zoomharp Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 My FB Friends page is a nightmare these days. I am convinced by Stef that we have to fight Hillary for the sake of civilization. But I am not good at this!! Will you help me? After being attacked for 2 FB posts last week that were questionable (Michael Moore's pro Trump speech and the Joe Biden's "lazy American women" speech, I now want to be extra careful that my replies and posts are unassailable, concise, and convincing. What link(s) would you use to combat this statement from someone who took exception to my calling Hillary corrupt and criminal? : "Corrupt and criminal? I am not a Hillary fan, I am reasonably well-read (news-wise), and I am the last person to claim that politicians don't get away with murder, but nothing I have seen has convinced me that she is corrupt or - much less - criminal, unless the bar is set extremely low. When I do, I will change my mind. But until then, I need a reasonable amount of evidence, and nobody credible has offered any. One thing that keeps most of the people who hate Clinton off my credibility list is their failure to apply the same standards to the politicians they support and/or worship (past or present)." I respectfully request only helpful suggestions rather than lectures on unfriending leftists or refraining from engagement. Those ideas might be good, but right now I'm in a firefight -- and over what? Whether Hillary is corrupt? Surely there is a quick way to shoot this down. Thank you! 3
zoomharp Posted October 30, 2016 Author Posted October 30, 2016 Ask them if they think OJ is a criminal. How will that help?
LillyG Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 Your friends either recognize/understand criminal behavior or they don't.
jpahmad Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 Here, send this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCYma3zZf7U
dsayers Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 Criminal doesn't mean anything since the lines one has to cross to get there are arbitrary. How do they define corrupt? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. It will take a LOT LOT longer to try and discuss the traits of each and every individual that wants to sit on the throne. It's much more efficient to focus on whether or not the throne exists and is valid. You can't change people's minds with logic, reason, and evidence if they didn't arrive at their conclusion by ways outside of logic, reason, and evidence. Trying to do so will only serve to make them believe in their position MORE. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series.
A4E Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 "Just a moment, I am currently copying the pictures in your FB album that you only shared with your closest friends, onto my portable hard drive, and saving the PMs between you and me on my USB flash drive."
deadflagblues Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 https://puu.sh/s0QGb/e6d501ec2b.jpg https://puu.sh/s0QFc/2a7cf1efde.jpg https://puu.sh/s0QFR/5eb9a4fd3b.jpg Start with this and look into the specific laws to dig out what she did to break them.
taraelizabeth21 Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 My FB Friends page is a nightmare these days. I am convinced by Stef that we have to fight Hillary for the sake of civilization. But I am not good at this!! Will you help me? After being attacked for 2 FB posts last week that were questionable (Michael Moore's pro Trump speech and the Joe Biden's "lazy American women" speech, I now want to be extra careful that my replies and posts are unassailable, concise, and convincing. What link(s) would you use to combat this statement from someone who took exception to my calling Hillary corrupt and criminal? : "Corrupt and criminal? I am not a Hillary fan, I am reasonably well-read (news-wise), and I am the last person to claim that politicians don't get away with murder, but nothing I have seen has convinced me that she is corrupt or - much less - criminal, unless the bar is set extremely low. When I do, I will change my mind. But until then, I need a reasonable amount of evidence, and nobody credible has offered any. One thing that keeps most of the people who hate Clinton off my credibility list is their failure to apply the same standards to the politicians they support and/or worship (past or present)." I respectfully request only helpful suggestions rather than lectures on unfriending leftists or refraining from engagement. Those ideas might be good, but right now I'm in a firefight -- and over what? Whether Hillary is corrupt? Surely there is a quick way to shoot this down. Thank you! I love this question! Good on you for being out there and fighting the good fight. I think the thing that has helped me the most is to be as thorough as I can by citing different sources, including using MSM articles. It's pretty easy to prove, for instance, that Clinton is a warmonger because the New York Times has even said so (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-putin-russia.html). Ultimately I do end up sharing a lot of Breitbart articles because they're oftentimes a singular voice reporting on things that other sources ignore. But, in regard to corruption--you can of course point out her relationship with Huma Abedin & Abedin's ties to terrorist organizations--as well as a myriad of info related to the Clinton Foundation. Check out info about the Uranium One deal, as well (http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/05/01/one-year-silence-hillary-clinton-uranium-deal/). There are the incredibly huge fees that both she and Bill received for speaking engagements which are very suspect. