Hillary Clinton calls out Trump's "sexism".

Announcements
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's almost as if the entirety of American politics is based upon trash talk as opposed to actual policies, weird.... -insert roll eyes here-
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Depends why you do it. Trump has a history of belittling Hilary due to her sex (and health).

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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 it is unique to degeneration? It could not be a symptom of anything else?

    I lol'd so hard at this bs.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    And you know it's due to her gender, how?
    Irrelevant to my correction of your post.

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And it is unique to degeneration? It could not be a symptom of anything else?

    I lol'd so hard at this bs.
    Many things could be. Clinton could be a Soviet agent or an alien. Some things are more consistent with the evidence than others.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    You are upset a politician is lying?

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    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.
    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...omen.html?_r=0

    That is as far back a April even.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Your burden of proof spiel is quite amusing when you do it against theists. And when you have a point.
    Burden of proof does not have a context requirement. It is fully relevant here.

    (Original post by yudothis)
    But when you are plain wrong it makes you look like a fool.
    Still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

    (Original post by yudothis)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us...omen.html?_r=0

    That is as far back a April even.

    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?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    Pretty much every politician is dishonest and a bad person. So I ask again, is that the only complaint you have against her?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Actually it does. If you yourself say something without proof then turn around and demand it from others.
    You're not really addressing my comment here. The concept of a burden of proof is not limited to theological debates; it can and is applied in any debate.

    (Original post by yudothis)
    Everything in that article constitutes evidence. Your refusal to accept that, doesn't mean anything.
    Hardly. You've quoted a well-known liberal outlet, written by two journalists who seem to be anything but unbiased in there approach:

    https://twitter.com/amychozick?ref_s...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
    https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker?re...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Moreover, the article is filled with opinions or interpretations by individuals; there is very little concrete fact to support misogyny. The most interesting fact about the article, however, is that it assumes Trump is a misogynist and goes on the analyse how it will hurt his strategy; the central theme is not to show how he is one.

    So, again, where is your evidence?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
What is your favourite day of the week
Useful resources
Study resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.