Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:08 AM

chapdrum (930 posts)

Some HRC supporters are as fact aversive

as the Republicans:

She did support W's fraudulent, murderous invasion of Iraq (got WMD?);

She does receive $200,000 (or so) for willingly speaking to the predatory likes of Goldman Sachs, and when asked
to release the scripts, she laughs in response (a variation on "let them eat cake"

;

Her daughter does have an affiliation with the Peter Peterson (another billionaire Reagan hack) Foundation; one of its missions is to dismantle or privatize Social Security;

She does take campaign contributions from Wall Street.

If these can be refuted, please post. Thank you.

122 replies, 9565 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

122 replies	Author	Time	Post
Some HRC supporters are as fact aversive (Original post)	chapdrum	Jan 2016	OP
and Jane Sanders has off shore accounts	DURHAM D	Jan 2016	#1
Do you have evidence of that assertion? n/t	JonLeibowitz	Jan 2016	#3
What was that about two wrongs?	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#4
I suspect not -- the only google hits refer back here and involve conspiracies about Israeli ties.	JonLeibowitz	Jan 2016	#8
I think you have Jane mixed up with Hill2016. nt	Live and Learn	Jan 2016	#18
LOL! Good one! Hill2016 is middle class right?	JonLeibowitz	Jan 2016	#20
Yep and have money hidden overseas, apparently. nt	Live and Learn	Jan 2016	#23
And Colonel Sanders is more visible in PR China than Chairman Mao.	mwooldri	Jan 2016	#50
Do tell, won't you?	bvf	Jan 2016	#53
See that is that fact adverse thingy we are talking about.	Kalidurga	Jan 2016	#70
Made up shit.	cali	Jan 2016	#92
Her whole angle on the ACA smacks of Burkean conservative incrementalism. I think the centrist	Ed Suspicious	Jan 2016	#2
Ed, you're on to something	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#9
What are you going to do if she wins the nomination?	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#5
What a strange question. What relevance does that have to the present discussion?	JonLeibowitz	Jan 2016	#7
Okay. As this is GD: Primaries, for the sake of discussion,	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#11
Why should I or the OP answer your question when you can't answer how it is relevant to the OP?	JonLeibowitz	Jan 2016	#12
The OP presents a few adorned facts that may or not be relevant to the primary.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#14
Wait, what the actual FUCK?	JonLeibowitz	Jan 2016	#16
+10,000 And well said! nt	Live and Learn	Jan 2016	#19
I'm not trying to get anyone TOS'd. We are discussing the primary.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#21
What effect does a hypothetical scenario where she won the primary have on our choices when voting..	JonLeibowitz	Jan 2016	#24
The OP stated: Some HRC supporters are fact aversive	RobertEarl	Jan 2016	#48
You can "wait" all you want.	senz	Jan 2016	#29
Hijack? You are the third person to repond to me.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#34
Requesting personal information is not "disputing facts."	senz	Jan 2016	#41
The OP would impugn the fact-averse Hillary supporters and their choices.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#44
That's gobbledygook.	senz	Jan 2016	#49
Nobody is obligated to say whom they would vote for before an election	passiveporcupine	Jan 2016	#58
I'm not brow-beating anyone. I posed the question once to the OP.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#69
Yes you are. You have been told no over and over again yet you won't let up.	passiveporcupine	Jan 2016	#75
You are like the sixth person to initiate a discussion with me in this thread.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#80
In various ways you've asked the question or demanded an answer nine times in this thread	passiveporcupine	Jan 2016	#82
Harassment? I am responding to questions posed and restating my position in response to	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#85
keep on playing	passiveporcupine	Jan 2016	#87
What are you saying?	JackRiddler	Jan 2016	#10
There are a lot of facts about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#15
Still irrelevant.	JackRiddler	Jan 2016	#22
Are we not discussing this in the context of the primary election?	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#28
You are avoiding the issues of the OP. Why?	JackRiddler	Jan 2016	#38
What are the issues of the OP?	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#43
.... woooowwww nt	retrowire	Jan 2016	#46
State the issues...	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#52
....t-they're in the OP. nt	retrowire	Jan 2016	#55
Which states that some Hillary supporters are as fact aversive as Republicans.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#77
Give up, man.	Unknown Beatle	Jan 2016	#94
It's fine if the OP does not want to answer.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#109
you're changing the subject of the op	retrowire	Jan 2016	#99
There are a lot of people here not disputing the facts.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#108
