Hillary Clinton 'convinced' Trump associates colluded with Russia

[Gabriel Maxwell]

You can call the criticisms excessive, hysterical, or anything else, but it doesn't take away from their validity.

I didn't actually have to. When there are biased sources around, such as crackpot Blanche and her manic ongoing obsession with "dirty lying whores", the inadequate magnitude of criticism speaks for the deteriorating state of mind of the source itself.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I didn't actually have to. When there are biased sources around, such as crackpot Blanche and her manic ongoing obsession with "dirty lying whores", the inadequate magnitude of criticism speaks for the deteriorating state of mind of the source itself.

I don't get the "Blanche" reference. Also, I thought he was being jokingly hyperbolic.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

"Stanley" is attempting holistic strawman argumentation. Because he knows he can't "win" the conversation any other way. He's done it before. It's his modus operandi of choice. To make up an accusatory alternative angle to the topic, really stick to it and try and pretend there's a history to it, try and get people on board with it, all to deflect from "Stanley's" weakness of character and weakness in his argument. Sociopaths do it in their sleep.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Perhaps Snarky despises those 'dirty lying whores' with a passion so much because he's one himself.

Sociopath? "Win"? Only one of us has a long history of chasing people who don't indulge his pomposity off Soapchat and it sure isn't me. He is projecting again.

I am however getting sick and tired of the conceited old bat, so I'll add myself to the list.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I'm surprised by this. I always thought you two liked each other, despite the occasional disagreement.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

For someone like me who's so often defended Hillary, it's so bizarre that some people can't understand even the effort to have balanced viewpoint about it.

Her lies about Sanders don't make her as bad as Trump --- or even close. But when she writes a book to explain who's guilty, it's valid to point out her selective fibs.

I'm surprised by this. I always thought you two liked each other, despite the occasional disagreement.

Sent you a PM.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Well, since this thread has already be de-railed....

Perhaps Snarky despises those 'dirty lying whores' with a passion so much because he's one himself.

Sociopath? "Win"? Only one of us has a long history of chasing people who don't indulge his pomposity off Soapchat and it sure isn't me. He is projecting again.

I am however getting sick and tired of the conceited old bat, so I'll add myself to the list.

Does someone recognize the description of themselves? Or maybe is able to dish it out but not take it -- while claiming to take it and not dish it out?

I've certainly been nicer to you than you've been to me -- I'm not sure why you started going after me in Spring 2016, targeting my posts and nearly every point I'd ever made, and you did so with impressive focus as if we'd just had a fight or a falling out (which we had not, though you later led others to believe that that had occurred).

But I realized immediately that you were not just another pissy troll demanding 24/7 praise for that old TV show. No, you were far smarter and made some near-brilliant posts. So once you'd decided something had "happened" and that you were going after me with some adrenaline, I simply shut down to it, placing you on "ignore" for a while, because I'd had too much respect for your commentary to participate in your strange and tiresome game -- and a game it indeed was.

And then the site crashed and died.

Once it was revived, you were back talking about me again, even though I'd given you no response for 6 months, suggesting it was time for me to move along with my "40,000 lost posts."

And while you were busy frenetically networking and schmoozing and trying to play the nice guy, you were the one posting on soapchat links to my various accounts around the Internet when you couldn't get my attention (which the admins had to take down) or elicit a response from me.

Then, later, you "apologized" after you'd received backlash from some posters, conceding that you'd been "mean" to me, and your claiming you "have these batshit crazy moments" when you "get unhinged." But of course I wasn't inclined to take that obvious bait -- at least not until another year later, and so here we are: Stanley and Blanche. With Stanley now claiming he's been driven off the site like so many other victims.

Sociopath?? I'm "projecting" that, am I? Well, you're sure somethin' not so great -- your charm and ubiquitous manipulation not withstanding.

