it's called chivalry

[Que]

but...but...bill was just being chivalrous when he lied, to protect hillary. same thing?

Sure. Absolutely.

No explain how he was protecting Hillary when he was asking staff to lie for him to investigators?

How about the quid pro quo of getting Monica a job so she would keep her mouth shut after being let go for sucking off the boss?

And of course that leaves off the actual sexual assaults of Bill Clinton the real me too moments that are nothing at all like consensual sex with a pornstar Well you aren't in a position of power who won't keep her mouth shut.

 

[Wrong Element]

The indisputable fact remains the Bill Clinton prove that you can get your dick wet while president with an intern and keep your job. Trump didn't give a s*** about whether voters knew that he'd f***** a pornstar. If anything that might have raised his status amongst potential voters. The one and only reason to bother to pay off Stormy Daniels was for the benefit of his family.

You actually believe this s***?

 

[Pookie]

You actually believe this s***?

It's pretty amazing to watch.

 

[sircumvent]

Trump had sex with a prostitute before he ever held public office. It's not like he got a blow job in a closet of the White House.

 

[Que]

I think the best way to handle this since the right has poutraged about Bill Clinton for almost 30 years to no avail that the left can get poutraged about Trump for 30 years and 30 years from now the first people on the right will finally acknowledge the Trump did something wrong.

Deal?

 

[Que]

You actually believe this s***?

You don't??

It was openly acknowledged that Trump was a sexist pig before he was elected. Stormy Daniels is not news from yesterday what's his approval rating right now with the people that put him in office?

 

[Comshaw]

Sure. Absolutely.

No explain how he was protecting Hillary when he was asking staff to lie for him to investigators?

Was that ever proven as a fact? NO!

How about the quid pro quo of getting Monica a job so she would keep her mouth shut after being let go for sucking off the boss?

Was that ever proven as a fact? NO!

And of course that leaves off the actual sexual assaults of Bill Clinton the real me too moments that are nothing at all like consensual sex with a pornstar Well you aren't in a position of power who won't keep her mouth shut.

Were they ever proven? NO!


I have no problem hanging any politicians ass (no matter the party) IF the charges against them are proven. Innuendo, suggestion, 'maybes' and manufactured 'I BELIEVE this is what happened so it must have' don't cut it. Clinton (both of them actually) have been thoroughly investigated many times over the years. After all that time and effort Bill was found guilty of one single thing. Yet you insist he was guilty of a plethora of charges that were investigated but found to have insufficient evidence to peruse. So allow me to ask, was it that the investigators ignored evidence in those cases, or that they were so incompetent as to stumble past it? Chose wisely because in the first case you admit the Republican investigators covered for Bill or in the second they were so incompetence as to not be able to see it when it was in front of them.


And while we're on this subject, why is the Donald so adamant about eliminating any investigation into this kind of thing? If he has nothing to hide he should welcome it to clear his name. If you think it is the 'deep state' that's trying to get him and that self same 'deep state' wields so much power and influence, why did they allow him to be elected in the first place? It seems to me it's much more complicated to remove him after the fact then to block his election to president.

You vacillate from one wild theory to another trying to find a way to make your illogical and totally incongruent thoughts and beliefs add up to a solid defense of what the Donald has done. IT CAN'T BE DONE! What is, is. Let the cards fall where they will.

After all that I'll add one last thing, It seems it's true, the only way to come out ahead when dealing with a fool is not to play.

TA


Comshaw

 

[Que]

FFS. It seems it's true, the only way to come out ahead when trying to defend an untenable position is not to play.

TA


Comshaw

FYP

Agreed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

FYP

Agreed.

Oh look, little Que can't use his trademark "I know you are but what am I?" defense, so he falls back to his patented changing the words of people he disagrees with and then criticizes them for "their" opinion.

#Weaksauce
#AscriptionAgain
#HeTriesSoooHard

 

[Comshaw]

FFS. It seems it's true, the only way to come out ahead when trying to defend an untenable position is not to play.

TA


Comshaw

FYP

Agreed.

Since I am not the one, in this discussion, using unproven allegations as a defense, since I am not the one using opinion as fact, since I am not the one unable to provide solid irrefutable proof that what I have said is true, please show me where my position is "untenable"?

I'll wait.

Thank you

Comshaw

 

[Que]

Since I am not the one, in this discussion, using unproven allegations as a defense, since I am not the one using opinion as fact, since I am not the one unable to provide solid irrefutable proof that what I have said is true, please show me where my position is "untenable"?

I'll wait.

Thank you

Comshaw

Historical facts are not "unproven allegations."

The fact that you are not aware of widely-reported historical facts is not exactly my problem.

Unless your standard is facts that anybody bothered to take to trial, in which case the only fact on the table is Clinton's perjury and there are absolutely zero facts about Trump.

 

[Comshaw]

Historical facts are not "unproven allegations."

The fact that you are not aware of widely-reported historical facts is not exactly my problem.

Unless your standard is facts that anybody bothered to take to trial, in which case the only fact on the table is Clinton's perjury and there are absolutely zero facts about Trump.

