The Clinton Discussion Thread

[alasdairm]

Do you have any circumstantial evidence? Let's see it.

no. i just heard it.

i think it's gross that you're a pedophile, though. until you can prove otherwise, we'll just assume it's true. ok?

alasdair

 

[Scrofula]

There is circumstantial evidence that he's a child molester: he's well-versed in some sort of "code" they use to communicate their tastes in children. He's even made several posts about it, shit, a whole thread.

I think making those posts alone would be a wire fraud charge, possibly solicitation. Given that he's also provided links, I'm certain he has a massive library of nasty pictures.

 

[alasdairm]

the evidence is mounting.



alasdair

 

[Scrofula]

I was talking to my usual globalist fringe media buddies, you know, us Élite, and they told me that a lot of Syrian refugee children have gone missing and wound up as sex slaves for the counter-elite. Billions of dollars in relief too. That's with a B, you can count it.

We know the LiQuID METHOD Algorithm™ was at or near the Syrian border, and is also well versed in child trafficking, as evidenced in his numerous posts and a thread on the subject, not to mention embezzlement of charity money.

I mean, if you were part of a powerful group of people who wanted to smuggle disaster orphans out of war zones and get them to your nation's capital; hide them all in the basement of, say, a public restaurant, that could somehow accommodate your fellow Élite as they perused the wares hanging up all shackled; then drag them unconscious or whatever past the diners and thrown into the back of a cab; drive them to an elite party of the powerful, with media snapping away oblivious to the screaming child in the back, who else would you call?

Don't need to pay him, he can make money appear from nowhere. Billions with a B, that you can count.

All he asks is that you make sure to use secure email. That means it has to be your work email, cause they say they secure it. I don't care if the dedicated server in the basement of your home that is guarded by men with machine guns 24/7 has better security, custom made for your situation by handpicked IT guys. It HAS to be your work email, or else you should be hanged.

 

[LiquidMethod]

Thought I'm not authorized to speak on his behalf, the only conclusion Drug Mentor made is that you have no concept of evidence, argument, truth, falsehood, credibility, and possibly reason; oh and that you are the one who's lazy. I'd add nuance and the color grey.

I disagree. ^ You both are also threadjacking (and scrofula is basically flaming me - his MO)

Funny how nobody wants to touch or dispute the allegation that the Clintons were facilitating child traffickers who were stealing children in Haiti. Maybe because there is evidence that cannot be argued.

 

[Scrofula]

It's true . . . circumstantial evidence of the Liquid Method facilitating a child sex ring through a DC pizza joint, in the form of postings and threads; creating a sophisticated code, even videos.

And my five dollars is missing! You can count it, fifteen dollars I had, he posts, it's gone. Coincidence?

Anyone needs to PM, go ahead and use your gmail, he doesn't believe in those non-work-security deals.


Also: no concept of irony.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

And why does cooperating with authorities = complete idiot?

When there's a possibility of criminal charges.

Lots of people are spending time in prison because they believed the authorities would go easy on them if they cooperated.

That's why you always get a lawyer.

 

[Scrofula]

Or you try to create an appearance of cooperation. Hand over the documents that show a misdemeanor while you try to burn the felonies.

 

[LiquidMethod]

Pretty sure he has much worse dirt on the people out to get him, so I don't think he is that worried.
Plus the FBI raided Manafort’s home for documents he already gave to Congress.

Imagine if Mueller finds out that Manafort was lobbying on behalf of a Kremlin-connected company and Trump organized a deal to sell uranium to Russians.
They would be so f**ked...

 

[Scrofula]

Right, just like that debunked mining bullshit, you mean?

You know, this isn't supposed to be appointing a hero that you defend against the other guy's hero. We're not attacking you by attacking your proxy of Trump/Putin/the websites you visit. It's not a sports game where you have your blind loyalties.

I'm a big Barry O fan, but he shit the bed now and then. I begrudgingly supported Clinton, but can tell you a dozen things that bother me. I have a tough time finding something nice to say about W, but I guess I like that he's living quietly far away.

It's easy to say: "I think the West is over-reacting to a lot of Russia stuff. That said, murdering your opponents is something I don't support." Try it!

 

[drug_mentor]

What are you basing your conclusions on? Respect for the compassionate Clinton Foundation? Taking money from regimes that stone rape victims to death doesn't exactly make one an institution founded on morality. Many Haitians claim they stole billions.