the purpose is to dispute the facts lol	retrowire	Jan 2016	#110
The purpose of the OP is to impugn Hillary and her supporters using a set of facts.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#112
as the op requested...	retrowire	Jan 2016	#113
The person you are stalking here is not the OP	passiveporcupine	Jan 2016	#63
What do you care what the OP will do?	senz	Jan 2016	#31
see my response #44	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#45
Not your business at all.	840high	Jan 2016	#33
The OP states that some Hillary supporters are as aversive to facts as are Republicans.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#37
I get what you are asking	RobertEarl	Jan 2016	#54
I'll several steps further than the OP does regarding Hillary's supporters.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#62
Yes	RobertEarl	Jan 2016	#65
Thanks for drilling down to the crux eom	Arazi	Jan 2016	#74
As I said, there are a lot of facts about Hillary. We can dispute	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#84
That's just it, don't you get it?	Unknown Beatle	Jan 2016	#95
Your last paragraph, for example, contains no facts.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#111
Silly me!	Unknown Beatle	Jan 2016	#118
ah 2 of the 3 D's of Hillsbara distract and divert I guess distort isn't really possible here	azurnoir	Jan 2016	#56
Hillsbara? Don't know about that.	LuvLoogie	Jan 2016	#90
How dare you post such negativity about The Inevitable One!	reformist2	Jan 2016	#6
I support Clinton and O'Malley	ecstatic	Jan 2016	#13
Thanks for responding.	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#17
What's found about Peterson Foundation	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#36
What is Chelsea's connection to the Peterson Foundation?	hedda_foil	Jan 2016	#25
thanks Hedda	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#30
That doesn't answer my question about the Chelsea/Peterson connection you posit.	hedda_foil	Jan 2016	#32
I didn't notice your question	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#40
OK, now I see it	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#42
What do we do with Elizabeth Warren's $5.3 Million mansion?	R B Garr	Jan 2016	#26
She's not running for president	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#27
She was the Berniebros obsession before he announced, which	R B Garr	Jan 2016	#57
200,000 is not a golden parachute for a retiring president of a college. lol nt	retrowire	Jan 2016	#60
Yes, it was from her struggling former employer.	R B Garr	Jan 2016	#64
sure i do. a quick Google of	retrowire	Jan 2016	#67
LOL, how many of those worked for small, struggling	R B Garr	Jan 2016	#71
Yes, they used to be called pensions and a few of us are still lucky to get something at all.	Fearless	Jan 2016	#81
"SIZEABLE severance package" is a	R B Garr	Jan 2016	#83
Who are you even replying to??	Fearless	Jan 2016	#117
point stands	retrowire	Jan 2016	#101
Post removed	Post removed	Jan 2016	#103
Nice edit there. You must be afraid that your	R B Garr	Jan 2016	#78
??? ooookay. lol try harder nt	retrowire	Jan 2016	#100
Yeah, same to you. Try harder yourself.	R B Garr	Jan 2016	#105
its clearly not the same but whatever.	retrowire	Jan 2016	#106
$200,000 is one speech for Hill.	lob1	Jan 2016	#93
"Berniebros"?	Z_California	Jan 2016	#114
whoa	uponit7771	Jan 2016	#88
aversive	enid602	Jan 2016	#35
Yes.	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#39
K&R.	JDPriestly	Jan 2016	#47
FDR came from wealth and had tons of connections to wealth.	OhZone	Jan 2016	#51
FDR was born to his wealth. He was not paid by powerful lobbyists to speak to their meetings	Ford_Prefect	Jan 2016	#61
Giving a speech for money, which is super common -	OhZone	Jan 2016	#66
I assume that the people who pay her $200,000 and more per speech are investing in her future	Ford_Prefect	Jan 2016	#72
Damn good question that	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#79
HRC makes 15 million a year, 200,000 is a drop in the bucket for her... she's underpaid	uponit7771	Jan 2016	#91
Seriously -	OhZone	Jan 2016	#96
+1	uponit7771	Jan 2016	#97
+1	uponit7771	Jan 2016	#89
The same can be said about Sanders' supporters.	JohnnyRingo	Jan 2016	#59
At least he's raising the issues	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#76
Link to promises to pull rabbits out of hats and magic wands please	Z_California	Jan 2016	#115
I can't believe I'm replying to this...	JohnnyRingo	Jan 2016	#119
The false narrative is yours	Z_California	Jan 2016	#120
If Bernie can't do those things...	JohnnyRingo	Jan 2016	#122
A Reason Hillary Is Best Friends With The Bushes	billhicks76	Jan 2016	#68
Right you are	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#73
Exactly	billhicks76	Jan 2016	#121
Bush even called her his sister-in-law.	CharlotteVale	Jan 2016	#102
So what!? tia	uponit7771	Jan 2016	#86
Most importantly, she's the best candidate for president.	DanTex	Jan 2016	#98
These are facts that should alert peoples logic	olddots	Jan 2016	#104
You know HC gave a cautionary speech about the Iraq vote	pandr32	Jan 2016	#107
note to "ecstatic"	chapdrum	Jan 2016	#116

