Jill Stein Presidential Town Hall FULL VIDEO

[Jack V Savage]

And of course you got the question, you're just too slimy to own up to your own bullshit.

The TPP is either a victim of left wing propaganda

Or

It doesn't meet her standards and she'll block it if she can.

Not only left-wing propaganda. There's a lot of propaganda against it from the right. There's support and opposition to it from all over. But there's no either or there, unless you think she's immune from making bad decisions. I think her specific rejection of it is either poorly thought out or politically motivated, which does nothing to change the fact that she is committed to it. Like, for example, I don't think Trump really deep in his heart gives a shit whether abortion is legal or not, but he'd have to appoint pro-life justices to the SCOTUS because he's committed.

She claims to have reviewed it and changed her mind, after advocating for it 33 times, when the finished product didn't meet her standards. Her flip has nothing to do with external propaganda.

I guess we're not all as privy to her the inner workings of her mind as you claim to be.

They're talking points when they fly in the face of the facts just to make people feel better about their candidate.

So you're confirming that you're an idiot and, separately, that you don't know what "talking points" even means. Cool.

No, I throw it on the bullshit like, because I know she's lying on TPP.

You are saying she got conned. Again! So you're saying she has exhibited poor judgment .

I'm saying that her judgment is not perfect and that I don't agree with her on everything, yes. Are you saying that she exhibited good judgment with her decision to oppose the TPP?

BTW, you neither substantiated your earlier charge nor admitted that it was fabricated. Not surprising, but worth noting.

 

[electricfuneral]

And of course you got the question, you're just too slimy to own up to your own bullshit.

The TPP is either a victim of left wing propaganda


Or


It doesn't meet her standards and she'll block it if she can.


She claims to have reviewed it and changed her mind, after advocating for it 33 times, when the finished product didn't meet her standards. Her flip has nothing to do with external propaganda.

I don't think it's the victim of left wing propaganda. It lost a PR battle but I mean Trump is against TPP according to him It's just one of those issues that both sides decided they hated. It was a populist approach that killed TPP>

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Quote me saying something knowingly untrue about your position on climate change and taxes or admit that you're lying.



None of those are DNC talking points, moron. You're just revealing that you'll call anything you don't agree with a "DNC talking point." By that definition, sure. I say things you don't agree with all the time (to my credit).



Sure. And you throw it in the good judgment pile?

That is really weak because you know you're lying.

If you can't own up to these lies then you should be able to prove them.

How about this, you show me a post in context where I said I felt Climate Change was a hoax.


And while you're at it, find that post where I advocates for regressive tax cuts.

When you find those posts, which do not exist and you know they don't exist, then I'll apologize.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't think it's the victim of left wing propaganda. It lost a PR battle but I mean Trump is against TPP according to him It's just one of those issues that both sides decided they hated. It was a populist approach that killed TPP>

Jack is saying that Clinton is opposed to TPP because she said it didn't meet her standards.


Now he's saying TPP is a victim of propaganda.


So if Hillary opposes it because of propaganda then her judgement is poor and she didn't oppose it for any objective reason.


So she's lying, or she has poor judgment.


I'm 100% confident she's lying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That is really weak because you know you're lying.

If you can't own up to these lies then you should be able to prove them.

How about this, you show me a post in context where I said I felt Climate Change was a hoax.


And while you're at it, find that post where I advocates for regressive tax cuts.

When you find those posts, which do not exist and you know they don't exist, then I'll apologize.

I never said you hold those positions. You're lying about that, no? Did you forget?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not only left-wing propaganda. There's a lot of propaganda against it from the right. There's support and opposition to it from all over. But there's no either or there, unless you think she's immune from making bad decisions. I think her specific rejection of it is either poorly thought out or politically motivated, which does nothing to change the fact that she is committed to it. Like, for example, I don't think Trump really deep in his heart gives a shit whether abortion is legal or not, but he'd have to appoint pro-life justices to the SCOTUS because he's committed.



I guess we're not all as privy to her the inner workings of her mind as you claim to be.



So you're confirming that you're an idiot and, separately, that you don't know what "talking points" even means. Cool.



I'm saying that her judgment is not perfect and that I don't agree with her on everything, yes. Are you saying that she exhibited good judgment with her decision to oppose the TPP?

BTW, you neither substantiated your earlier charge nor admitted that it was fabricated. Not surprising, but worth noting.

I'm saying she is lying about her opposition to TPP.

Your saying she got duped by left wing propaganda. You're saying she lacks sound judgement.

 

[electricfuneral]

Jack is saying that Clinton is opposed to TPP because she said it didn't meet her standards.


Now he's saying TPP is a victim of propaganda.


So if Hillary opposes it because of propaganda then her judgement is poor and she didn't oppose it for any objective reason.


So she's lying, or she has poor judgment.


I'm 100% confident she's lying.