Which conclusion(s)? I am taking you to mean my saying that I am not convinced that the Clinton's stole Haiti relief money, so I will address that. If you want to know the reasoning behind any other claim I advanced or conclusion which you took me to be drawing then you will need to be more specific.

The Clinton's are worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars (there are conflicting sources and the exact figure is not important as it does not figure essentially in my thought process), it doesn't seem likely to me that such a wealthy couple who are in the public eye would commit a crime like this in order to get more money. You might say, well they are wealthy and have connections so the chances of them facing a custodial sentence (or even paying back every cent they stole) are incredibly slim - and, you would have a point. However, consider that Hillary Clinton just ran for President - personally, I don't think this was spontaneous - I think the second she lost to Obama she was planning her campaign for when his term ended. Is it plausible that a public figure with Presidential aspirations would commit such a shitty crime as to rob a charity? Even supposing they would get away with it legally, any concrete evidence of this crime would surely have a seriously negative impact on her Presidential aspirations. For this reason I don't see much in the way of a plausible motive, because to me it seems Hillary cared a lot about being President, probably a lot more than she cared about making more money when she already has more than she can spend.

Apart from that, I don't see any convincing evidence, and I do believe in the presumption of innocence. So, lack of motive, lack of evidence, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty make me think it is unlikely the Clinton's stole the money you claim they did. This conclusion is only reinforced when I ask you, someone who seems certain that this theft occurred, to provide me with evidence - even you admit that there is no hard evidence, and having read through quite a bit of your supposed circumstantial evidence, I am left far from convinced.

This all seems like pretty valid grounds to draw the conclusion that the Clinton's probably didn't steal a substantial sum of money from the Clinton Foundation, and I would argue it gives me logically unimpeachable grounds for drawing the conclusion that you have failed to even come close to establishing your claim that the Clinton's stole billions from the Clinton Foundation.

I did not intend to imply that "we count" meant we have a verifiably exact record of all the stolen money. It was also obvious that if we had direct evidence, these crimes would have been much more publicized. You misinterpreted what I wrote. Maybe a poor choice of words but I was simply commenting on the action required to acquire the total number of a combined amount of funds, counting, as per the question asking how we achieve a sum total.

You certainly implied that there was more evidence in favour of your claim than there is. The thing is, you haven't even provided evidence in favour of the weaker claim you are now saying you meant, you haven't provided evidence that "the total number of a combined amount of funds" received by the Clinton Foundation was sufficiently large that it would even be possible to steal billions from said foundation - which is the very point Escher was challenging you on. You either don't understand what evidence is, or you are being incredibly disingenuous here.

Moreover, don't you see an inconsistency in your approach to Trump's election scandal and the allegations about the Clinton's taking money? You rebuke others for asserting, without conclusive evidence, that Trump and/or members of his election campaign colluded with Russia - yet, you are doing the exact same thing to the Clinton's, and you have admitted as much here. You should either be much more open to the allegations against Trump, or, you should use the same standard of evidence when evaluating claims against the Clinton's which you expect others to use when evaluating claims against Trump.

Nothing I said was provably false. I do not have hard evidence

Those who think Trump and/or his team colluded with Russia could run this exact line and you wouldn't be having a bar of it; they could even pad it out with (much more credible) claims about circumstantial evidence and the like. There is some glaring bias on display here.

It should be obvious that not being provably false is a very weak condition to meet, and frankly, I don't think everything you said in this thread meets that condition - so long as we are including your claims about how well supported some allegations you made are as members of the set of all things you have said so far in this thread.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

I disagree. ^ You both are also threadjacking

As the quasi-OP there is no question that both of the bluelighters you are responding to make an important point with regards to the content of the thread. I find it ironic that you accuse others of threadjacking.

Your evidence is pure blogger hearsay. The FBI doesn't pull punches when it comes to recommending prosecution, and them not recommending prosecution is an indication that there is no case because there is not enough evidence to press charges. I trust in the mechanisms which preserve the purpose of the FBI far more than I trust in alt-reich hearsay.

 

[LiquidMethod]

Right, just like that debunked mining bullshit, you mean?

uhh debunked what? These are facts: The Podesta lobbying group received millions of dollars from a Russian company. Clinton and Obama oversaw a deal that would sell 20% of US uranium stores to affiliates of the Russian government. At the same time Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech from a Kremlin-connected bank. This is what collusion looks like, which is what makes the still unproven accusations against Trump look ridiculous.