So let me see if I can understand your logic. Widely reported historical (and unsubstantiated) "facts" about Clinton should be believed and used against him, but widely reported (and yet to be substantiated) facts about the Donald shouldn't? So it's OK to do to Clinton, but not to the Donald? Why the disparity in the application of your standard? That's a rather hypocritical way to do it isn't it?

So let's look at your last statement. You're right that the only PROVEN fact was Clinton's perjury. However that came AFTER the investigation was complete, which found the rest of of the allegations you cited to be without merit. You're also right that so far there are zero facts about the Donald's actions. HOWEVER the investigation into the Donald and his nefarious dealings has yet to be concluded. Shall we wait to see what is drug from under the rock?

Either way you're still trying to apply a standard of judgement unequally.

Try again.


Comshaw

 

[Que]

Which part is "unsubstantiated?

It is an absolute verifiable fact that Clinton's underlings gave sworn testimony that he attempted to coerce them to lie for him. That's not an allegation that is a historical fact. If you don't like sworn testimony I guess I can't help you.

It is absolutely without dispute that Monica Lewinsky went to work for Revlon and that Vernon Jordan got her that job.

What part of any of that is an allegation?

You are absolutely full of shit that the investigation found those very active instances of obstruction of justice were "without merit." Since all that was needed was an impeachable offense and there's no question he committed perjury they went with that. That doesn't mean that he couldn't have been impeached on any number of easily verifiable, and more serious charges.

I'd like to see your citation where anyone involved with the investigation stated that any of those allegations were "without merit." That's your characterization not the characterization of the actual investigators involved.

The facts about what he actually did or not in any way in dispute or unknown. Any reasonable interpretation of those facts as to whether or not those known actions give rise to a charge of obstruction of justice would certainly show that they did.

You waving your arms around and saying that those allegations were without merit doesn't make it so.

 

[Liar]

Trump had sex with a prostitute before he ever held public office. It's not like he got a blow job in a closet of the White House.

And we can be pretty sure that hasn't happened, since he'd probably Tweet about it.

 

[schism666]

Which part is "unsubstantiated?

It is an absolute verifiable fact that Clinton's underlings gave sworn testimony that he attempted to coerce them to lie for him. That's not an allegation that is a historical fact. If you don't like sworn testimony I guess I can't help you.

It is absolutely without dispute that Monica Lewinsky went to work for Revlon and that Vernon Jordan got her that job.

What part of any of that is an allegation?

You are absolutely full of shit that the investigation found those very active instances of obstruction of justice were "without merit." Since all that was needed was an impeachable offense and there's no question he committed perjury they went with that. That doesn't mean that he couldn't have been impeached on any number of easily verifiable, and more serious charges.

I'd like to see your citation where anyone involved with the investigation stated that any of those allegations were "without merit." That's your characterization not the characterization of the actual investigators involved.

The facts about what he actually did or not in any way in dispute or unknown. Any reasonable interpretation of those facts as to whether or not those known actions give rise to a charge of obstruction of justice would certainly show that they did.

You waving your arms around and saying that those allegations were without merit doesn't make it so.

can you verify any of these verifiable acts, q?

 

[Comshaw]

Which part is "unsubstantiated?

It is an absolute verifiable fact that Clinton's underlings gave sworn testimony that he attempted to coerce them to lie for him. That's not an allegation that is a historical fact. If you don't like sworn testimony I guess I can't help you.

Since we have a difference of opinion and you are the one making the claim, PROVE IT.
If what you say is true, there should be enough excerpts from the investigation out on the internet to show me I'm wrong. So point them out. You prove it I'll admit I'm wrong.

It is absolutely without dispute that Monica Lewinsky went to work for Revlon and that Vernon Jordan got her that job.

What part of any of that is an allegation?

Whoa there my man. That wasn't your claim. You claimed that Clinton got Jordan to give her the job. Moving the goal posts doesn't work. So, if that was the case then prove it. I'll wait. Oh and someones opinion doesn't cut it. Anything from the investigation that mentions Clinton helping her get the job would.

You are absolutely full of shit that the investigation found those very active instances of obstruction of justice were "without merit." Since all that was needed was an impeachable offense and there's no question he committed perjury they went with that. That doesn't mean that he couldn't have been impeached on any number of easily verifiable, and more serious charges.

Really? You're going to try that? You really believe that they had a lot more serious charges but they let them slide because they had enough to impeach him with just the perjury charge? Really? FFS. Confirmation bias knows no bounds.

I'd like to see your citation where anyone involved with the investigation stated that any of those allegations were "without merit." That's your characterization not the characterization of the actual investigators involved.

Sorry but I have no citation of that. I don't believe anyone during the investigation said that and I don't believe any prosecutor or investigator would use that term .It was my characterization and mine alone. HOWEVER when a charge is investigated and then abandon it is in most intelligent peoples mind found to be without merit. I'm sorry if you are unable to wrap your head around that.

