laklak wrote:Evidently not.

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:...going around whining about someone displaying sociopathic behavior, then meeting those same standards themselves.

Which standards of "sociopathic behavior" have I met?

SafeAsMilk wrote:...just thought I'd bring it to your attention so you could try to have even the vaguest modicum of consistency to your absurd hysterics

I have been consistent. I've been consistently anti-Clinton, and in numerous posts I've motivated exactly why.

Posts are not evidence of "sociopathic behavior" or "absurd hysterics" simply because you don't agree with the viewpoint being put forward.

quas wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:...going around whining about someone displaying sociopathic behavior, then meeting those same standards themselves.

Which standards of "sociopathic behavior" have I met?

Only an antisocial asshole would criticise Clinton as vehemently as you do.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:...going around whining about someone displaying sociopathic behavior, then meeting those same standards themselves.

Which standards of "sociopathic behavior" have I met?

Well you've bitched endlessly about how evil and sociopathic she is for laughing at the death of the dictator, murder and serial rapist Gaddafi. Well, if expressing joy at the demise of such a horrible human being, surely by your standards that makes you a monster for joyfully dehumanizing Hillary with creative-for-toddlers terms like "psycho cunt".

quas wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:...going around whining about someone displaying sociopathic behavior, then meeting those same standards themselves.

Which standards of "sociopathic behavior" have I met?

Only an antisocial asshole would criticise Clinton as vehemently as you do.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:...going around whining about someone displaying sociopathic behavior, then meeting those same standards themselves.

Which standards of "sociopathic behavior" have I met?

Well you've bitched endlessly about how evil and sociopathic she is for laughing at the death of the dictator, murder and serial rapist Gaddafi. Well, if expressing joy at the demise of such a horrible human being, surely by your standards that makes you a monster for joyfully dehumanizing Hillary with creative-for-toddlers terms like "psycho cunt".

...joyfully dehumanizing Hillary...

...creative-for-toddlers terms like "psycho cunt".

SafeAsMilk wrote:Nothing you've presented is evidence of sociopathic behavior either, but that's never stopped you from foisting the label on others. Your posts aren't absurd hysterics because I disagree, it's because they're absurd, hysterical ravings based on nothing but your personal distaste for an individual. You'll regurgitate literally anything that supports your ridiculous vendetta, no matter how lacking the evidence is and no matter how thin the reasoning may be.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

quas wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:...going around whining about someone displaying sociopathic behavior, then meeting those same standards themselves.

Which standards of "sociopathic behavior" have I met?

Only an antisocial asshole would criticise Clinton as vehemently as you do.

He'd have to be actually criticizing to even make it that far. I don't think parroting Brietbart makes it up to mindless drooling, let alone criticism.

Mike_L wrote:How about The Washington Times? Is that one okay?

Animavore wrote:

Mike_L wrote:How about The Washington Times? Is that one okay?

So an opinion piece by a conservative who, if his list of books is anything to go by, seems to be a hater of the Clintons for decades, and thinks Obama's a facist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Ty ... _and_views

It began with a tweet by US Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. It showed an image of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, alongside a six-pointed star containing the words: "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"

It wasn't long before Trump's critics zeroed in on the six-pointed star - said to resemble a Star of David - and the pile of money. They immediately accused the Republican nominee of using dog-whistle tactics, playing on old stereotypes about Jews, money, and corruption.

The candidate himself denied the allegations - although he deleted the tweet, later reposting the image with a circle replacing the star.

Anthony Smith, a journalist for the website Mic, got a tip that the image had appeared on 8chan, an extreme message board with many users who self-identify as members of the alt-right movement.

At first Smith was sceptical that he'd be able to stand the story up. The message board is fast-moving, threads get deleted quickly, and it's difficult to search for and find images. But within an hour, he had his answer.

The alt-right is against political correctness and feminism. It's nationalist, tribalist and anti-establishment. Its followers are fond of internet pranks and using provocative, often grossly offensive messages to goad their enemies on both the right and the left. And many of them are huge supporters of Donald Trump.

They can be particularly vicious towards their perceived enemies. According to Time magazine "trolling has become the main tool of the alt-right". They pejoratively call liberals "social justice warriors" or SJWs, and establishment conservatives are dubbed "cuckservatives" - a portmanteau that the Southern Poverty Law Centre says refers to "cuckolding", a racially-charged genre of pornography.

laklak wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

laklak wrote:Paul Wolfowitz, GWB's "architect of the Iraq War", may have to vote for Hillary. Says a lot about her, eh?

Actually, no, it doesn't say very much about Clinton. He's voting against Trump because he doesn't feel like the US would be secure with Trump for President. Clinton gets his vote because she isn't a raving lunatic and there's a chance she'll beat trump.

What was it, exactly, that you thought it said about Clinton, aside from she's not as scary and fucked up as Trump?

Oh, and in the interest of my personal resolution to be nicer on this forum, I've refrained from saying your post is bullshit.

I appreciate your restraint, keep up the good work!

I think it says that Clinton is a continuation of neocon policies that Wolfowitz helped define in the first place, and that her stance on international military intervention is more in line with his views than Trump's (apparently) more isolationist stance.

I think he sees Clinton as a D.C. insider who will pay lip service to current anti-establishment sentiment while keeping the reins of power firmly in the corporate/military/industrial hegemony's hands.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

laklak wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

laklak wrote:Paul Wolfowitz, GWB's "architect of the Iraq War", may have to vote for Hillary. Says a lot about her, eh?

Actually, no, it doesn't say very much about Clinton. He's voting against Trump because he doesn't feel like the US would be secure with Trump for President. Clinton gets his vote because she isn't a raving lunatic and there's a chance she'll beat trump.

What was it, exactly, that you thought it said about Clinton, aside from she's not as scary and fucked up as Trump?

Oh, and in the interest of my personal resolution to be nicer on this forum, I've refrained from saying your post is bullshit.

I appreciate your restraint, keep up the good work!

I think it says that Clinton is a continuation of neocon policies that Wolfowitz helped define in the first place, and that her stance on international military intervention is more in line with his views than Trump's (apparently) more isolationist stance.

I think he sees Clinton as a D.C. insider who will pay lip service to current anti-establishment sentiment while keeping the reins of power firmly in the corporate/military/industrial hegemony's hands.

You are certainly free to think these things about what another person thinks. But there's no way to support these conjectures with facts as they're about another person's thought processes. All we can go on is what Wolfowitz has actually said- until such time as actual mind-reading technology is realized. And what Wolfowitz says, to paraphrase, is that she's less insane than Trump. While this claim does force me to call my own perceptions into question, because I share Wolfowitz's opinion and that frightens me, there really aren't any factual bases for choosing not to take it at face value.

Coastal wrote:
He was quite clear and concise about why he would support Clinton over Trump, we don't have to guess or paraphrase.

Because he is so uncomfortable with Trump, Wolfowitz said he would likely vote for Clinton, albeit grudgingly.
“I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for,” Wolfowitz said. “I might have to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her.”

Wolfowitz contested a point made frequently by Trump on the campaign trail, that the U.S. should abandon “policies of nation-building and regime change" like the ones pursued by the Bush administration. The former deputy defense secretary countered that it would be “a huge mistake to abandon democracy promotion” pointing to cases of military intervention in places like Bosnia, where Wolfowitz said genocide was threatened. (He also protested being labeled the "architect" of the Iraq War, remarking that if he had been, "a lot of these things would be different.")