I'm a big Barry O fan, but he shit the bed now and then

Well I'm so glad you're a fan of more war and less rights.

I begrudgingly supported Clinton, but can tell you a dozen things that bother me

Glad you're also a fan of identity politics.
Only a dozen? Her body-count list is at least twice that.

I think the West is over-reacting to a lot of Russia stuff. That said, murdering your opponents is something I don't support." Try it!

See above, ignorant hypocrite.

 

[LiquidMethod]

The Clinton's are worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars (there are conflicting sources and the exact figure is not important as it does not figure essentially in my thought process), it doesn't seem likely to me that such a wealthy couple who are in the public eye would commit a crime like this in order to get more money. You might say, well they are wealthy and have connections so the chances of them facing a custodial sentence (or even paying back every cent they stole) are incredibly slim - and, you would have a point. However, consider that Hillary Clinton just ran for President - personally, I don't think this was spontaneous - I think the second she lost to Obama she was planning her campaign for when his term ended. Is it plausible that a public figure with Presidential aspirations would commit such a shitty crime as to rob a charity? Even supposing they would get away with it legally, any concrete evidence of this crime would surely have a seriously negative impact on her Presidential aspirations. For this reason I don't see much in the way of a plausible motive, because to me it seems Hillary cared a lot about being President, probably a lot more than she cared about making more money when she already has more than she can spend.

She peddles influence. The president has a lot of influence. You're acting as if the Clinton Foundation is a charity. It's (allegedly) a pay-for-play criminal enterprise. The ex-CEO was caught by the DNC leaking clues to the press before abruptly vacating his position and was considered missing for a short period of time.

Apart from that, I don't see any convincing evidence, and I do believe in the presumption of innocence. So, if lack of motive, lack of evidence, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty make me think it is unlikely the Clinton's stole the money you claim they did. This conclusion is only reinforced when I ask you, someone who seems certain that this theft occurred, to provide me with evidence - even you admit that there is no hard evidence, and having read through quite a bit of your supposed circumstantial evidence, I am left far from convinced.

That's your problem, you're presuming that politicians at the upper echelons are innocent first. You're giving them the same treatment as us when the fundamental problem with the political process is that politicians are not affording the common folk the same luxury. Presuming that Clinton is innocent is like presuming that a turd will be tasty. For anyone that accepts reality the motive is there. Lack of evidence but also a lack of investigation. If Clinton is not going to get busted for giving SAP intelligence to Russians and Chinese then she is pretty safe from some petty fraud screwing over poor Haitians - a country where the US State Dept obstructed the raising of the minimum wage as it "didn't reflect economic reality."

You certainly implied that there was more evidence in favour of your claim than there is. The thing is, you haven't even provided evidence in favour of the weaker claim you are now saying you meant, you haven't provided evidence that "the total number of a combined amount of funds" received by the Clinton Foundation was sufficiently large that it would even be possible to steal billions from said foundation - which is the very point Escher was challenging you on. You either don't understand what evidence is, or you are being incredibly disingenuous here.

I already provided this in one of my links which gave a very conservative breakdown of the missing funds. According to that source it was well over one billion unaccounted for, maybe close to two which would make it billions. Also, from Haiti:

Bernard Sansaricq, former Senate president of Haiti, exposes the obscene Clinton corruption that saw a reported $6 billion in relief aid, intended for direct assistance to the 2010 Haitian earthquake victims, and for which Bill Clinton was responsible, practically disappear, less than 2% reaching the Haitian government.
....
In an update less than a month later, Sansaricq calculated the missing money that went from donors through the Clinton Foundation at $14.3 billion, less than 2% of which actually made it relieve the suffering in Haiti.

Moreover, don't you see an inconsistency in your approach to Trump's election scandal and the allegations about the Clinton's taking money? You rebuke others for asserting, without conclusive evidence, that Trump and/or members of his election campaign colluded with Russia - yet, you are doing the exact same thing to the Clinton's, and you have admitted as much here. You should either be much more open to the allegations against Trump, or, you should use the same standard of evidence when evaluating claims against the Clinton's which you expect others to use when evaluating claims against Trump.