Oh, and don't feel bad about being in your forties. It happens eventually. And I'm sure you're probably not conceited.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Last night, Hillary Clinton repeats "misogyny" assertion and discusses Putin:

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Well, since this thread has already be de-railed....

So, that's what it took to finally get you to speak to me directly, for the first time in 16 months.

I've certainly been nicer to you than you've been to me -- I'm not sure why you started going after me in Spring 2016, targeting my posts and nearly every point I'd ever made, and you did so with impressive focus as if we'd just had a fight or a falling out (which we had not, though you later led others to believe that that had occurred).

Your timeline is a little off. I did target your posts, but that was in the summer of 2016, primarily in July, weeks after you pushed the ignore button in mid May (4 months before the crash) following our argument over Jason Colby (of all the inanities to have an argument over).

I must have had heated arguments with almost everyone on this board (alexis, Gatsbyesque, Sid/BD, all the right-wingers, the list goes on), to think there was something personal about that one is nonsense. Yet you sent me a PM that weekend asking me why I was angry with you. I said I wasn't and apologized in case I came across that way. And how did you respond? By not responding at all and instantly putting me on ignore.

Respect for my posts, your behind. Your ego simply couldn't take that someone whose postings you had previously praised had the nerve to oppose you. And on the very sensitive issue of your beloved final season of 'that old show' you've spent 30 years highlighting.

I was initially shocked and hurt you did that. So that gave way to sadness, because I had always loved and valued your wit and eloquence and anticipated your posts with excitement. Sadly, the sadness ultimately turned to anger, hence my explicit attacks in July, later that fall and last Sunday in this thread. That doesn't excuse my behavior, but that's how and why it happened.

And then the site crashed and died. Once it was revived, you were back talking about me again, even though I'd given you no response for 6 months, suggesting it was time for me to move along with my "40,000 lost posts."

Hehehe... I did say that. That was one of those moments when I was angry over your ignoring me and wanted to hurt you. Sorry about that.

And while you were busy frenetically networking and schmoozing and trying to play the nice guy, you were the one posting on soapchat links to my various accounts around the Internet when you couldn't get my attention (which the admins had to take down) or elicit a response from me.

Then, later, you "apologized" after you'd received backlash from some posters, conceding that you'd been "mean" to me, and your claiming you "have these batshit crazy moments" when you "get unhinged." But of course I wasn't inclined to take that obvious bait -- at least not until another year later, and so here we are: Stanley and Blanche. With Stanley now claiming he's been driven off the site like so many other victims.

As wrong as you are on this whole 'sociopath' & 'twisted game for no reason' nonsense you concocted in your head as well as putting quote marks on my apology alleging it being disingenuous and only prompted by a backlash, I have to admit I like how you gave me calculated method and consistency, when there was none. I'd actually rather you think that than the more embarrassing truth of a spurned fellow poster incoherently switching between lashing out and genuinely being sad and apologetic.

I still see nothing wrong with posting your links from elsewhere on the web, as I said to Ome. It was publicly available content for everyone to see online, it's not like I posted your address or private telephone number. And I did so, because I feared we had lost you after the crash, like the wonderful Crimson, and genuinely wanted others to continue following your thoughts, especially after nuDynasty was announced. But you've made up your mind about me, so it's pointless now for me to try to convince you otherwise.

Sociopath?? I'm "projecting" that, am I? Well, you're sure somethin' not so great -- your charm and ubiquitous manipulation not withstanding.

Well, you must've got that somewhere. You are however right about my having a mental disorder, I do have to give you that. But you got your S wrong. I am schizoid, not a sociopath. Certain common traits aside, it's quite the polar opposite. Most importantly, I don't take pleasure in hurting people.

Regardless, I got you to speak to me again, after you had cut me off so abruptly, so I'm content now. I will not be bothering you again.

So long.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I sometimes think the people who bailed on Soapchat after the crash are the smart ones. I've tried to stay away, but hard as a I try, I just can't quit this place.

