Hillary won't answer ' election results ' question. Gee, wonder why.

[AURaptor 1,137]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You went full potato.  Never go full potato.

Heh.... I thought about using that, but then decided against it.  Tis a stupid thing to say. 

[AUDub 11,784]

4 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Heh.... I thought about using that, but then decided against it.  Tis a stupid thing to say. 

It's an even stupider way to behave.

[AURaptor 1,137]

9 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

It's an even stupider way to behave.

What, being right & not yielding to those who can't / won't show where she answered the question, because she didn't? 

[AUDub 11,784]

9 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

What, being right & not yielding to those who can't / won't show where she answered the question, because she didn't? 

A. This has been explained. It shouldn't have even needed explaining, but we're nice that way. Titan, Homer and I laid it out for you on the first page.

B. Thought you were done. 

[TitanTiger 21,064]

26 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

What, being right & not yielding to those who can't / won't show where she answered the question, because she didn't? 

No.  Being a braying jackass about it and not admitting you're acting dense.

[homersapien 12,172]

19 hours ago, AURaptor said:

 I noticed everyone who disagrees with me is a screaming leftist  and or a troll. Which are you?  Imbecile or intellectually dishonest? She didn't answer, I can't sit here and tell you that she gave  an answer just so I can conform to your mass lunacy. 

 

 The lingths at which you lemmings will go to so that you can protect your false pride staggers the mind. 

Tell you what.  See if you can find a single opinion, commentary or article proposing your interpretation of this.

There's no shortage of right wing sites to draw from, much less the "mainstream liberal media".

[AURaptor 1,137]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Tell you what.  See if you can find a single opinion, commentary or article proposing your interpretation of this.

There's no shortage of right wing sites to draw from, much less the "mainstream liberal media".

 I don't need anyone else's opinion to see what is right before me. You and seemingly everyone else are willing to give her a pass simple because ... "Trump!". I'm not. In a very literal and real sense, she was asked a question and dodged it. There's no way to explain away or deny it. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Tell you what.  See if you can find a single opinion, commentary or article proposing your interpretation of this.

There's no shortage of right wing sites to draw from, much less the "mainstream liberal media".

She didnt anser the dam question.  Geez you libturds is stupid.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

 I don't need anyone else's opinion to see what is right before me. You and seemingly everyone else are willing to give her a pass simple because ... "Trump!". I'm not. In a very literal and real sense, she was asked a question and dodged it. There's no way to explain away or deny it. 

I think the point is, if no one else is gleaning from this interview what you are, it might behoove you to reconsider whether you are interpreting it properly.

[AURaptor 1,137]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the point is, if no one else is gleaning from this interview what you are, it might behoove you to reconsider whether you are interpreting it properly.

" properly " ? 

 

Thats funny. 

Really . Thanks. 

[TitanTiger 21,064]

18 hours ago, AURaptor said:

" properly " ? 

 

Thats funny. 

Really . Thanks. 

Properly, accurately, sensibly, reasonably...pick any of these adjectives.  All would apply.

[AURaptor 1,137]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Properly, accurately, sensibly, reasonably...pick any of these adjectives.  All would apply.

Except she didn't answer the question. 

Oooops. 

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Just now, AURaptor said:

Except she didn't answer the question. 

Oooops. 

Except anyone who has the understanding of implication and isn't a blind partisan can see that she did.

[AURaptor 1,137]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Except anyone who has the understanding of implication and isn't a blind partisan can see that she did.

She didn't. She gave a vague, generalized statement, kinda like how Obama gave a general reference to terrorism, w / out actually calling the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack. 

 

Would be like if someone talks about if Auburn wins a football game, - when ever -  and YOU believing they were talking about the 56-3 beat down of Arkansas. There's a difference in responding to a direct question, and talking about things in a general sense.  

[TitanTiger 21,064]

37 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

She didn't. She gave a vague, generalized statement, kinda like how Obama gave a general reference to terrorism, w / out actually calling the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack. 

 

Would be like if someone talks about if Auburn wins a football game, - when ever -  and YOU believing they were talking about the 56-3 beat down of Arkansas. There's a difference in responding to a direct question, and talking about things in a general sense.  

Ok Tinfoil.  Hillary totally dodged the question, talked about how horrible Trump's stance was and went on about how accepting election results and all that mumbo jumbo to hide her real feelings of wanting to contest the election if the orange troll wins.  That's what happened.  I guess that makes you feel better about Trump's idiocy and you being willing to cast a vote for him.

You need medication.

[AURaptor 1,137]

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok Tinfoil.  Hillary totally dodged the question, talked about how horrible Trump's stance was and went on about how accepting election results and all that mumbo jumbo to hide her real feelings of wanting to contest the election if the orange troll wins.  That's what happened.  I guess that makes you feel better about Trump's idiocy and you being willing to cast a vote for him.

You need medication.

Which is funny, because she's specifically been critical of the results of prior elections herself. Huh. 

This has nothing to do w/ Trump though. Nice deflection. It's about her, and not answering a direct question.  She's a trained lawyer, and like her husband, revel in spinning long winded , contrived responses, when a simple yes or no will do. They give these mini diatribes instead of simply answering questions directly because it allows them wiggle room, you know, to WEASEL out of having go on record for saying anything concrete. 

All the medication in the world won't change the truth, my friend. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

She aint never gonna anser cause she is gonna contest win Mr. Trump winds the election.  Ever buddy can see it comin eggsept for stupid libturds.  You is the denighors.

