[the truth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTBdFccqDns

warmongering egotistical corporate lackey maniac

[Jamie89]

I know people want to talk more about Hillary issues, but like other threads recently it's really hard to take this seriously when a) the thread title uses quotation marks for something she hasn't actually said (a mistake or done to exaggerate and misinform?), b) the video is intentionally edited to misrepresent the context of what she's said, and c) it comes from a source as biased as a YT channel called "Hillary for Prison".
I'll just leave it there because I'd actually really like to discuss and understand the issues other people have with her, but when it's misleading propaganda being passed off as 'news' or a 'serious debate' I don't see the point tbh. You also have to wonder that if the facts behind videos like this, (and the 'rape-enabler' one etc) need to be so desperately and deliberately misrepresented, if she's really as bad as some are saying.

[bots]

My view would be that you can't accuse her of everything. In the recent TV debates, Trump criticised her for being too friendly with Iran and giving them large amounts of dosh (which is correct actually) to quell their nuclear ambitions. So to now say the exact opposite is laughable

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I know people want to talk more about Hillary issues, but like other threads recently it's really hard to take this seriously when a) the thread title uses quotation marks for something she hasn't actually said (a mistake or done to exaggerate and misinform?), b) the video is intentionally edited to misrepresent the context of what she's said, and c) it comes from a source as biased as a YT channel called "Hillary for Prison".
I'll just leave it there because I'd actually really like to discuss and understand the issues other people have with her, but when it's misleading propaganda being passed off as 'news' or a 'serious debate' I don't see the point tbh. You also have to wonder that if the facts behind videos like this, (and the 'rape-enabler' one etc) need to be so desperately and deliberately misrepresented, if she's really as bad as some are saying.

what the heck are you on about, this is exactly what she said? listen to the words come out of her mouth?

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by the truth

what the heck are you on about, this is exactly what she said? listen to the words come out of her mouth?

She doesn't say "We will attack and obliterate Iran".
Firstly she says "we will attack Iran", and that's in response to if they attacked Israel. It's not a general statement of 'if I'm president we're going to attack them' which is how it's portrayed in the video, but of course the prefix to what she says in the video, and what she says afterwards has been cut out to distort the context of it, that's what I'm talking about. (In fact instead of continuing to what she says next, we get a repeat of "we will attack Iran" over a shot of a bomb exploding, how is it anything but propaganda with the deliberate intention of misleading?) And secondly she doesn't say they "will obliterate Iran", she's saying that she wants them to "understand" that they are able to (and yes it's a harsh choice of words but isn't the sentiment behind it exactly one of the reasons why any country would have armed forces in the first place and/or threaten to get involved in a situation where an attack takes place?)
So I stand by the points I made in my original post because it's really frustrating when you have to try and decode the video first to understand the actual truth of it (which you wouldn't need to do if it was either a credible source or something that wasn't so obviously edited in order to mislead), and if instead you take it on face value, you just end up debating a fallacy and what's the point in that? (Not to mention the hypocrisy of videos like this being made when we've got Trump and many of his supporters complaining of election rigging because he's being misrepresented.)

[Northern Monkey]

Lovely lady

Youtube video

[Northern Monkey]

There is a high chance her no fly zone will drag us into war with Russia

Youtube video

[reece(:]

Bending words to suit your agenda

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I know people want to talk more about Hillary issues, but like other threads recently it's really hard to take this seriously when a) the thread title uses quotation marks for something she hasn't actually said (a mistake or done to exaggerate and misinform?), b) the video is intentionally edited to misrepresent the context of what she's said, and c) it comes from a source as biased as a YT channel called "Hillary for Prison".
I'll just leave it there because I'd actually really like to discuss and understand the issues other people have with her, but when it's misleading propaganda being passed off as 'news' or a 'serious debate' I don't see the point tbh. You also have to wonder that if the facts behind videos like this, (and the 'rape-enabler' one etc) need to be so desperately and deliberately misrepresented, if she's really as bad as some are saying.

