Hillary Clinton calls out Trump's "sexism".

The "right wing conspiracy theories" were originated by footage of her appearing to collapse while climbing stairs etc.

She "admitted" to having pneumonia after being filmed collapsing into a van.

Yes because then people started saying she had a degenerate disease so to avoid the plethora of retards in the population believing that, she admitted to having pneumonia.

I love how you put admitted into quotation marks. Cute.

Yes because then people started saying she had a degenerate disease so to avoid the plethora of retards in the population believing that, she admitted to having pneumonia.

I love how you put admitted into quotation marks. Cute.

Yes. And Pneumonia sticks with you for some time. I'm not denying she has pneumonia instead of some horrific disease - The problem is that, when accused of being sick, she went with a gaslighting strategy of simply dismissing anyone thinking she's sick of being a right wing nutjob. In my eyes, when it was proven she was sick, that hurt her far more than admitting she had pneumonia ever would.

It showed her to be capable of lying about miniscule things - Worse, of tarring an entire movement that disagreed with her politically when it turns out they were right.

That suggests a horrible temperament for governing. Trump isn't better - He's just more blunt about his lies.

Depends why you do it. Trump has a history of belittling Hilary due to her sex (and health).

Inability to climb stairs is not a symptom of pneumonia, it is a symptom of chronic muscular or neurological degeneration.

Clinton's people said nothing was wrong when she was observed suffering these symptoms.

When she collapsed at a later event, they could no longer say nothing was wrong, because it was obvious something was wrong. But collapsing at events is not a symptom of pneumonia, it is a symptom of chronic muscular or neurological degeneration.

On the other hand, pneumonia itself is a symptom of chronic muscular or neurological degeneration.

What we have observed and what Clinton has said is fully consistent with her having a degenerative condition, only partially consistent with her having pneumonia, and not really consistent with her only having pneumonia.

We also know that she is willing to lie about her health, because she admits lying about it, and we know that the media is helping her lie about it, because the media was posting stories about how it is definitely untrue that she has any health problems just the day before she admitted having a major health problem.

Granting we have incomplete information, Clinton's story might be correct, but it's smelling awfully fishy.

And you know it's due to her gender, how?

And it is unique to degeneration? It could not be a symptom of anything else?

I lol'd so hard at this bs.

I disagree a) it's her health, they should shut up about it b) they did make a conspiracy out of it, you can't deny that.

Also I find it weird that you would use this as the reason to say something about her role as president. The e-mail scandal would be a much more legitimate reason.

You find it weird that realizing that she lies about miniscule things and demonizes opponents who are actually correct indicates a poor temperament for the Presidency? Okay. I accept that you think it's weird.

As for your points:

a) Well, if she was to drop dead in the first 48 hours after being elected, it could be a problem and being dead might affect her ability to govern.

b) Funny you should say "They" made it in to a conspiracy. I assume you mean the right wing media who reported it. Actually, when the media report the truth, it is not a 'Conspiracy' in the modern sense of the word. It is a conspiracy to tell the truth in that case, but it is not a conspiracy in the 'Bad things' section of the word. In this case, Clinton and her handlers were involved in a conspiracy to cover up the fact that she had pneumonia for some bizarre reason.

I have made my dislike of Trump clear. If not, let me reiterate my statement: I do not like Trump. Clinton, however, is a Bad Person(tm, all rights reserved, copyright ThatOldGuy 2016). She lies - Apparently, about absolutely miniscule and unimportant things. And she's good at lying, because I believed her when she said she wasn't sick. But she was. And she lied about it, and demonized anyone who said she might be sick.

Irrelevant to my correction of your post.

I might as well equally ask how do you know it was not?

Is it? You stated that he has a history of belittling her based on her gender - how do you know this to be the case? The burden of proof lays with you as you made the statement.

You are upset a politician is lying?

I think you are lying to yourself about why you dislike her.

That's vague and intriguing. Why do you think I dislike her and are suggesting people vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson instead of Trump or Clinton?

I bet the answer will be both illuminating and interesting. Please, I would love to hear why you think I dislike her.

You are getting worked up over her lying. Pretty much all politicians lie and are mostly out for self interest. Which btw is why I personally did not vote in my country's last general election.

I never said I know why, I just said it's dishonest to say it's her lying, because that is not a unique feature of hers.

Your burden of proof spiel is quite amusing when you do it against theists. And when you have a point.

But when you are plain wrong it makes you look like a fool.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-women.html?_r=0

That is as far back a April even.

Ah. So it's a vague "You can't possibly dislike her due to her horrific track record with honesty. There must be another reason." type rebut. Well, I accept that criticism in the spirit in which it is given and can assure you that she has never killed my parents, nor set fire to my cat.

On topic, she is dishonest and a bad person. The Americans should just vote third party.

Burden of proof does not have a context requirement. It is fully relevant here.



Still waiting for you to prove me wrong.




Nothing in that article constitutes evidence of misogyny.

So I put it to you again: what evidence do you have to suggest your statement is fact?

Actually it does. If you yourself say something without proof then turn around and demand it from others.

Everything in that article constitutes evidence. Your refusal to accept that, doesn't mean anything.