• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary must ‘prove she’s not crooked’ because Trump named her ‘Crooked Hillary'



Fox host: Hillary must ‘prove she’s not crooked’ because Trump named her ‘Crooked Hillary’


So you call someone crooked and THEY have to prove it not to be true?

Fox has outdone themselves. Faulkner is insane.
First of all, I wish your link had taken me right to her saying that rather than forcing me to listen to over 3 minutes of the rest of them drone on, but I think the point she was getting at is that Hillary will have to come up with some sort of response. Sort of the way Jeb had to try and demonstrate that he wasn't 'low energy.' She is better off not responding, but there will be a certain amount of damage inflicted by Trump repeatedly linking the words 'Hillary' and 'crooked' over the next six months.'
 
Yes. But what "every human does" doesn't affect ALL the other humans like what a politician does.

So they should be held to a higher standard.

Oh, because they are looking after themselves that way...they owe you?

All humans are concerned more with themselves and their families...than with others.

The electorate has got to learn to live with that.

If you are suggesting we humans ought to demand more of all humans...I agree.

Perhaps at some point we will become the intelligent creatures we dare to assume we are.
 
No. I would not. You haven't been paying attention to how I post. Wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it.

:fueltofir for your straw man argument.

All I can do is make a guess...

...and my strong guess is: BALONEY!
 
But I still have my integrity.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary or Trump. Principles matter to me. Liberals sold theirs down the river a long time ago.

Oh for ****'s sake, the high and mighty bull**** doesn't hunt. Whomever you vote for will have their faults. The steamy pile you're shoveling isn't fooling anyone.
 
Bill was the centrist out of necessity, Hillary was not and probably is not. Of the two, she seemed to enjoy wielding power more, and that's fairly scary right there.

Thing is, no matter where Hillary stands, and I am not a supporter of hers, when one looks at the four candidates which is the closest to center? It is not Cruz and it sure is not Sanders and Trump does not even know where or what the center is. When it comes down to it the Establishment will be fine with her being elected when the alternatives are Trump, Sanders and Cruz, all of which are outsiders and all would upset the status quo. Just to be clear, when I say the Establishment I mean both the Dem and Repub Establishment and that being the case they will ensure she is the on being sworn in to office next year. Welcome to How The World Turns.
 
Oh, because they are looking after themselves that way...they owe you?

All humans are concerned more with themselves and their families...than with others.

The electorate has got to learn to live with that.

If you are suggesting we humans ought to demand more of all humans...I agree.

Perhaps at some point we will become the intelligent creatures we dare to assume we are.

A noble thought for sure. We are concerned with our immediate needs, nothing wrong with that. It is called self preservation, self and family overrides much else. Far sighted people must realize that self can't provide everything, and we are linked to one another. If we as a society are well off, the individual members of said society will improve their lives by far greater measure. Jfft.
 
A noble thought for sure. We are concerned with our immediate needs, nothing wrong with that. It is called self preservation, self and family overrides much else. Far sighted people must realize that self can't provide everything, and we are linked to one another. If we as a society are well off, the individual members of said society will improve their lives by far greater measure. Jfft.


I agree with that completely, Lovebug. And if we do move toward the intelligence we suppose we have...we will all finally recognize that.
 
Oh for ****'s sake, the high and mighty bull**** doesn't hunt. Whomever you vote for will have their faults. The steamy pile you're shoveling isn't fooling anyone.

Please allow me an amen here, Cat.

AMEN!
 
First of all, I wish your link had taken me right to her saying that rather than forcing me to listen to over 3 minutes of the rest of them drone on, but I think the point she was getting at is that Hillary will have to come up with some sort of response. Sort of the way Jeb had to try and demonstrate that he wasn't 'low energy.' She is better off not responding, but there will be a certain amount of damage inflicted by Trump repeatedly linking the words 'Hillary' and 'crooked' over the next six months.'

Does anybody really believe the mud slinging no matter where it is from though? I am thoroughly turned off any time I see somebody alter a person's name to something unappealing or derogatory, or the stupid juvenile insults that are slung on message boards, in the media, by talking heads, and the candidates themselves. Such stuff makes me more sympathetic to the person they are directed at.

For example, the only people who are affected by Jeb being characterized as 'low energy' are those who have already come to that conclusion. Those just shrug and move on. The rest of us, and even some of those who agree, however, are often turned off by such an unnecessary characterizations. Some of us--I hope a LOT of us--are turned off by and are unaffected by the mud slinging everywhere anyway. It is fair game to say that most people think Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy. That is the truth. But what does 'crooked Hillary' mean? It's just a childish insult. But I guess it works with low information voters maybe.
 