Originally Posted by Jamie89

She doesn't say "We will attack and obliterate Iran".
Firstly she says "we will attack Iran", and that's in response to if they attacked Israel. It's not a general statement of 'if I'm president we're going to attack them' which is how it's portrayed in the video, but of course the prefix to what she says in the video, and what she says afterwards has been cut out to distort the context of it, that's what I'm talking about. (In fact instead of continuing to what she says next, we get a repeat of "we will attack Iran" over a shot of a bomb exploding, how is it anything but propaganda with the deliberate intention of misleading?) And secondly she doesn't say they "will obliterate Iran", she's saying that she wants them to "understand" that they are able to (and yes it's a harsh choice of words but isn't the sentiment behind it exactly one of the reasons why any country would have armed forces in the first place and/or threaten to get involved in a situation where an attack takes place?)
So I stand by the points I made in my original post because it's really frustrating when you have to try and decode the video first to understand the actual truth of it (which you wouldn't need to do if it was either a credible source or something that wasn't so obviously edited in order to mislead), and if instead you take it on face value, you just end up debating a fallacy and what's the point in that? (Not to mention the hypocrisy of videos like this being made when we've got Trump and many of his supporters complaining of election rigging because he's being misrepresented.)

its difficult to tell people who take information from biased sources why teyre not getting the full picture but you did it well.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

She doesn't say "We will attack and obliterate Iran".
Firstly she says "we will attack Iran", and that's in response to if they attacked Israel. It's not a general statement of 'if I'm president we're going to attack them' which is how it's portrayed in the video, but of course the prefix to what she says in the video, and what she says afterwards has been cut out to distort the context of it, that's what I'm talking about. (In fact instead of continuing to what she says next, we get a repeat of "we will attack Iran" over a shot of a bomb exploding, how is it anything but propaganda with the deliberate intention of misleading?) And secondly she doesn't say they "will obliterate Iran", she's saying that she wants them to "understand" that they are able to (and yes it's a harsh choice of words but isn't the sentiment behind it exactly one of the reasons why any country would have armed forces in the first place and/or threaten to get involved in a situation where an attack takes place?)
So I stand by the points I made in my original post because it's really frustrating when you have to try and decode the video first to understand the actual truth of it (which you wouldn't need to do if it was either a credible source or something that wasn't so obviously edited in order to mislead), and if instead you take it on face value, you just end up debating a fallacy and what's the point in that? (Not to mention the hypocrisy of videos like this being made when we've got Trump and many of his supporters complaining of election rigging because he's being misrepresented.)

Everything she says here is bonkers. Firstly she starts off with we will attack Iran, she said it, then later qualified it with if they foolishly attack israel, which will never ever happen, as the israelis have a massive arsenal of nukes. She then says we will be able to obliterate them. what kind of language is that to use about a sovereign state of 77 million...but of course she has a track record of illegally choosing to bomb sovereign states for no reason whatsoever, other than neo con geopolitical gains...anyone who voted for the illegal iraq war, should automatically be banned from ever holding office again....not to forget the fact she even stated she wouldnt withdraw from the democratic race with obama in 2008 because who knows what could happen, since kennedy junior was assassinated. she is evil.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

the prefix to what she says in the video, and what she says afterwards has been cut out to distort the context of it,

Originally Posted by the truth

Firstly she starts off with we will attack Iran

I give in

[Withano]

Originally Posted by the truth

Everything she says here is bonkers. Firstly she starts off with we will attack Iran, she said it, then later qualified it with if they foolishly attack israel, which will never ever happen, as the israelis have a massive arsenal of nukes. She then says we will be able to obliterate them. what kind of language is that to use about a sovereign state of 77 million...but of course she has a track record of illegally choosing to bomb sovereign states for no reason whatsoever, other than neo con geopolitical gains...anyone who voted for the illegal iraq war, should automatically be banned from ever holding office again....not to forget the fact she even stated she wouldnt withdraw from the democratic race with obama in 2008 because who knows what could happen, since kennedy junior was assassinated. she is evil.

you wanna obliterate 77m Israelis? or am I taking YOUR WORDS, YOU WROTE THEM out of context?
I have a feeling this only works one way though, doesn't it.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I give in

ive read the transcript, she suggests if iran ever attacked israel with nuclear weapons then she would bomb iran and obliterate them, funny thing is though the original question was NOT asked about nuclear weapons that was simply how she chose to answer it

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Withano

you wanna obliterate 77m Israelis? or am I taking YOUR WORDS, YOU WROTE THEM out of context?
I have a feeling this only works one way though, doesn't it.

eh? theres 77 million iranians? theres only 8 million israelis, you tried to make a smart comment but you failed to deliver it....if iran nuked anyone let alone israel the whole world would bomb iran. she wasnt even asked the nuclear question in the first place. she likes to make these provocative statements though to create division. nothing good comes from saying you would obliterate a country

[Withano]

Originally Posted by the truth

eh? theres 77 million iranians? theres only 8 million israelis, you tried to make a smart comment but you failed to deliver it....if iran nuked anyone let alone israel the whole world would bomb iran. she wasnt even asked the nuclear question in the first place. she likes to make these provocative statements though to create division. nothing good comes from saying you would obliterate a country

You're the one who said that, I only quoted words that you used. (you're actually proving my point, see how context changes things when you look at biased sources before the bigger picture).