bill to be a really strange thing to pick out, as I don't see how it demonstrates any negative character attribute. In and of itself, it seems ballsy to me if anything. Power hungry is what all presidential candidates are, so I was confused as to why you were attaching one to the other in a negative way.

Where you equally upset when Bill didn't leave her even though he doesn't care enough about her to be Faithful? It's ok for him to stay with her, but not the other way around? This is a question, not an assumption!

Her basket of deplorable comment, or her reputedly telling security to fuck off seems more relevant to negative character.