Go arrest her, then, since you’re the only one paying attention to the whole thing at this point.
Hey guys? I’m curious. Is there a term for this kind of argument? Is it some specific fallacious arguing tactic, 'cause we see it a lot (primarily from the more right-wing-nuttery kind of poster)?
It goes a little like this:
Poster A) “Politican Bob is a criminal, because reasons!”
Poster B) “Um, actually, there’s no proof that Politician Bob did that.”
Poster A) “Oh, well, I guess you lurve Politician Bob! I should have known nobody here would be willing to admit that Politican Bob would ever, possibly, do anything wrong!”
It’s a very tiresome tactic, and there really doesn’t appear to be any good defense against it, because it puts Poster B on the defensive- he then has to prove that he has been willing to call out Politician Bob in the past… which still leaves the initial accusation unaddressed.
Is it a formal fallacy, or just bad arguing?
The False Dilemma, otherwise known as the Either/Or argument and Black/White thinking. If you’re not 100% conservative, you have to be totally on the side of the liberals.
Just because Slate told you the evidence magically doesn’t count, does not actually mean there is no evidence.
I love the valuable look into the unrestrained id of the echo chamber that this board provides.
Yes! Yes! That’s a perfect example. Thank you.
Indeed. Haberdash is the absolute poster boy for that sort of thing.
Can we take that poster down now? It’s a bit ratty and tired, and it was pretty lame to begin with.
We can replace it with this.
Deleting private emails after leaving office is not, and has been done by previous Secretaries of State and other public officeholders.
Then it’s a good thing the emails were deleted months before the subpoena, right? Here’s a timelinefor clarification.
Firstly, Clinton is not her charity (any of them).
Secondly, there was a bar on the Clinton Global Initiative receiving money from foreign government until after she left office, formally agreed with the Obama adminstration. While the CGI has subsequently received money from the governments of Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and others, no such donations occured while she was in office and Clinton has said CGI will once again stop accepting such donations now that she’s running for president. Other Clinton charities have had different levels of restrictions.
Thirdly, all foreign donations to any of the Clinton charities have been subject to increased levels of reporting requirements. The Clinton Foundation does admit to breaching its own rules on reporting in some cases.
Fourthly and most importantly, there’s no evidence of any quid pro quo to support an accusation of “bribery”. At best you could argue an indirect conflict of interest, which is not a crime to the best of my knowledge.
Good thing she wasn’t withholding public documents then.
You see all those things I typed above? Those are “facts”. I looked them up. It didn’t even take me that long. There are certainly facts that reflect poorly on the Clintons (such as the reporting breaches I mentioned) but you have presented none of them, preferring to rattle off unsubstantiated and ill-informed allegations. Do your own goddamn homework next time.
You can’t throw the next President of the United States in jail without first letting her drive the conservatives off a cliff with her win! LOL! 
She destroyed evidence. She broke the law. We should throw her in jail, right next to Dick Cheney for his war crimes, and George W. Bush for his. John Kerry admitted to his war crimes, so we should throw him in jail too. Bill Clinton committed an unnatural act against an intern with a cigar, so we should round him up. That whole Bridgegate thing means we should have a cell waiting for Christie. I think we can all agree that Donald Trump should be incarcerated on General principles. Obama is lying about being an American so he can be President, that’s surely a felony. If not, the healthcare act is unconstitutional which makes the author of Obamacare a traitor, which I guess means that we can execute him (Sorry, we are going to need the jail space.)
Let’s get them all.
Leave Sarah alone, though.
Take the cannoli.
Aw, that’s sweet. We love you too. <smooch>
Just so I’m clear, money given to charity to assist candidates effort to stop HIV transmission between mothers and children, with no clear quid pro quo is a bribe.
While millions given to directly assist a candidate to get elected with the understanding that he will work to deregulate your buisiness is free speech.
I just want to make sure I’ve got the terms correct.
I think you’re a little confused about how this message board views it:
Money given to Republicans, or money spent on ads that may benefit Republicans, or money spent to promote issues Republicans generally support, or someone sharing a Republican opinion, is bribery. Anything up to and including repealing the First Amendment is justified to stop it.
Russia paying Hillary Clinton to let Russia annex Ukraine and Arab states paying Hillary Clinton to ignore ISIS is speech and must be protected.
Is that an example of a Republican idea? It is well worthy of ridicule.
That’s actually pretty clever. Typically when Russia invades somewhere, we don’t see a dime. Go Hillary!
Hoe about it? With that much power now, I wonder what she’ll do with the presidency.
I like when people tell me how the message board views things. It saves me the hassle of reading or thinking for myself. And polls? Who needs steenkin’ polls?