 

[homersapien 12,172]

On 10/22/2016 at 11:44 AM, AURaptor said:

 I don't need anyone else's opinion to see what is right before me. You and seemingly everyone else are willing to give her a pass simple because ... "Trump!". I'm not. In a very literal and real sense, she was asked a question and dodged it. There's no way to explain away or deny it. 

Not even a little bit of suspicion of being wrong when you are the only one in the world who came away with that impression?    

[TitanTiger 21,064]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not even a little bit of suspicion of being wrong when you are the only one in the world who came away with that impression?    

Other people's opinions are just a trick of the mainstream media to push a liberal agenda.

[AURaptor 1,137]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not even a little bit of suspicion of being wrong when you are the only one in the world who came away with that impression?    

  

This bubble, you live in... does it get wifi ? 

 

 When asked about whether SHE will accept the results of the election, a dazed Hillary doesn’t answer the question and instead speaks at length about Trump’s ‘horrifying’ response.

As the press conference continues, she keeps slamming Trump, but then ends it quickly when asked about voter fraud because of the release of the Project Veritas videos.

http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/clintonian-hillary-ends-press-conference-abruptly-asked/

 

And yet, only Trump was asked about accepting election results. Why ? 

FLASHBACK: Hillary Didn't Accept The Results Of The 2000 Election

http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/flashback-hillary-didnt-accept-the-results-15221824/

 

And ... 

 

Yet only a week ago, Clinton made it abundantly clear that she herself still refused to accept the results of the 2000 election in which former Vice President Al Gore lost to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

Specifically, while listening to Gore speaking at a campaign rally for her last week in Miami, Florida, Clinton emphatically nodded her head in agreement when the crowd suddenly began chanting that Gore had in their opinion won the election.  

http://conservativetribune.com/hillary-attacks-trump-election/

And just for fun, do a quick search on " Hillary dodges question " , and see what comes up.  It should keep you busy for quite some time. If you ever choose to get your head out of the ground. 

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Stupid libbies done been told she thanks its riged.

[homersapien 12,172]

8 hours ago, AURaptor said:

  

This bubble, you live in... does it get wifi ? 

 

 When asked about whether SHE will accept the results of the election, a dazed Hillary doesn’t answer the question and instead speaks at length about Trump’s ‘horrifying’ response.

As the press conference continues, she keeps slamming Trump, but then ends it quickly when asked about voter fraud because of the release of the Project Veritas videos.

http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/clintonian-hillary-ends-press-conference-abruptly-asked/

 

And yet, only Trump was asked about accepting election results. Why ? 

FLASHBACK: Hillary Didn't Accept The Results Of The 2000 Election

http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/flashback-hillary-didnt-accept-the-results-15221824/

 

And ... 

 

Yet only a week ago, Clinton made it abundantly clear that she herself still refused to accept the results of the 2000 election in which former Vice President Al Gore lost to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

Specifically, while listening to Gore speaking at a campaign rally for her last week in Miami, Florida, Clinton emphatically nodded her head in agreement when the crowd suddenly began chanting that Gore had in their opinion won the election.  

http://conservativetribune.com/hillary-attacks-trump-election/

And just for fun, do a quick search on " Hillary dodges question " , and see what comes up.  It should keep you busy for quite some time. If you ever choose to get your head out of the ground. 

 

OK, you and "Clash Daily"    (And Hillary didn't appear "dazed" to me. She was loading her mind for using the question to unload on her opposition Trump's position, which was in the affirmative. (Think about it, as if it would help).

The other links had nothing to do with the Hillary interview in question.

So, is that the best you can do in the whole universe of political commentary?  One example from "Clash Daily" ?

[AURaptor 1,137]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

OK, you and "Clash Daily"    (And Hillary didn't appear "dazed" to me. She was loading her mind for using the question to unload on her opposition Trump's position, which was in the affirmative. (Think about it, as if it would help).

The other links had nothing to do with the Hillary interview in question.

So, is that the best you can do in the whole universe of political commentary?  One example from "Clash Daily" ?

... First, I've  already debunked your claim that I was  the " only one in the world " to have that view. And as easy as I found that, I can find others, but really, there's no point. You've already been shown to be ridiculous, and wrong, so you should be apologizing more and not trying to weasel out and back away from admitting you're wrong. 

The other links prove a pattern of hypocrisy w/ the Left and Hillary, feigning outrage with their faux  moral indignant view that anyone would DARE stoop so low as Trump to question an election. The Left are exactly the things they accuse others of being. 

And this isn't a matter of consensus. It's a matter of FACT.  She didn't answer. Whether 1 person agrees w/ me, or 5 billion, nothing changes. You seem to thihk that truth relies on mob rule, who ever has the most votes wins. 

[TitanTiger 21,064]

It's amazing to me how the same bunch who can read virtually anything sinister into the vaguest of comments Obama makes utterly lose the ability to perceive implication in Hillary's comments when it suits them.

Check that.  Actually, that doesn't amaze me at all.  

[AUDub 11,784]

On 10/21/2016 at 9:52 PM, homersapien said:

On 10/21/2016 at 3:13 PM, Bigbens42 said:

Keep telling yourself that. We know you don't like her. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms. This one is nothing more than your own idiocy and stubbornness. This is the kind of crap that has made her bulletproof. All of the legitimate criticisms get lost in the noise.

You gotta love the irony of that.   

If only there was some sort of children's fable about that kind of behavior.