It's strange how relationships with people you only know online can become as complicated as those in the outside world. But I guess that's what happens when the same handful of people interact for a decade or more.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

So, that's what it took to finally get you to speak to me directly, for the first time in 16 months.



Your timeline is a little off. I did target your posts, but that was in the summer of 2016, primarily in July, weeks after you pushed the ignore button in mid May (4 months before the crash) following our argument over Jason Colby (of all the inanities to have an argument over).

I must have had heated arguments with almost everyone on this board (alexis, Gatsbyesque, Sid/BD, all the right-wingers, the list goes on), to think there was something personal about that one is nonsense. Yet you sent me a PM that weekend asking me why I was angry with you. I said I wasn't and apologized in case I came across that way. And how did you respond? By not responding at all and instantly putting me on ignore.

Respect for my posts, your behind. Your ego simply couldn't take that someone whose postings you had previously praised had the nerve to oppose you. And on the very sensitive issue of your beloved final season of 'that old show' you've spent 30 years highlighting.

I was initially shocked and hurt you did that. So that gave way to sadness, because I had always loved and valued your wit and eloquence and anticipated your posts with excitement. Sadly, the sadness ultimately turned to anger, hence my explicit attacks in July, later that fall and last Sunday in this thread. That doesn't excuse my behavior, but that's how and why it happened.



Hehehe... I did say that. That was one of those moments when I was angry over your ignoring me and wanted to hurt you. Sorry about that.



As wrong as you are on this whole 'sociopath' & 'twisted game for no reason' nonsense you concocted in your head as well as putting quote marks on my apology alleging it being disingenuous and only prompted by a backlash, I have to admit I like how you gave me calculated method and consistency, when there was none. I'd actually rather you think that than the more embarrassing truth of a spurned fellow poster incoherently switching between lashing out and genuinely being sad and apologetic.

I still see nothing wrong with posting your links from elsewhere on the web, as I said to Ome. It was publicly available content for everyone to see online, it's not like I posted your address or private telephone number. And I did so, because I feared we had lost you after the crash, like the wonderful Crimson, and genuinely wanted others to continue following your thoughts, especially after nuDynasty was announced. But you've made up your mind about me, so it's pointless now for me to try to convince you otherwise.



Well, you must've got that somewhere. You are however right about my having a mental disorder, I do have to give you that. But you got your S wrong. I am schizoid, not a sociopath. Certain common traits aside, it's quite the polar opposite. Most importantly, I don't take pleasure in hurting people.

Regardless, I got you to speak to me again, after you had cut me off so abruptly, so I'm content now. I will not be bothering you again.

So long.

So you came back anyway?

And I'm sure you took a few days to carefully compose the above post, to leave your version of what took place....

No, Stanley, you started going after me in April of 2016, not July 2016 "after" I'd put you on "ignore" ---- why would I put you on "ignore" before you started going after me ??

And we had a terrible fight over Jason Colby? Really?? I don't even recall the topic, and if we'd had a serious row over it, I'd remember.

And I "sent you a PM that weekend" asking why you were mad with me? And yet refused to respond to you because I had you on "ignore"? (That last part I remember).

Respect for my posts, your behind. Your ego simply couldn't take that someone whose postings you had previously praised had the nerve to oppose you.

Oh, really? I think I clearly respected your posts and said so publicly and enthusiastically. I've dealt with plenty of people on this board who "opposed" me --- almost everybody, at some point. No one agrees on everything. And, frankly, you and I seemed to agree about 95% of the topics, until you had your break in Spring 2016 and admitted you'd been criticizing the show "disingenuously" for ages just to please me in some way, and you felt, essentially, dirty for it and had no intention of doing it any longer.

So, I was like 'whaaaat??'

I was initially shocked and hurt you did that. So that gave way to sadness, because I had always loved and valued your wit and eloquence and anticipated your posts with excitement. Sadly, the sadness ultimately turned to anger, hence my explicit attacks in July, later that fall and last Sunday in this thread. That doesn't excuse my behavior, but that's how and why it happened.