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/) And then there's just the straight up truth that she is part of an ongoing investigation by the FBI. Something that I feel puts it in perspective is comparing Clinton's lack of punishment with that of other figures, like General Petraeus, who comparatively risked way less than Clinton did with her criminal actions. I think the truth of the matter is that so many people are entrenched in a narrative right now that puts Clinton, I guess, as the "lesser evil." Or at least, they see her someone who cares for those without privilege. I'm of the opinion that there is honestly nothing you can say to convince those people of anything, because you're not even working with actual definitions of words. Try to define "white privilege" in any concrete terms; it's very nebulous. You can try to talk to them about economics, or policy, and try to explain the fact that bringing in more illegal immigrants will cause further competition for low-skilled jobs that low income people need. You combine that with higher corporate taxes, and then companies don't have enough spare funds to create more low income jobs to begin with. I mean, you can try to say that but, usually at that point I try to emphasize the fact that Clinton wants to take us all to war. The fact that she's a woman makes things worse because they make statements like, "Oh there Trump goes again, telling a more qualified woman how to do her job. Just like a man, go figure," etc. That stuff ANNOYING because it's so emotional. What I like to do is bring it back down to earth as much as possible--and site her foreign policy actions which have led to widespread destruction in the middle east. Even if it seems like you didn't "win" the argument, it's important to get the facts out there. Even if you don't convince the particular person that you're arguing with, at least other people might follow the thread of comments and check out the articles you posted. So there's that aspect, as well. I had person straight up tell me "i have nothing further to say to you!!!" like that actually mattered. I kept going anyway and posted another article about war, because that evidence to me is so compelling and difficult to ignore. Focusing on the threat of war really underscores the way that petty scandal an false narratives have infested the American media to the detriment of the safety and security of the American people. People just need to know what a risk she is and what they are putting on the line by voting for her. There's a lot of evidence out there for corruption, but sometimes it's hard to engage with those ideas because it's all backroom deals and complexity. So definitely bring it up for sure but also there's a wealth of information that shows she's a warmonger. If people won't accept the corruption facts, there are other angles that NEED to be put out there. 1
zoomharp Posted October 31, 2016 Author Posted October 31, 2016 That was very helpful,Taraelizabeth. Thanks so much for taking the time. Here is the reply I ended up making, if anyone is interested. "I respect your intellect very much, [name], but I am flabbergasted that you don't think there is enough credible evidence. Absolutely flabbergasted. Lying repeatedly about her emails and her devices? Using Bleachbit on her server and smashing her Blackberry with a hammer? The Clinton Foundation and Haiti? The Russian Uranium deal? Bill having a secret meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac while the latter is investigating his wife? Harassing Bill's rape victims to keep them quiet? I won't comment on your posts anymore if you don't want me to. I know people feel annoyed by this, and I'm sorry I've upset you. It's not my intention I assure you. Just following my conscience. Be well. "
algernon Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 I think in real world terms, the Clinton Foundation is more important to focus on than her emails. Sure the whole email thing should have landed her in prison, if the standards were universal for application of the law. But the Clinton foundation shows a true example of corruption often found in 3rd world countries, at an exponentially greater level. Then of course you could look at Haiti, and what the Clinton/Bush crime family has been doing to that country.