Does anybody really believe the mud slinging no matter where it is from though? I am thoroughly turned off any time I see somebody alter a person's name to something unappealing or derogatory, or the stupid juvenile insults that are slung on message boards, in the media, by talking heads, and the candidates themselves. Such stuff makes me more sympathetic to the person they are directed at.

For example, the only people who are affected by Jeb being characterized as 'low energy' are those who have already come to that conclusion. Those just shrug and move on. The rest of us, and even some of those who agree, however, are often turned off by such an unnecessary characterizations. Some of us--I hope a LOT of us--are turned off by and are unaffected by the mud slinging everywhere anyway. It is fair game to say that most people think Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy. That is the truth. But what does 'crooked Hillary' mean? It's just a childish insult. But I guess it works with low information voters maybe.
No, the one effected by the 'low energy' label was Jeb Bush. It stuck and it worked. Will the 'crooked' label work with Hillary. I guess we will have to wait and see.
 
I couldn't vote for either one. Satan and Hitler are not a choice.

The Bible predicted the apocalypse. This is a clear sign it's on the horizon.

Every generation has people arrogant enough to think God wants to end the world during their tiny little lifespan.
 
No, the one effected by the 'low energy' label was Jeb Bush. It stuck and it worked. Will the 'crooked' label work with Hillary. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Hillary has been tarred by the right with so many epithets, it is a difficult task to list them.

Some may hold...and I imagine they will be used during her presidency...starting right from next January.

I get a kick out of 'em...and suspect she does also. Nothing better than seeing an opponent sweat...and that is what those epithets look like to anyone looking at them objectively.

The people hurling them are showing they are sweating.
 
No, the one effected by the 'low energy' label was Jeb Bush. It stuck and it worked. Will the 'crooked' label work with Hillary. I guess we will have to wait and see.

It stuck because no one wanted another Bush after the disaster of the last one. It really didn't matter what Trump said. The Bush name is now MUDD and rightly so. The Clinton name belongs to the most admired and popular President of our generation. Big difference.
 
You hit the nail on the head there. 50% don't pay income tax because they don't make enough to pay. We need to change that and we will. I will warn you that there will be no getting in our way either. We will drag you kicking and screaming into a better world if we have to.

No, you won't. We will win again. For the 1,000th time. That'll never change.
 
No, the one effected by the 'low energy' label was Jeb Bush. It stuck and it worked. Will the 'crooked' label work with Hillary. I guess we will have to wait and see.

The label might have stuck, but the impression of Bush was mostly unaffected by it. A lot of us had come to the conclusion that enthusiasm was lacking and his heart wasn't really in it. So when the 'low energy' label was offered to describe that, a lot of folks used it to describe the syndrome. It was confirmed IMO when he gave up so quickly. I don't think such labels have any effect unless people already believe them.

But is describing somebody as 'low energy' really mud slinging? It is a pretty benign criticism just as is stating that a person doesn't have the education or experience or temperament to be President. Describing Hillary as unconvincing or inconsistent or a flip flopper or wall street benefactor is vastly different than calling Hillary a liar or crooked. Do I believe she will ignore a law if it is to her benefit and she expects to get away with it? Sure. But most people don't know her history that well or why the label of 'crooked' is perhaps at least somewhat accurate. So. . .

I don't think Trump's 'crooked' label for Hillary will have any effect other than to possibly generate sympathy for her. If he had used the term 'untrusted' or 'untrustworthy', a characteristic already widely accepted by even some of her supporters, it might have had more of the desired effect.
 
No, you won't. We will win again. For the 1,000th time. That'll never change.

I hope you don't think the GOP is going to win this cycle. you are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. But then again you must be getting used to that.
 
So bush* really did plan 9/11!!!

Smoke? You see smoke there? But, of course, that is for another time. He is not presently looking for power. The woman is.
 
All I can do is make a guess...

...and my strong guess is: BALONEY!

Ya know Frank, step off. Don't make it personal. You do not know enough about me to begin to make that call, so you put up or shut up.
 
That anyone would pick Kasich just shows the knowledge gap.

Kasich is more likeable to people than Trump Cruz and Hillary

Kasich has more experience in what the country really needs now in a president than any of the other candidates of both parties.
At least from my perspective.
 
She's currently under a Criminal FBI investigation.

She set up a personal Email server for the explicit purpose of circumventing FOIA and Subpoena document request of Govt documents

She deleted tens of thousands of Emails and then had her Server " wiped " before turning it over to the authorities

Hell yea she's crooked.

With near absolute certainty.
 
Ya know Frank, step off. Don't make it personal. You do not know enough about me to begin to make that call, so you put up or shut up.

Don't make it personal?????

You wrote: "Except what Hillary is lying about regards deaths and millions of dollars in possible quid pro quo."

That's pretty personal.

So...???
 
Back
Top Bottom