If your point is that Hillary flip flops on issues due to the political winds changing, then I agree with you. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack is saying that Clinton is opposed to TPP because she said it didn't meet her standards.

Now he's saying TPP is a victim of propaganda.

I'm saying that anti-TPP propaganda was being spread all over the place before people who actually cared about getting it right even had a chance to find out what it was all about. And, yes, I disagree with Clinton's specific objections to it (frankly, I don't care much about the issue and can see arguments for either opposing or supporting it).

I'm saying she is lying about her opposition to TPP.

Your saying she got duped by left wing propaganda. You're saying she lacks sound judgement.

I'm saying that there's no such thing as "lying about opposition to X." If you have staked out a public position against X, you're committed to opposing it, and you will face big political consequences if you don't. And someone getting something wrong doesn't mean that they generally "lack sound judgment." You don't believe that it does (you can't believe that and still believe that "sound judgment" is a thing that humans have), and you're just saying that because you don't care about truth with regard to Clinton.

If your point is that Hillary flip flops on issues due to the political winds changing, then I agree with you. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing though.

I don't think "flip flops" is the right term. She's always been a little left of center among Democrats, and as they've moved on issues, she's drifted along. I think "flip flop" denotes major reversals that go both ways.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

If your point is that Hillary flip flops on issues due to the political winds changing, then I agree with you. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing though.

No, I'm saying she's lying and will pass TPP when she's elected.

 

[electricfuneral]

I don't think "flip flops" is the right term. She's always been a little left of center among Democrats, and as they've moved on issues, she's drifted along. I think "flip flop" denotes major reversals that go both ways.

I think leaders are supposed to represent their constituency and if the will of those voters have shifted than so should the elected official.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'm saying that anti-TPP propaganda was being spread all over the place before people who actually cared about getting it right even had a chance to find out what it was all about. And, yes, I disagree with Clinton's specific objections to it (frankly, I don't care much about the issue and can see arguments for either opposing or supporting it).



I'm saying that there's no such thing as "lying about opposition to X." If you have staked out a public position against X, you're committed to opposing it, and you will face big political consequences if you don't. And someone getting something wrong doesn't mean that they generally "lack sound judgment." You don't believe that it does (you can't believe that and still believe that "sound judgment" is a thing that humans have), and you're just saying that because you don't care about truth with regard to Clinton.



I don't think "flip flops" is the right term. She's always been a little left of center among Democrats, and as they've moved on issues, she's drifted along. I think "flip flop" denotes major reversals that go both ways.

A+ spin.

now you can't even say she flip flopped?
She supported all but 1 trade bill since she was First Lady, advocated for TPP 33x, calling it the gold standard, is quoted as saying she is for open trade and open borders, but when Sander's comes out against TPP, all of a sudden she is, too? That's not a flip flop?

 

[Jack V Savage]

A+ spin.

now you can't even say she flip flopped?
She supported all but 1 trade bill since she was First Lady, advocated for TPP 33x, calling it the gold standard, is quoted as saying she is for open trade and open borders, but when Sander's comes out against TPP, all of a sudden she is, too? That's not a flip flop?

Being honest, she never "advocated" for the final version of the TPP. While she was part of the process, she said it was going well. If you (stupidly) think that her opposition is based on copying Sanders, you should be happy that he was influential in that way. But, of course, you don't actually care about policy or how it affects people's lives because that would require the ability to emphasize with others, which you obviously lack. So this is just a random hammer that you're using to hit someone you dislike for irrational reasons.

Furthermore, interestingly, what you're saying actually is an example of "talking points." And, as usual with talking points, they're not real arguments. What is the point of counting how many trade deals she opposed and supported? Are they all the same? You actually didn't even say how many she supported? Two? Three? She doesn't claim to be anti-trade, and most Americans are not anti-trade (and almost no economists are). Look at the context for her remarks about borders (I mean, if you care about understanding what she was saying rather than repeating a political gotcha).

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Being honest, she never "advocated" for the final version of the TPP. While she was part of the process, she said it was going well. If you (stupidly) think that her opposition is based on copying Sanders, you should be happy that he was influential in that way. But, of course, you don't actually care about policy or how it affects people's lives because that would require the ability to emphasize with others, which you obviously lack. So this is just a random hammer that you're using to hit someone you dislike for irrational reasons.

Furthermore, interestingly, what you're saying actually is an example of "talking points." And, as usual with talking points, they're not real arguments. What is the point of counting how many trade deals she opposed and supported? Are they all the same? You actually didn't even say how many she supported? Two? Three? She doesn't claim to be anti-trade, and most Americans are not anti-trade (and almost no economists are). Look at the context for her remarks about borders (I mean, if you care about understanding what she was saying rather than repeating a political gotcha).

That's a lot of spin to avoid calling her a flip flopper.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

A LOT of effort to avoid admitting a simple and obvious truth