Wow. You really are full of it.

And, no, it started in April 2016 which was when I put you on "ignore" and shut down to you totally for the next 18 months. You obviously have a reason for moving it forward to "July" -- and now I realize the role that shift has in your manufactured version of the narrative.

As wrong as you are on this whole 'sociopath' & 'twisted game for no reason' nonsense you concocted in your head as well as putting quote marks on my apology alleging it being disingenuous and only prompted by a backlash, I have to admit I like how you gave me calculated method and consistency, when there was none. I'd actually rather you think that than the more embarrassing truth of a spurned fellow poster incoherently switching between lashing out and genuinely being sad and apologetic.

Wow, again. Total malarkey.

I still see nothing wrong with posting your links from elsewhere on the web, as I said to Ome. It was publicly available content for everyone to see online, it's not like I posted your address or private telephone number.

And that says it all, even though you don't seem to realize it.

And I did so, because I feared we had lost you after the crash, like the wonderful Crimson.

You "feared" you had lost me after crash? Really? Is that what your taunting me was about and my "40,000 lost posts"? Not that I minded all that much, but it seemed an odd way to communicate your sense of -- ahemmm -- loss over my presence on the site ... especially since I hadn't responded to you in more than 6 months even then.

Well, you must've got that somewhere. You are however right about my having a mental disorder, I do have to give you that. But you got your S wrong. I am schizoid, not a sociopath. Certain common traits aside, it's quite the polar opposite. Most importantly, I don't take pleasure in hurting people.

Ahhh. the standard last minute confessional, designed to trick third party readers that you're on the up and up so they'll think the rest of your rewritten hogwash is objective and possibly accurate.

Regardless, I got you to speak to me again, after you had cut me off so abruptly, so I'm content now.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Last night, Hillary Clinton repeats "misogyny" assertion and discusses Putin:

Why don't these interviewers try to contradict her misogyny theory by pointing out the fact that she won the popular vote by three million votes? And that she "conveniently" lost the states she's heavily accused of ignoring?

Comey's influence is plausible. Russia's influence is plausible as well, but she undermines it. She talks about fake ads Russia released on Facebook, and we know there are gullible people out there who easily fall for fake news about Hillary. However, when it comes to the email leaks, the voters were being influenced by the DNC's closed door primary rigging and Hillary's admittance to having a private and public position on the issues. Nobody is condoning a foreign government illegally hacking and releasing private emails, but the content of those emails can't subsequently be disregarded. When Hillary accuses Putin of hating democracy, it comes off as hypocritical. The DNC's primary rigging led to a lawsuit that was dismissed, but not before a DNC lawyer admitted they can choose their nominee anyway they see fit. Not exactly champions of democracy themselves.

Hillary's also on record saying we should have prevented elections in Palestine unless we could control the outcome. She's also supported numerous wars across the Middle East that have led to regime change and destabilization. Destabilization is something she accuses Putin of doing to the US, and while I don't condone his methods by any means, it was a lot less bloody than our coups around the world.

And just so I'm clear, I'm not exposing Hillary's foreign policy or thoughts on meddling in a foreign election to dismiss what she has to say about Russia. I'm just showing what a hypocrite she is.

And for anybody who doubts that Hillary panders to SJWs, just listen to her slam Putin for "manspreading."

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Why don't these interviews try to contradict her misogyny theory by pointing out the fact that she won the popular vote by three million votes? And that she "conveniently" lost the states she's heavily accused of ignoring?

I know. There are gentle ways to phrase it so she won't slap you. Maybe.

