The Hillary Thread II

[pErvinalia]

...

[Forty Two]

How about Clinton has her own issues, and own reasons to be mocked, which have nothing to do with Trump or Republicans, and there is nothing with raking them over the coals. Both sides, obviously, use attacks on their opposition to divert attention from their own defalcations. Of course that occurs.

But, again - this is one thread about Hillary, and there are plenty about Trump and Republicans. No shortage at all. What's the problem, again?

Trump is president. Clinton isn't a serving politician. One is the most influential person in the world, the other has very little, if any, influence.

Threads may only persist if they involve Presidents or other serving politicians? Nobody else is newsworthy or involved in politics or current events? The existence of a single thread depends on the influence of the person under discussion?

Did I say any of this?

In response to my question "what's the problem [with there being a Hillary thread]?" you responded: "Trump is president. Clinton isn't a serving politician. One is the most influential person in the world, the other has very little, if any, influence." So apparently, the problem is that Clinton isn't a serving politician and has little influence, therefore, you're griping that other people are posting in a Hillary thread. However, you're not griping in the myriad other threads about non-politicians of less than zero influence.....

By the way, this thread was created in December 2016 and was a continuation thread from the original Hillary thread which was started in August 2016, by me. Nobody else had thought to create a Hillary thread, although there were other threads created to mock and criticize other candidates. The first thread was "tied off" in December, 2016. So this one was created to continue the discussion.

What does that have to do with you still generating content long after Hillary has disappeared?

She hasn't disappeared. Maybe in the Ozzie Outback, but not here. Again, this is why people participate in threads they're interested in, and mostly don't try to ruin other people's threads with constant griping and moaning over the fact that there are threads on topics they're not interested in.

There are many, many threads about the President and nobody is complaining about their existence. Nobody is demanding that they be merged together so they don't have to look at them. There is nothing wrong with having 10 threads about Trump and one about Hillary, but it's a bit silly to suggest that Hillary Clinton doesn't even merit discussion on a single, general thread.

Its not silly when there's a general trend on the right to use Hillary as a red herring to distract from the disaster that Trump is.

It is silly, because here it is one thread. And, both sides use criticism of the other side to distract from their own bullshit. During the campaign, plenty of people ignored Hillary's defalcations and distracted from them by pointing to Trump's gaffes and improprieties. So what? It's still o.k. to have threads about them. There is nothing wrong with breaking HIllary Clinton's balls, is there? Or, is there?

Fuck, somebody started a thread in the News section about a peacock which damaged a liquor store, doing $500 in damages. Are you on that thread bemoaning its lack of news worthiness?

No, because that thread isn't part of an effort to distract from the incompetence of the most powerful person in the world. This is pretty simple stuff. Even you should be able to understand it.

You declaring that "The Hillary Thread" is part of an effort to distract doesn't make it so. That's what you think it is. But, just because some on the right focus on Hillary to try to get people to ignore Trump's defalcations does not mean it's not relevant and newsworthy to have a thread about Hillary Clinton here. As bad as Trump may be, Hillary Clinton is a fucking scumbag.

Or, is Hillary's worthiness now below that of animals destroying a modest amount of property? You yourself started a thread in the New, Current Events and Politics section about things Australia apparently does better than the Netherlands. Do we need that thread? You also created another thread called "Straya" about Australia. Not sure why "we" needed a second thread after that about how Straya beats the Netherlands, but you seemed to think there was no impropriety in creating multiple threads about it.

Your dishonesty is staggering. You know very well why these events are totally unrelated to you constantly going on about Hillary to distract from Trump.

Fuck off, man. Just fuck off. You're sitting here trolling threads you don't like, trying to clog them up with your cockamamie bullshit about how you don't think "we" should be talking about Hillary here. LOL.

Don't get me wrong, you can do as you please. But there is something really weird about someone who spends most of their time on a discussion board, as you do, trying to ruin threads you don't like. Maybe it would be good to have an omnibus thread about topics that people think are done or not worthy of threads on Rationalia. Then you could rail against threads that don't interest you to your hearts content.

God you are a whiner. I'm not trying to ruin anything other than your disingenuousness.

That is your avowed purpose, so stop lying. You have said, literally, that you troll people to drive them off forums. It's part of your modus operandi to "ruin" things for people you don't like.

How about this solution: you go posts in threads you like, and threads you don't like, just avoid them, unless you have something to say about them. I won't go to your threads and complain about how stupid they are, and you stay away from threads you don't think "we" need to be talking about? Fair?

[pErvinalia]

Don't get me wrong, you can do as you please. But there is something really weird about someone who spends most of their time on a discussion board, as you do, trying to ruin threads you don't like. Maybe it would be good to have an omnibus thread about topics that people think are done or not worthy of threads on Rationalia. Then you could rail against threads that don't interest you to your hearts content.

God you are a whiner. I'm not trying to ruin anything other than your disingenuousness.

That is your avowed purpose, so stop lying.

For the 48th un-addressed time it's not. When the fuck are you going to learn enough English and logic to understand this?

[Forty Two]

You're not telling the truth.

[pErvinalia]

Proof... who needs it?

[Forty Two]

LOL, certainly not you.

[Forty Two]

[pErvinalia]

LOL, certainly not you.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... a#p1700164

[Forty Two]

LOL, certainly not you.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... a#p1700164

It's funny that you think that's some kind of damning bit of information. You are myopic.

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

...the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

In

early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/c ... ml?mcubz=1

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

The Hildebeast. LOL

https://www.theguardian.com/world/short ... arack-bill

[L'Emmerdeur]

Sweet! let's revisit 3 years ago.

'Betteridge's law of headlines'

'Edward Klein: the difference between the truth and a lie'

[pErvinalia]

But her emails?!!!