File talk:Hillary Clinton.jpg

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Can't we at least get a picture with her mouth open, in all fairness? You know, under established mainstream media and liberal bias precedents? RobS#NeverHillary 16:49, 28 May 2016 (EDT)

Wikipedia uses an old picture of Hillary atop her article to make her look more vibrant/young.
I will look for another picture. Conservative (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2016 (EDT)
I looked for 2016 pictures of her and this seems to be the most suitable.
Second, I largely wrote the article on Richard Dawkins. I did it because he is the most well-known person who is considered an agnostic/atheist.
I put a decent picture of Dawkins atop the article. I did this to avoid people clicking off the article fast because I chose an unflattering/unfair picture of him. People don't like unfairness. And people prefer nice looking pictures as opposed to unattractive pictures.
The resulting Richard Dawkins article is one of the most popular articles on Dawkins. By now, it has received over 1,000,000 pages views (the counter was reset accidentally.
My most popular articles take a Joe Friday "just the facts" approach. That is what people want in an encyclopedia. Conservative (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2016 (EDT)
facts are she looks like crap. RobS#NeverHillary 23:11, 28 May 2016 (EDT)

What you need is a picture of her as Rob paints her. You know; with horns and pointed nose and chin, complete with broom and (dare I mention it) cold tits. AlanE (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

I settled at a midpoint between Wikipedia having a picture of significantly younger Hillary Clinton picture atop her main article (picture was taken in 2009) and Rob's original picture. Conservative (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
Small correction: I think the counter got reset to zero for the Richard Dawkins article when it was around 500,000 page views. So the Dawklns article probably got about 800,000 page views. Conservative (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
Hillary got 1000 hits yesterday; typically 500-700 when I'm actively editing. It'll still take a few days to round out, and I wanna leave space for post-convention general election developments and narrative.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia seems to have a nasty BLP issue brewing. I mean, look at this rot: "Ms. Wiley's and Ms. Broaddrick's testimony, or lack thereof, offers no meaningful insight into whether or not their accusations against Bill Clinton can be substantiated." -- Right. Blame the victim. If they can be believed. These living person's sworn testimony offer "no meaningful insight". Then, we're supposed to have compassion on them and NOT force them to relive the trauma of rape, by ignoring them (according to the link provided), despite their voluntary "no meaningful" testimony. And WP:BLP further says not to "prolong victimization". Instead of trashing them as "bimbos", WP appears to prepared to do the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton's statements, and simply ignore Bill Clinton's accusers.
So, since WP evidently shows no interest in being a source for voters with little or no background information on a key election year issue, CP should be ready to stand in the gap. RobS#NeverHillary 13:20, 29 May 2016 (EDT)