Your top reasons Hillary lost.

[bobgeese]

I have, which is how I know you're full of shit.

And generally, your posts indicate a lot of the problems with political discourse. It's not enough for you to prefer one set of policies--you have to make up crazy attacks on the other side. And you're passing around false claims without checking them.

That took 2 seconds. From CNN



"It last rated the Clinton Foundation in 2014 and stopped because the Foundation changed its reporting structure. At the time, Charity Navigator said the foundation was operating with an "atypical business model."


Oh, and I'm sure it's totally normal that they magically offered to clean up their books the year Hillary was running.



That's the last time I google something for you, I only did it to prove you're unfortunately afflicted by fantasy land liberal disorder. That's when presented with a fact that violates a liberals safe space, they just pretend something isn't true.

Textbook case right here jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That took 2 seconds. From CNN

"It last rated the Clinton Foundation in 2014 and stopped because the Foundation changed its reporting structure. At the time, Charity Navigator said the foundation was operating with an "atypical business model."

Oh, and I'm sure it's totally normal that they magically offered to clean up their books the year Hillary was running.

That's the last time I google something for you, I only did it to prove you're unfortunately afflicted by fantasy land liberal disorder. That's when presented with a fact that violates a liberals safe space, they just pretend something isn't true.

Textbook case right here jack.

You claimed that it was a sham charity. I pointed out that it was highly rated. Charity Watch and Charity Navigator both gave it highest ratings, though, as you point out, the atypical structure made it harder to rate according to CN's normal process. Nowhere did anyone claim that it was a sham. That's just something you completely made up because you're too immature to simply disagree with a platform.

 

[lfd0311]

What?

No, one candidate had sane policies and the other didn't.

What were her policies, again?

 

[bobgeese]

You claimed that it was a sham charity. I pointed out that it was highly rated. Charity Watch and Charity Navigator both gave it highest ratings, though, as you point out, the atypical structure made it harder to rate according to CN's normal process. Nowhere did anyone claim that it was a sham. That's just something you completely made up because you're too immature to simply disagree with a platform.

LOL at you spinning. You're a fantasy land liberal.


And yes, the NYT laid out how their charity is a sham. Unless you believe the millions donated by those with interests in uranium one were just trying to help the children?

 

[21 Savage]

What were her policies, again?

I'm not surprised you don't even know them.

The Drumpf crowd is the biggest "feelz over realz" crowd there is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

LOL at you spinning. You're a fantasy land liberal.

And yes, the NYT laid out how their charity is a sham. Unless you believe the millions donated by those with interests in uranium one were just trying to help the children?

"Spinning" = "telling truths that are uncomfortable to dishonest partisans" apparently.

The charity is not a sham, and no credible source has ever asserted that. It's a pure fabrication. You're also getting the stupid uranium CT wrong.

 

[lfd0311]

I'm not surprised you don't even know them.

The Drumpf crowd is the biggest "feelz over realz" crowd there is.

ROFL. So you shift off not knowing what her policies are by pretending I don't know. Nice try kid.

 

[21 Savage]

ROFL. So you shift off not knowing what her policies are by pretending I don't know. Nice try kid.

I'm not going to educate you buddy I assumed when you chose to engage in this conversation that you were at least somewhat knowledgable. I should have known better.

 

[lfd0311]

I'm not going to educate you buddy I assumed when you chose to engage in this conversation that you were at least somewhat knowledgable. I should have known better.

Classic Deflection #2. Basically you're just an idiot who doesn't actually know what her positions were. Got it.

 

[21 Savage]

Classic Deflection #2. Basically you're just an idiot who doesn't actually know what her positions were. Got it.

>asks what her policies were
>gets BTFO'd
>pretends like he knew all along
>"y-y-you d-don't even know y-yourself I b-bet!!"

 

[lfd0311]

>asks what her policies were
>gets BTFO'd
>pretends like he knew all along
>"y-y-you d-don't even know y-yourself I b-bet!!"

Where did this happen, exactly?

 

[lfd0311]

>asks what her policies were
>gets BTFO'd
>pretends like he knew all along
>"y-y-you d-don't even know y-yourself I b-bet!!"

Nothing? No response to that last one? Shocked....

 

[21 Savage]

Where did this happen, exactly?

B T F O
B
T
F
O

 

[Bald1]

Nothing? No response to that last one? Shocked....

Just an fyi - you're arguing with a kid.

 

[lfd0311]

B T F O
B
T
F
O

This is just pathetic

 

[21 Savage]

This is just pathetic

So many posts so little substance smh

 

[lfd0311]

Just an fyi - you're arguing with a kid.

I figured. How old is he?

 

[lfd0311]

So many posts so little substance smh

are you 12?

 

[21 Savage]

are you 12?

Do you only ask retarded questions?

 

[Bald1]

I figured. How old is he?

Not sure. Google NEET. I think it was @Sketch who gave us the heads up.