Hillary called Black member of staff the &#x27;N-word&#x27;.

Original post by Connor27

Yet another reason why America is ****ed if either main candidate wins, vote Gary Johnson folks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

Skip to 10:30...but in watch it in general, too.

Reply 22

Aj12

18

Original post by Connor27

People make such a big deal about the Aleppo thing, but Johnson is a non-interventionist in foreign policy anyway, his knowledge of middle eastern geography is hardly important.

I'd rather have someone who is geographically ignorant like Johnson, than economically ignorant like trump (his economic plans literally make no sense) , or morally bankrupt like Hillary (Benghazi would've never happened under a libertarian administration)

He actually does believe in certain interventions and has stated he'd likely keep troops in the middle east, just nowhere else. So I imagine his command of geography could be important.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

username2053059

Original post by Connor27

Yet another reason why America is ****ed if either main candidate wins, vote Gary Johnson folks

He didn't know what Aleppo was, couldn't name a single foreign leader and doesn't know who Kim Jong Un is. No chance.

Reply 24

anosmianAcrimony

Oh, give it up. You can't possibly sling enough mud at Hilary to stop her winning the election at this point.

Reply 25

Dodgypirate

OP

6

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Oh, give it up. You can't possibly sling enough mud at Hilary to stop her winning the election at this point.

I hope you choke on your words when she doesn't.

Reply 26

Sounds like one of those things that some minor official who once interacted with the Clintons for 30 seconds out of 10 years in the job makes up to try to sound clued in. I also very much doubt that they used the word 'servant' or treated staff in that way, the Clintons were very well liked in the White House by black staffers and praised for their non-racist attitudes and dealings by many black people.

Reply 27

Original post by Aj12

One claim of someone being called a niggar vs 8 counts of sexual harassment. Why would you even try to compare that?

Posted from TSR Mobile

They're both just unsubstantiated claims, appearing years after the event suspiciously close to an election. Both should be given pretty much no weight.

Reply 28

Original post by Observatory

They're both just unsubstantiated claims, appearing years after the event suspiciously close to an election. Both should be given pretty much no weight.

There are too many claims of sexual harassment against Trump and from too many disparate sources to just brush them off as election stunts. There is also a history with Trump and they align with his own public, on the record, extremely sexist remarks, including about his own daughter and about his future sexual plans towards a girl who was 10 at the time at a public event in front of her.

Pull the other one basically.

Reply 29

Original post by Fullofsurprises

There are too many claims of sexual harassment against Trump and from too many disparate sources to just brush them off as election stunts.

If you wanted to make a complaint you wouldn't wait until tens year later when it can caused maximum political damage to someone who wasn't a politician at the time he allegedly attack you. These complaints are almost certainly made up, and it's not much harder to make up eight (or whatever) complaints than one.

There is also a history with Trump and they align with his own public, on the record, extremely sexist remarks, including about his own daughter and about his future sexual plans towards a girl who was 10 at the time at a public event in front of her.

Pull the other one basically.

Trump's other statements might be objectionable in their own right but tactical accusations add nothing more to them.

Reply 30

ftw93

1

Original post by Fullofsurprises

There are too many claims of sexual harassment against Trump and from too many disparate sources to just brush them off as election stunts. There is also a history with Trump and they align with his own public, on the record, extremely sexist remarks, including about his own daughter and about his future sexual plans towards a girl who was 10 at the time at a public event in front of her.

Pull the other one basically.

Lmao, most of them have never even met Trump and have dubious connections to the Clinton foundation

Reply 31

Original post by Observatory

If you wanted to make a complaint you wouldn't wait until tens year later when it can caused maximum political damage to someone who wasn't a politician at the time he allegedly attack you. These complaints are almost certainly made up, and it's not much harder to make up eight (or whatever) complaints than one.

Trump's other statements might be objectionable in their own right but tactical accusations add nothing more to them.

'Objectionable' hardly covers it - outrageous and disgusting might be closer to the mark. Also, you don't know much about women and power relations between someone like him and ordinary women if you think it's easy to report problems for us.

Oh and of course Trump's former wife Ivana is amongst the complainants. During a deposition in the 1990s, she explained how her former husband violently raped her.
http://qz.com/804486/the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault/

Reply 32

Original post by ftw93

Lmao, most of them have never even met Trump and have dubious connections to the Clinton foundation

Stop making stuff up, there is plentiful evidence of their relationships with Trump in all of the cases.

Do you feel that Ivana had no relationship with Trump when she was married to him and he raped her? Perhaps she was working for the Clintons at the time. :lol:

Reply 33

nicnivina2818

3

why are sucking politicians dicks and pussies they arent there to help you you guys are idiots for voting them mind your own business

Reply 34

elen90

12

It's totally out-of-character, and if this had happened I'm fairly certain that we would have heard about it a lot sooner. This is a last-minute attempt to smear the Clinton campaign.

Reply 35

Original post by Fullofsurprises

'Objectionable' hardly...

Whatever. It has nothing to do with what I said and nothing to do with the thread topic.

Reply 36

AlexanderHam

19

Original post by Connor27

People make such a big deal about the Aleppo thing, but Johnson is a non-interventionist in foreign policy anyway, his knowledge of middle eastern geography is hardly important.

What a ludicrous position to adopt. You're saying that Gary Johnson would be so isolationist that he doesn't really need to be even basically well-informed about the world? Even if the US chose not to get involved in certain things, they would still have a relationship with other countries, they would still need to collect information, they would still need to adopt a position in various world affairs. Being led by a man who is so insular and poorly-informed that he didn't even know what Aleppo is... well, it's idiocy.

morally bankrupt like Hillary (Benghazi would've never happened under a libertarian administration)

Why do rightists always push on this "Hillary so corrupt, so evil" angle? Nobody has ever been able to point out anything of that sort that Hillary has ever actually done, it's all ludicrous conspiracy theories (like that Bill and Hill had Vince Foster killed).

As for Benghazi, how exactly is Clinton to blame? It sounds like you're just parroting talking points you've picked up from American websites, but you don't really understand them or the underlying issue. It was the Republicans who refused Clinton's requests for additional funds for embassy security; it was the Republicans who not only refused those requests, but cut State Department funding for security.

And the fact is that the world is not a 100% "safe space" as you seem to want it to be. Sometimes it is a dangerous place, sometimes bad things happen. The State Department made a valid decision that the Benghazi legation had to be small and low profile; that is a legitimate judgment in the conduct of a foreign policy. The people who are to blame are the Al-Qaeda criminals.

There have been 9 congressional investigations into Benghazi, not one has found any smoking gun against Clinton. If anything they have served to confirm Clinton's position. This is why Ambassador Stevens mother has been speaking out against Trump and the rightists, about how they are disgracefully using her son's death for political purposes, about how Trump and the rightists want to ride Stevens' body all the way into the White House.

But you don't seem to realise, the hysteria with which you perceive Benghazi is not shared by the vast majority of normal, sane Americans. And it's the fixating on these non-issues that are why Trump is losing so badly and Johnson is a complete non-entity

Reply 37

Retired_Messiah

21

Original post by Connor27

Yet another reason why America is ****ed if either main candidate wins, vote Gary Johnson folks

Gary Johnson's **** too.

Reply 38

Original post by Observatory

Whatever. It has nothing to do with what I said and nothing to do with the thread topic.

Not sure how you got there. You said that the allegations from all those women had the same dodgy status as this allegation against Hillary. I showed that this is not true and you then rejected the premise of the conversation. Are you sticking by your assertion that all these women, including Trump's former wife, made up the allegations against him?

Reply 39