Massive Clinton voter fraud in NY?

a reply to: UKTruth

I doubt the hypothesis will be valid when (and if) tested

So you, again, concede to rational logic. Good for you.

You decided to attack people for having a hypothesis in the first place

No I did not. I attacked the conspiracy element.

which is why I had to educate you on the differences between facts, evidence, hypothesis and theory.

In you attempt to "educate" me, we can witness your first concession and reversal. Thanks for the education.

If you are going to attack people, as you do often, at least make sure you don't embarrass yourself through a lack of critical thinking. You are letting your emotion get the better of you. Move away from the keyboard and have a coffee

As is often the case, you make statements like these for no logical purpose or any evidence whatsoever. It's indicative of a personality equal to that of a pigeon playing chess.

a reply to: Sillyolme

In the end I want my great great grandchildren to know their grandmother worked to help elect America's first woman president.

So you want your grandchildren to know that you are sexist , and think that sex, color, height, weight , and hair are important attributes for qualifications as a president.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Annee

In the end I want my great great grandchildren to know their grandmother worked to help elect America's first woman president. It's important to me.

Cool.

I've actually followed her for a long time too. I was curious if there were going to be any complaints about her in the senate. She was actually well liked, and impressed others with her intelligence, dedication, and focus.

She was well liked because she drew in millions in contributions for the party. Most "lawmakers" spend half their time soliciting contributions. Watched a 60 minutes segment on the whole process. Very interesting.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I doubt the hypothesis will be valid when (and if) tested

So you, again, concede to rational logic. Good for you.

You decided to attack people for having a hypothesis in the first place

No I did not. I attacked the conspiracy element.

which is why I had to educate you on the differences between facts, evidence, hypothesis and theory.

In you attempt to "educate" me, we can witness your first concession and reversal. Thanks for the education.

If you are going to attack people, as you do often, at least make sure you don't embarrass yourself through a lack of critical thinking. You are letting your emotion get the better of you. Move away from the keyboard and have a coffee

As is often the case, you make statements like these for no logical purpose or any evidence whatsoever. It's indicative of a personality equal to that of a pigeon playing chess.

Rational logic has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis. Seriously, you really need to go and read up a bit. Hypotheses must be tested before they can be accepted or rejected. Basics.

Facts, then hypothesis, then test (preferably multiple hypotheses), accept or reject, formulate a theory.

The facts are the issues already highlighted with the election process in NY.
The hypothesis is that these facts were due to Clinton being involved in voter fraud.

The process has not gone any further.
I do not reject the hypothesis because I can't - it hasn't been tested. I do, however, doubt it which is something entirely different.

As I have already told you, conspiracy is none of the above. You introduced the term to try and shame another poster because of it's negative associations in popular culture.

So far I have made no concession or reversal, though I am not above doing so.

Your mental gymnastics to justify your lack of thought initially and your attacks on others only serve to make you look foolish.
For everyone's sake, just get back on topic.

a reply to: Annee

Good to know that you support a lying criminal who laughed about getting a Pedo out of jail. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: jlafleur02

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Annee

In the end I want my great great grandchildren to know their grandmother worked to help elect America's first woman president. It's important to me.

Cool.

I've actually followed her for a long time too. I was curious if there were going to be any complaints about her in the senate. She was actually well liked, and impressed others with her intelligence, dedication, and focus.

She was well liked because she drew in millions in contributions for the party. Most "lawmakers" spend half their time soliciting contributions. Watched a 60 minutes segment on the whole process. Very interesting.

NO

I read/listened to individuals from both sides who worked directly with her.

Not major media. And had nothing to do with soliciting for money.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Annee

Good to know that you support a lying criminal who laughed about getting a Pedo out of jail. ~$heopleNation

More baseless accusations with nothing backing it up.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
You know what they say about opinions yes? Uh huh. Everybody's got one.

Uh huh, that is usually the case in a discussion forum about Hillary. Let's get you a medal, Good job! ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Annee

Deny, deny, deny, just like your hero Hillary. It's all over the Internet, take your head out of the ground. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Annee

Deny, deny, deny, just like your hero Hillary. It's all over the Internet, take your head out of the ground. ~$heopleNation

Let me help you. As a lawyer in 1975, Clinton did her job.

“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.

“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Sillyolme

Sadly, a Clinton presidency and smart voters are mutually exclusive.

now how would you know?

a reply to: SheopleNation

I have no delusion that any major political leader sits on a pedestal in a squeaky clean ivory tower.

It's a complicated position that those not in that position can fully comprehend.

I want a president that does the job required. Same as Hillary did her job as a lawyer. She did what was required of her in that position.

a reply to: interupt42

What bass ackwards logic did you use to come up with that?
That nowhere near reflects my views nor does it even remotely describe my motives.
Not that what you think should mean anything to me. You're making conclusions based on extremely limited knowledge about me.
I'm not the subject here. Try to focus.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Annee

Deny, deny, deny, just like your hero Hillary. It's all over the Internet, take your head out of the ground. ~$heopleNation

Let me help you. As a lawyer in 1975, Clinton did her job.

“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.

“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added

I don't think the fact she did or did not do her job is what some people are upset about. It's more to do with how she spoke about getting the guy a reduced sentence on a technicality

a reply to: Annee

So you believe that her job required her to laugh about it? Man, that is really warped and sickening. I don't know what more there is to say. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Annee

Deny, deny, deny, just like your hero Hillary. It's all over the Internet, take your head out of the ground. ~$heopleNation

Let me help you. As a lawyer in 1975, Clinton did her job.

“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.

“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added

I don't think the fact she did or did not do her job is what some people are upset about. It's more to do with how she spoke about getting the guy a reduced sentence on a technicality

How is that different from doing her job?

Did she speak robotically in clinical legal terms?

That's what I would expect.

Or do you think she should interject emotion and remorse.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Annee

So you believe that her job required her to laugh about it? Man, that is really warped and sickening. I don't know what more there is to say. ~$heopleNation

Interpretation.

a reply to: SheopleNation

Oh I have my opinions too. Never claimed otherwise.
The difference is I back mine with intelligent unbiased research into real facts. History that's been documented. Not imaginings and dreams and wishes.

a reply to: SheopleNation

There's lots of information out there on the internet. Have you met my new boyfriend... he's a French model. I met him on the internet.

a reply to: Annee

Amazing how they can find fault with a lawyer who gasp actually did what the bar and the court system required of her.