Response to chapdrum (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:12 AM

DURHAM D (32,252 posts)

1. and Jane Sanders has off shore accounts

So what?

Some HRC supporters are as fact aversive

1. and Jane Sanders has off shore accounts

3. Do you have evidence of that assertion? n/t

4. What was that about two wrongs?

8. I suspect not -- the only google hits refer back here and involve conspiracies about Israeli ties.

18. I think you have Jane mixed up with Hill2016. nt

20. LOL! Good one! Hill2016 is middle class right?

23. Yep and have money hidden overseas, apparently. nt

50. And Colonel Sanders is more visible in PR China than Chairman Mao.

53. Do tell, won't you?

70. See that is that fact adverse thingy we are talking about.

92. Made up shit.

2. Her whole angle on the ACA smacks of Burkean conservative incrementalism. I think the centrist

9. Ed, you're on to something

5. What are you going to do if she wins the nomination?

7. What a strange question. What relevance does that have to the present discussion?

11. Okay. As this is GD: Primaries, for the sake of discussion,

12. Why should I or the OP answer your question when you can't answer how it is relevant to the OP?

14. The OP presents a few adorned facts that may or not be relevant to the primary.

16. Wait, what the actual FUCK?

19. +10,000 And well said! nt

21. I'm not trying to get anyone TOS'd. We are discussing the primary.

24. What effect does a hypothetical scenario where she won the primary have on our choices when voting..

48. The OP stated: Some HRC supporters are fact aversive

29. You can "wait" all you want.

34. Hijack? You are the third person to repond to me.

41. Requesting personal information is not "disputing facts."

44. The OP would impugn the fact-averse Hillary supporters and their choices.

49. That's gobbledygook.

58. Nobody is obligated to say whom they would vote for before an election

69. I'm not brow-beating anyone. I posed the question once to the OP.

75. Yes you are. You have been told no over and over again yet you won't let up.

80. You are like the sixth person to initiate a discussion with me in this thread.

82. In various ways you've asked the question or demanded an answer nine times in this thread

85. Harassment? I am responding to questions posed and restating my position in response to

87. keep on playing

10. What are you saying?

15. There are a lot of facts about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

22. Still irrelevant.

28. Are we not discussing this in the context of the primary election?

38. You are avoiding the issues of the OP. Why?

43. What are the issues of the OP?

46. .... woooowwww nt

52. State the issues...

55. ....t-they're in the OP. nt

77. Which states that some Hillary supporters are as fact aversive as Republicans.

94. Give up, man.

109. It's fine if the OP does not want to answer.

99. you're changing the subject of the op

108. There are a lot of people here not disputing the facts.

110. the purpose is to dispute the facts lol

112. The purpose of the OP is to impugn Hillary and her supporters using a set of facts.

113. as the op requested...

63. The person you are stalking here is not the OP

31. What do you care what the OP will do?

45. see my response #44

33. Not your business at all.

37. The OP states that some Hillary supporters are as aversive to facts as are Republicans.

54. I get what you are asking

62. I'll several steps further than the OP does regarding Hillary's supporters.

65. Yes

74. Thanks for drilling down to the crux eom

84. As I said, there are a lot of facts about Hillary. We can dispute

95. That's just it, don't you get it?

111. Your last paragraph, for example, contains no facts.

118. Silly me!

56. ah 2 of the 3 D's of Hillsbara distract and divert I guess distort isn't really possible here

90. Hillsbara? Don't know about that.

6. How dare you post such negativity about The Inevitable One!

13. I support Clinton and O'Malley

17. Thanks for responding.

36. What's found about Peterson Foundation

25. What is Chelsea's connection to the Peterson Foundation?

30. thanks Hedda

32. That doesn't answer my question about the Chelsea/Peterson connection you posit.

40. I didn't notice your question

42. OK, now I see it

26. What do we do with Elizabeth Warren's $5.3 Million mansion?

27. She's not running for president

57. She was the Berniebros obsession before he announced, which