Comey's influence is plausible. Russia's influence is plausible as well, but she undermines it. She talks about fake ads Russia released on Facebook, and we know there are gullible people out there who easily fall for fake news about Hillary. However, when it comes to the email leaks, the voters were being influenced by the DNC's closed door primary rigging and Hillary's admittance to having a private and public position on the issues. Nobody is condoning a foreign government illegally hacking and releasing private emails, but the content of those emails can't subsequently be disregarded. When Hillary accuses Putin of hating democracy, it comes off as hypocritical. The DNC's primary rigging led to a lawsuit that was dismissed, but not before a DNC lawyer admitted they can choose their nominee anyway they see fit. Not exactly champions of democracy themselves.

Hillary's also on record saying we should have prevented elections in Palestine unless we could control the outcome. She's also supported numerous wars across the Middle East that have led to regime change and destabilization. Destabilization is something she accuses Putin of doing to the US, and while I don't condone his methods by any means, it was a lot less bloody than our coups around the world.

And just so I'm clear, I'm not exposing Hillary's foreign policy or thoughts on meddling in a foreign election to dismiss what she has to say about Russia. I'm just showing what a hypocrite she is.

And for anybody who doubts that Hillary panders to SJWs, just listen to her slam Putin for "manspreading."

Yeah, her SJW terminology is pretty damning.

As I've said here and elsewhere, the things that were said about Hillary during the campaign were often awful, personal, and sometimes even untrue --- but Bernie Sanders never did that to her; everything he said was fair game.

And did Hillary just zone out when the Republicans had their laughable group debates, on and off the dais, for months as they accused each other of corruption sodomy, rape, ugly-wife-marrying, and assassinating JFK??

What was said about her was no worse than what's been thrown at her husband or President Obama for eons.

But it just seems worse because she thinks Mama ought not to have to face that kind of bullshit. And she genuinely doesn't know that it's not any different. It's female entitlement asserting that it's male entitlement.

Does she think Theresa May is so hated because she's a woman? Probably not, because Hillary's politics are ostensibly different, and Britain's had female prime ministers before.

And since Hillary won the popular vote by more than 3 million ballots and received more votes than anyone who's ever run for president, then where is the 'misogyny' in that??

Just because some of her detractors said sexist things, doesn't mean her being denied the White House was sexist. Was Barack Obama elected twice because of racism? Plenty of his non-fans have certainly said racist things about him. But as Obama himself stated, "I was black before the election."

Were the 24/7 attacks on and endless illegal investigations into Bill Clinton when he was president, and Reagan's not-to-protocol trashing of Jimmy Carter for all the world's problems for 8 years, examples of misandry??

Hillary's loss is about the electoral college which has always been there so white racists could subvert the will of the people, and still is.

But the reason Hillary puts so much blame on Bernie, and lies to do so, is because his criticism of her was accurate, fair and above board.

If Bernie "caused" her to lose the election, it's because she was too arrogant -- and still is -- to put him on the ticket with her. As soon as she named someone else, I suspected Trump's "win" was far more likely. And it was.

Sad.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And as a leftist who voted for Hillary twice and would likely do so again, it's interesting to be posting these conservative memes:

 

[SueEllenRules!]

it's interesting to be posting these conservative memes:

And yet, somehow entirely predictable.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And yet, somehow entirely predictable.

And why "predictable"? Sometimes you're like the liberal McGarrett.

Hillary (for whom I voted) is not a litmus test.

I'm the real leftist -- she's the faux leftist.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

And why "predictable"?

Two observations:

1) Listening to two men insist ad nauseam that sexism/misogyny played no role in the 2016 election is somewhat akin to hearing them declare that with modern medicine, there's no longer any pain involved when it comes to giving birth. But why ask a woman's opinion when you guys know from personal experience all there is to know on the subject?

2) It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between these posts and the dreck of the average unhinged Trump fiend I see posted elsewhere.

Sometimes you're like the liberal McGarrett.

Actually, that dubious honor may be yours. Except, of course, without the profound stupidity. And (I'm assuming), you wouldn't call me an AIDS-ravaged whore.

Hillary (for whom I voted) is not a litmus test.

I'm the real leftist -- she's the faux leftist.

