Hillary Gaslighting

From iGeek
Revision as of 12:46, 15 April 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an article about just a few of the times that Hillary has not only lied, but tried to convince or accuse the other side is insane for even thinking such a thing.

Gaslighting

To her and her campaign, this is what "Going high, while the other side goes low" looks like. Their campaigns ran dirty, nasty, and made the issue "the other side". She has a long history of starting rumors, slurring her opponents, and attacking anyone who has evidence or accusations of her wrongdoing. And that's a lot of people. Either much of the world has been out to get them for no reason (the "vast right-wing conspiracy"), or the Clinton's were really nasty people:


Birth of Birthers -
ObamaBirthers.png
Recently Donald Trump re-ignited the birther campaign by saying the following, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it...." This of course has revived the fable that the Obama birther movement didn't come from the Clinton campaign, and the Hillary-supporting media is quick to carry her campaigns' water and gaslight anyone who knew better. But as Ronald Reagan said, "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

Hillary Clinton: Attacked a 12 year old rape victim -
HillaryTapes.png
Early into her career Hillary was appointed as public defender in a rape case, and made the centerpiece of her defense attacking the 12-year old victim's credibility (eventhough there wasn't a shred of evidence that the victim had any sort of history of making false claims). Going on to claim the victim wanted it by implying that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor. She omitted this aspect of the case from her 2003 book, "Living History." (Selective memory seems to be a pattern). Then in a 1980 interview she admits she knew the guy was guilty, but joked and laughed about it, and how she manipulated the situation to get her guilty client a reduced punishment for child rape. A lawyers job is to defend their client, but lawyers are NOT required to do things they don't believe are true; like attack the credibility of a 12 year old rape victim, or present evidence/ideas that they know is false. She is admitting doing the latter, and has a pattern of wading neck deep into ethical dark-gray areas (at best). Then claims the opposite, like she's a champion of women's rights, especially sexual assault victims... unless they're victims of her clients or husband).

Hillary Clinton: Bimbo squad -
Bimbos2.jpg
Hillary is a hero to Women's liberation, unless you were one of her Husbands rape or assault victims... like: Juanita Broaddrick, Dolly Kyle Browning, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewisnski. Connie Hamz , Bobbie Ann Williams, Sally Perdue, Eileen Wellstone, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, University of Arkansas Student, 22 Year old Yale Student, Lencola Sullivan, Elizabeth Ward-Gracen, Becky Brown, Helen Dowdy, Kathy Ferguson, Susie Whitacre, just to name a few that came forward and complained. And as we know with predators, there's like a lot more that have not, or were bullied by Hillary into silence.

Hillary Clinton: Divulges Nuclear Response Times -
Hillary-NuclearResponse.jpeg
Amongst the top most classifications are Special Access Program (SAP) and the “need-to-know” (NTK) classification that includes only a few top cabinet officials like the Secretary of State. These contain things like the nuclear response times, that have been completely classified and foreign enemies would always have to make educated guesses on how fast we could possibly get missiles in the air. Not any more. Thanks to Hillary trying to win political points, she blurted out one of the nations highest secrets ("There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so”). And the results are that many security officials and the Pentagon are once again pissed at her incompetence with classified information. (Not to mention the whole emailgate thing.

Does this really matter? Probably not much. They could approximate and guess at the time, it's just nice to have hard confirmation of your intelligence. But this was a far bigger deal than anything Trump has done wrt talking to the Russians about cooperating on terror, and mentioning what the newspapers had already published about how terrorists were trying to create laptop-bombs to target airplanes -- and they made a huge deal out of the latter, to gaslight anyone who knew better. So if that's our standard of guilt, then Hillary should be in Leavenworth. (I've yet to find a standard of behavior applied to Trump that doesn't make Hillary worse). Pick one standard.


Hillary Clinton: Go-Awaygate -
GoAwayHillary.jpeg
Hillary Clinton fires back at critics: No one told a man who lost an election to shut up. Of course that shows that she's clueless, abrasive, ignorant of history, and context is that everyone else was not as venomous and divisive a loser (or winner) as she has been. No one has cared about her genitalia in a long time -- but her perpetual victimhood is annoying as fuck and evidence of her attempts to gaslight anyone who disagrees with her.

Hillary Clinton: What Happened? - Hillary's book was a spiteful, divisive, finger-pointing-fest. It was everyone else's fault but her. Of course, she had some fake apologies like, I should have campaigned harder, or how it was her fault because the others didn't understand how brilliant she was, and so on. But it was as tone deaf as her campaign, and it was an attempt to gaslight anyone that would question her version of events.

Hillary Quotes -
Hillary.jpg
Just some of Hillary's greatest misses. Again, this isn't trying to be "fair" and list all the good things she's said. This is to point out the Pants-suit posse criticizing other politicians for being insensitive racists, or just asshats, might want to consider "lead by example". If it's wrong for the other side, then it's more wrong to ignore your own sides flaws. And pretending "when they go low, we go high" is just gaslighting.

Paying thugs to assault people - Project Veritas undercover video, Wikileaks, and others all caught prominent Democrat operatives (Robert Creamer, Scott Foval) admitting that the DNC and Hillary Campaign was paying protestors to disrupt, and thugs to assault or provoke assault with Trump supporters are Trump rally's/events. Including daily conference call with the Clinton campaign, and he visited the Obama White House 340 times (45 of those with direct meetings with Obama, a few with 1:1's). They were also committing voter fraud, and left a paper trail. This isn't just outliers, this was establishment connections in a conspiracy to corrupt an election, and at least two people quickly had to quit to distance themselves from the truth. The media gave this scandal and thorough whitewashing and buried it. Little interest despite names, dates, and hard evidence of something far more material on the election outcome than, "Russia, Russia, Russia".

Russian Hackers -
Fake news.jpg
The Russian hacker thing seems to be a great system for separating the rational and skeptical, from the rest. Despite CNN and other FakeNews sites repeating that the Russian hacked the election (at Hillary campaigns behest), that Russians collaborated with Trump, that they manipulated the election, the only "evidence" they had were vaporous claims from anonymous sources that never materialized or pass scrutiny. While there was hard evidence of Hillary and Democrats colluding with Russians. So Dems/their Media just created this attack as an excuse to distract away from their actions in rigging the primary, fumbling the election, and then gaslit anyone who would question their narrative.