Your entire rant sounds so familiar that you most likely copied it from some wingnut site and…
Victoria Lamb Hatch

Oh my, Virginia, you are in high dudgeon. I suppose I can understand your anger. Your idol was vanquished. Shocking!

However, that is no excuse for poor logic, nor for being a sore loser. That first short paragraph of yours is filled with assumptions and ad homs … but, alas, little else. Do you know what an ad hom is, and why it is such bad form? And do you know why assumptions are so often wrong?

The rest of your post does have some noteworthy characteristics.

  1. You avoid replying to the things I wrote. Instead, you either introduce new topics or erect Straw Men. [Do you know what Straw Man means, Virginia?]
  2. You appear to acknowledge that Hillary has lied and changed her positions for political advantage, but you excuse it as being “over the years” as opposed to being just during the election season. You ignore the ones during the election season (like TPP), preferring to prefer a lifetime of deception. Interesting choice, Virginia.
  3. You are pleased to acknowledge Hillary’s ambition, but think it is not “nefarious” in spite of the harm she has done. [Look up Omnibus Crime Bill, aka The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, for just one of many examples. Be sure to include “Superpredator” in your search.]
  4. You show no interest in talking about war. Sure, Hillary was an Iraq War booster (Yes, Virginia, booster) and, as far as I know, never balked at a single supporting appropriation bill. But that was not Hillary’s war. Nope, she had two of her own. Does that not trouble you in the least?

Tell you what, Virginia. Take a few deep breaths, think some adult thoughts, and try again. See if you can actually do some refutation of anything I wrote. No bloviation or “feces flinging” this time, okay? It’s a bad look. :-)

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.