If you say so. I'm finding it pointless to argue with someone who's in love with his own reflection.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Two observations:

1) Listening to two men insist ad nauseam that sexism/misogyny played no role in the 2016 election is somewhat akin to hearing them declare that with modern medicine, there's no longer any pain involved when it comes to giving birth. But why ask a woman when you guys know from personal experience all there is to know on the subject?

And neither BD Calhoun nor myself said sexism/misogyny "played no role" in the campaign.

Lots of sexist slurs were thrown her way, and we said so.

But how does someone claim misogyny cost her the election when she won more votes that anybody ever has?? It's the electoral college that's the problem.

And you think only women can make observations about sexism and misogyny? Really? And you think your childbirth analogy works? I don't doubt childbirth hurts, but am I, as a guy, qualified to say she experienced no pain in childbirth when she wasn't pregnant to begin with?

Do you really think women are always right and always truthful? Or that it's sexist to even ask such a question?

2) It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between these posts and the dreck of the average unhinged Trump fiend I see posted elsewhere.

That's because you're obviously not even reading what @BD Calhoun and I have been posting. There's a million miles of difference between what we post and the "average unhinged Trump fiend post" you see elsewhere--- for one thing, we both hate Trump.

But you seem to be too PC, too much about team colors.

The real world doesn't work that way.

Just because we call out Hillary on her lies about Bernie Sanders (and her inaccurate analysis of why the White House was snatched from her, and indeed it was) doesn't make us part of "the other side" -- even if your prefer that simplistic narrative.

Actually, that dubious honor may be yours. Except, of course, without the profound stupidity. And (I'm assuming), you wouldn't call me an AIDS-ravaged whore.

What makes you the liberal equivalent of McGarrett (and not me) is that you both view things from an extremist perspective.

Not all my opinions are tame, but I would never say you were comparable to an unhinged Trump fiends just because you criticized Hillary over something (although I'm unlikely to be tested on that, as I don't see you criticizing her on any point ever -- but feel free to prove me wrong).

That's like saying McGarrett is a"libtard Hillary fan" just because he criticized the GOP on something.

If you say so. I'm finding it pointless to argue with someone who's in love with his own reflection.

What does that even mean??

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Why don't these interviewers try to contradict her misogyny theory by pointing out the fact that she won the popular vote by three million votes?

It's been said by some former fans of the Clintons that while they were absolutely over-investigated in the '90s -- illegally and unConstitutionally, as it turns out -- that the experience made them jaded and cynical, the couple learning some of the wrong things from the experience and how power works.

And today, they're very, very sensitive to any criticism, instead of being more blase about it.

Comic Bill Maher recently said that while he was an out front defender of the Clintons in the '90s, including during Monicagate, and has defended them many times since (and they thought he was great, as a result) when he finally made a minor criticism about Hillary regarding policy a couple of years ago, the Clinton machine suddenly froze him out forever.

All of that rings true.

 

[Frank Underwood]

1) Listening to two men insist ad nauseam that sexism/misogyny played no role in the 2016 election is somewhat akin to hearing them declare that with modern medicine, there's no longer any pain involved when it comes to giving birth. But why ask a woman's opinion when you guys know from personal experience all there is to know on the subject?

Who the hell said it played no role? What we're saying is that it wasn't the defining role. Her popular vote win vs. electoral college loss tends to back us up.

And as far as knowing "all there is to know on the subject," I do know that Hillary and her supporters will cry sexism when criticized, but have no problem trashing their female detractors. Nina Turner, Jill Stein, and even Susan Sarandon have received a ton of hate from female Hillary supporters. But you don't hear them calling that misogyny, do you?

As I've said before, it's only misogyny when an old Jewish socialist attacks neoliberal women on policy and Wall Street.

I also remember you accusing me of not liking "highly capable women," even though I voted for a woman who is a Harvard educated doctor. So yeah, misogyny is often used disingenuously.