The facts about what he actually did or not in any way in dispute or unknown. Any reasonable interpretation of those facts as to whether or not those known actions give rise to a charge of obstruction of justice would certainly show that they did.

You waving your arms around and saying that those allegations were without merit doesn't make it so.

The facts are not in dispute. He was charged with one count of perjury and NOTHING else. In the light of the political atmosphere at the time had they found anything else, had they been able to prove anything else they would have charged him with it. They couldn't and didn't, it's as simple as that. And thank you for admitting as much and bolstering my point in your above statement by admitting that the evidence would have shown obstruction. Had it, Bill would have been charged with it. It didn't; He wasn't.

As far as waving my arms, I rarely do, unless I'm stoned and trying to fly, then I flap 'em like a headless chicken. I've never managed to lift off though. Go figure.


Comshaw

 

[Que]

Textbook GB. "Provenance for thee, but not for me!!"

 

[adrina]

Well that was lame. When asked to put up, to go with the hypocrisy attack.

Interesting.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Textbook GB. "Provenance for their, but not for me!!"

Provenance for their what?

 

[Comshaw]

Textbook GB. "Provenance for their, but not for me!!"

So I take it you refuse or can't back up your claims with a cite so you revert to insults? Figures. If you ever want to reclaim even a modicum of credibility please feel free to post your cites to prove your point. Anytime. Any time at all. Until then I'm afraid I'll have to take anything you say with, not a grain but a huge dose of salt.

Thank you


Comshaw

 

[Que]

So I take it you refuse or can't back up your claims with a cite so you revert to insults? Figures. If you ever want to reclaim even a modicum of credibility please feel free to post your cites to prove your point. Anytime. Any time at all. Until then I'm afraid I'll have to take anything you say with, not a grain but a huge dose of salt.

Thank you


Comshaw

You find me pointing out your hypocrisy insulting?

As I said textbook GB demand reems of citations from your opponent and refuse to provide anything to back up anything you're saying.

You as much as admitted that you made up the idea that those other charges had no merit. That went on in your own little head

Now you're wanting me to prove that there are actually are charges out there ...you know- the ones that must exist in order to "have no merit!" but don't exist unless I provide a citation. Isn't that awfully convenient for you but not for me. Sorry that I don't want to play your stupid little GB game that always results in one of you idiots slinking away after I bother to document. I could obviously link the starr report...I could go through it line by line pull out the various charges highlight them for you but why the f*** would I bother. It's public record. If you care look it up if you don't care shut the f******

 

[schism666]

Provenance for their what?

losing your child.

 

[Que]

Interesting Google quandary. Most writers when referring to Clinton's obstruction of justice simply refer to it as Clinton's obstruction of justice they don't say Bill Clinton or William Jefferson Clinton. They do the same with Hillary's multiple incidents of obstruction of justice.

I guess the couple that obstructs together avoids jail together. You would think that their good friend Donald J Trump would be better at it having watched them do it for decades now

 

[Que]

Those on the left are finally willing to admit that obstruction of justice was even a thing in the trial because they needed to be a thing in order to go after Trump:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/04/jeff-sessions-president-obstruct-justice-bill-clinton-278517

 

[Comshaw]

You find me pointing out your hypocrisy insulting?

As I said textbook GB demand reems of citations from your opponent and refuse to provide anything to back up anything you're saying.

You as much as admitted that you made up the idea that those other charges had no merit. That went on in your own little head

Now you're wanting me to prove that there are actually are charges out there ...you know- the ones that must exist in order to "have no merit!" but don't exist unless I provide a citation. Isn't that awfully convenient for you but not for me. Sorry that I don't want to play your stupid little GB game that always results in one of you idiots slinking away after I bother to document. I could obviously link the starr report...I could go through it line by line pull out the various charges highlight them for you but why the f*** would I bother. It's public record. If you care look it up if you don't care shut the f******

You were the one who made the claim. You are the one that needs to prove it. I need to do nothing but wait for your proof. And I did not admit I making up the idea that the charges you so conveniently manufactured out of thin air had no merit. What I said, and I'll repeat it slowly so maybe you can understand it this time, that I used the term no merit and that others did not, but I also added that ANYONE with half a brain and one good eye, when faced with the reality that a given charge was abandon, would understand that it had no merit, or in simpler language for those like you, that it did not have enough proof or factual backing to allow it to go forward. Is that better? Do you understand now or shall I try once more with even simpler language?

You've been trying to turn this on me and make it about what I said. It isn't. You made a claim. You need to prove it or shut the fuck up. It matters not at all what words I used, how I see it or my opinion on it. You opened your mouth and made a hard claim of fact that Bill Clinton was guilty of obstruction of justice and arranging a job for Monika to keep her quiet. So it's time. time for you to put up or shut up. Prove it and I will admit I am wrong and apologize. If you can't it's one more nail in the coffin of your credibility, which is quickly disappearing.

So you gunna man up and prove me wrong? Or keep on with the bullshit deflection? You have a chance here to make me look like an ass, or if you don't show every else what an ass you are. Which will it be?


Comshaw