The problem with comparing scandals is that Clinton has so many of them. This is one of hundreds so I have no problem demonizing her and I prefer to investigate each individually to see if they make sense or not. Russian collusion makes no sense because there is far more evidence of the Clinton camp colluding with the Russian government.

 

[LiquidMethod]

It should be obvious that not being provably false is a very weak condition to meet, and frankly, I don't think everything you said in this thread meets that condition - so long as we are including your claims about how well supported some allegations you made are as members of the set of all things you have said so far in this thread.

Feel free to challenge any of the other claims.

At the end of the day we have a Haitian head of senate identifying the CF as having stolen billions. And if the Clintons were helping people steal actual children in Haiti, then one should not be in the least bit surprised by the accusation that they were stealing relief funds.

As the quasi-OP there is no question that both of the bluelighters you are responding to make an important point with regards to the content of the thread. I find it ironic that you accuse others of threadjacking.

An important point? Yeah, trolling me while claiming that I am a pedophile is real classy, rational political discourse.

Your evidence is pure blogger hearsay. The FBI doesn't pull punches when it comes to recommending prosecution, and them not recommending prosecution is an indication that there is no case because there is not enough evidence to press charges. I trust in the mechanisms which preserve the purpose of the FBI far more than I trust in alt-reich hearsay.

lol, good one. James Comey told you everything you needed to hear. They have direct evidence of her committing crimes. His way of circumventing your trust in the mechanisms was to state that they could not find intent with Clinton's actions. Even though there was obvious intent AND intent is irrelevant when it comes to these types of crimes. Only a buffoon or someone seriously deluding themselves would buy this story.

 

[Scrofula]

Original Poster Mr. Fade is merely voicing his permission to--and forum moderator Swillow sanctioning by not stopping--the Director and I to make the point that there is more evidence that you, liquid, are head of a child sex-traffic ring, or at least just a pedophile, than the DNC.

There is a whole thread for that, hence the irony of mentioning it here, but it was all a didactic exercise on the relative worth of evidence. That of course you haven't learned or recognized.

Or appreciated people sincerely taking the time to calmly give you reasoned criticism of your arguments:

I already provided this in one of my links which gave a very conservative breakdown of the missing funds. According to that source it was well over one billion unaccounted for, maybe close to two which would make it billions.

You seriously said that to Drug Mentor, who gave you the lengthiest most detailed takedown humanly possible of this very point with that very link! That he rebutted within the last 24 hours within this thread.

You must be all lulz for this, is my only conclusion.

 

[LiquidMethod]

Original Poster Mr. Fade is merely voicing his permission to--and forum moderator Swillow sanctioning by not stopping--the Director and I to make the point that there is more evidence that you, liquid, are head of a child sex-traffic ring, or at least just a pedophile, than the DNC.

There is a whole thread for that, hence the irony of mentioning it here, but it was all a didactic exercise on the relative worth of evidence. That of course you haven't learned or recognized.

Or appreciated people sincerely taking the time to calmly give you reasoned criticism of your arguments:



You seriously said that to Drug Mentor, who gave you the lengthiest most detailed takedown humanly possible of this very point with that very link! That he rebutted within the last 24 hours within this thread.

You must be all lulz for this, is my only conclusion.

I understood your failed attempt at making a point, however there is far more evidence that members of the DNC are engaged in pedophilia than myself. The only accusations against myself were a couple of random fuckwits trolling on a message board.

Funny how literally nobody cares to address the Clintons facilitating human trafficking in Haiti..

 

[alasdairm]

...a couple of random fuckwits trolling on a message board.

I'm actually getting really tired of your ad homs and personal attacks.

me too! the liquidmethod in that first message should listen to the liquidmethod in that second message. are you two related?

and of course the pedo. thing was flippant - it was designed to hold a mirror up to your ludicrous "let's just assume things are true until they're proven false" logic.



alasdair

 

[LiquidMethod]

and of course the pedo. thing was flippant - it was designed to hold a mirror up to your ludicrous "let's just assume things are true until they're proven false" logic.

It proved nothing. There is a thread with 7 pages of discussion relating to DNC-linked pedophilia (even though half of those pages was inane deflective bullshit from scrofula). To suggest (even flippantly) that there is a comparative amount of evidence is disingenuous and just straight trolling. Good try, though.

 

[Scrofula]

Exactly. It didn't prove anything.

How is asking you the details of the case deflection?