David Ottinger Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 if you want to see a summary of what wikileaks has exposed: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ 2
JaquanDJones Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 I believe the problem is that a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters just don't care about her apparent criminal activity and corruption. Or they think Trump has done worse or something.
sweathog1 Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 Suggest that you have it only partially correct, you must go waaaaay back. Where are the missing trillions? What would the tax rate be if we had to pay for it everywhere? Why pay tax at all? Peanuts compared to what they print. Start here: A prophetic interview It has little to do with the puppets they put forward either liberal or conservative. True the parasites have bled western society dry but why?
barebones Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 The Problem: ".....I now want to be extra careful that my replies and posts are unassailable, concise, and convincing." This is not casual conversation!Concise - easy.No explanation necessary.Unassailable - Harder. It's all in the Presentation and References. Proposition. Substantiation. Conclusion.Convincing - Really Hard! In this informational and psychological poisoned society in which we now live, it's becoming much more difficult to find people who are logically focused. The Presentation should be bound by definitions and facts that may be debated. Unfortunately, during discussions, the definitions and facts can mutate by associations and minimize or even defy any meaningful conclusion.Now, whenever reviewing a rebuttal, if it's objective, you may have a chance at conversion, else if it's subjective, delusion or dumb is likely involved so have fun and be polite. It's the PC thing to do!
shirgall Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 The term I would use is "unindicted". Advocate determining if there's a reason to haul her into a court to a grand jury and not a political appointee.
zoomharp Posted October 31, 2016 Author Posted October 31, 2016 Thanks for the continued support and suggestions. I have since been called a liar and unfriended by one of the people who didn't like what I was saying (not the person I quoted above). No real loss there, but I am not soldierly and stuff like this always hurts. 1
Mister Mister Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 if you want to see a summary of what wikileaks has exposed: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ Yes, this is a good link to share IMO Thanks for the continued support and suggestions. I have since been called a liar and unfriended by one of the people who didn't like what I was saying (not the person I quoted above). No real loss there, but I am not soldierly and stuff like this always hurts. yes and that probably won't change. the fact that it hurts is why people do it. kudos and sympathy
sweathog1 Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 Stand up for what you believe in I decided to use my real name on all the public broadcasters.
kavih Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 I respectfully request only helpful suggestions rather than lectures on unfriending leftists or refraining from engagement. Those ideas might be good, but right now I'm in a firefight -- and over what? Whether Hillary is corrupt? Surely there is a quick way to shoot this down. Thank you! At least on her emails, I think this outlines things pretty succinctly (I just created it): https://truthmapper.com/map?id=f0ee47725f4bdd3bf8bbd7a3e25ba58e#.WBmBWMlc_St And if you guys have any feedback/edits, please let me know. 2
zoomharp Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 In just the few days since I first asked for help, there is so much more evidence coming out. That "friend" seems done with me and is just posting pathetic anti Trump stuff on his wall. An observation from the trauma of the last 4+ months (I say "trauma" because as I mentioned before I am not cut out for this!): you can put forth the most convincing evidence, again and again, and when the leftists cannot refute it they will eventually come up with "But look what [Trump/Bush/anyone they dislike] did!" Didn't their mothers tell them "two wrongs don't make a right"?
dsayers Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 Didn't their mothers tell them "two wrongs don't make a right"? If only Trump supporters allowed this to infiltrate their own conclusion.
algernon Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 In just the few days since I first asked for help, there is so much more evidence coming out. That "friend" seems done with me and is just posting pathetic anti Trump stuff on his wall. An observation from the trauma of the last 4+ months (I say "trauma" because as I mentioned before I am not cut out for this!): you can put forth the most convincing evidence, again and again, and when the leftists cannot refute it they will eventually come up with "But look what [Trump/Bush/anyone they dislike] did!" Didn't their mothers tell them "two wrongs don't make a right"? Yes that's true, and when people try to argue that with me they don't get anywhere, because I don't support any politician or political office, I agree whoever they are using is generally corrupt as well. Of course if it's just something made up I'll debate it, just like if someone were to make up things about Hillary - the truth matters, so I cannot let untruths stand. A lot of people get on this whole team thing, R vs D, and when one brings up the transgressions of the other they have to defend their team, when you're not on a team it's a whole lot easier to have the discussion.
David Ottinger Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 This assortment of pictures comparing the duality in propaganda over the years is, imo, relevant to this topic: http://imgur.com/a/o61AS Enjoy! Or... wait, maybe, run for hills?
Bilderberg CEO Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 You could ask your friend why Haitians are accusing the Clintons of fraud, and when your friend says it can't be true, call them a racist for assuming the Haitians are lying and post a picture of Hillary kissing her mentor and exalted KKK cyclops, Robert Byrd.
Recommended Posts