|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 17, 2016 14:19:15 GMT -5
You know what I would LOVE to see right now? A specific charge about the Clinton Foundation. Something more than "it has her name on, its corrupt." Something you could actually respond to.
I feel the same way about ... well, just about every issue related to the Hillary "scandals."
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 17, 2016 14:25:51 GMT -5
it's a sorry state of affairs when the Republican's nominate such a disgraceful candidate (well-all the clowns running on the Republican side were pretty bad) that it makes Hillary look acceptable. I've said this many times here and other places, these are two extremely bad candidates. How quick we forget how hawkish Clinton was in the Iraq war, one of George Bush's chief allies on the Democratic side. How tied in to Wall Street and foreign power payoffs via the Clinton Foundation. How she has the natural inclination for secrecy, obfuscation and blatant lies to cover anything that might be embarrassing. And yes, her obvious lust for power starting with her decision not to divorce her husband because it might ruin her future political plans.
Is it too late to pass an amendment allowing an Obama 3rd term?
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 17, 2016 14:26:48 GMT -5
In order; 1) Too ridiculous to answer. And again, "Hellary?" I still don't know what it is about her you don't care for. 2) No nice points there. I'm using "nice" in one of its oldest meanings, "precise." Post, Schmost, it's warm beer no matter who printed it. Politicians have both public and private views? Shocking! Again, if this is what a potential voter is shocked by, said potential voter needs a big dish of "Grow up!" 3) I can say that because it is, but the Times has done no favors for HRC. Considering that you never seem to embrace anything anti-Hillary without rubbishing it, I don't expect you to appreciate the article. This is how you described Trump not too long ago. Trump is an empty vessel, a whitened sepulchre full of rotting bones, a confraglation fed by ignorance and resentment.
Buried in your torrential flood of antipathy toward Donald Trump, supposedly the most divisive and disliked presidential candidate in American history according to many in this thread, is this half-remembered fact - Hillary Clinton isn’t particularly well liked either. Primarily because she has a 30 year political history pock-marked with scandals, lies, questions about those emails, Wall Street, the Clinton Foundation and its donors. All there for the taking if you're a spin doctor who wants to plaster her many sores... Her own political leader said she will say anything to get elected. And it's sad after 8 years, she was the best the democrats had to offer. Even if those emails revealed Bernie was screwed and the chairwoman had to resign over it. It is a sad year for the Democratic party...but sadder still for the Republican party. Literally everything you've said about Hilary can be said about Trump but the same can't be said in reverse as Hilary has never been accused of sexual assault, never publicly made any racist/sexist/homophobic/ "slut" shaming comments so she's less negative than Trump and she has the added benefit of actually having some experience on the world stage. She's no savior and if there was a legitimate alternative(heck, I probably would have even considered Jeb Bush if he were the nominee) I'd pick it, but she she's a better choice than Trump. In my mind voting for her in this scenario is like saying, "Man, that pizza could have been better...but it wasn't actually feces so I guess I'll have another slice." so basically there couldn't be a fainter bit of praise from me, but the bar is so low that it's all we got. It's really disheartening when you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 17, 2016 14:40:44 GMT -5
Even Trump supporters have to admit this is funny! Cartoon: Word salad
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 17, 2016 14:42:05 GMT -5
it's a sorry state of affairs when the Republican's nominate such a disgraceful candidate (well-all the clowns running on the Republican side were pretty bad) that it makes Hillary look acceptable. I've said this many times here and other places, these are two extremely bad candidates. How quick we forget how hawkish Clinton was in the Iraq war, one of George Bush's chief allies on the Democratic side. How tied in to Wall Street and foreign power payoffs via the Clinton Foundation. How she has the natural inclination for secrecy, obfuscation and blatant lies to cover anything that might be embarrassing. And yes, her obvious lust for power starting with her decision not to divorce her husband because it might ruin her future political plans. Is it too late to pass an amendment allowing an Obama 3rd term? If you're all done with Obama, please send him over!!! I'd love to have him as our prime minister!!! Regarding Hillary's stance on Iraq, you're right: those were shameful days for the Democratic party, which should have had the fortitude to call Dubya on his b******t instead of fearing to appear unpatriotic. Hillary must carry that shame for the rest of her career.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 17, 2016 14:55:36 GMT -5
it's a sorry state of affairs when the Republican's nominate such a disgraceful candidate (well-all the clowns running on the Republican side were pretty bad) that it makes Hillary look acceptable. I've said this many times here and other places, these are two extremely bad candidates. How quick we forget how hawkish Clinton was in the Iraq war, one of George Bush's chief allies on the Democratic side. How tied in to Wall Street and foreign power payoffs via the Clinton Foundation. How she has the natural inclination for secrecy, obfuscation and blatant lies to cover anything that might be embarrassing. And yes, her obvious lust for power starting with her decision not to divorce her husband because it might ruin her future political plans. Is it too late to pass an amendment allowing an Obama 3rd term? If you're all done with Obama, please send him over!!! I'd love to have him as our prime minister!!! Regarding Hillary's stance on Iraq, you're right: those were shameful days for the Democratic party, which should have had the fortitude to call Dubya on his b******t instead of fearing to appear unpatriotic. Hillary must carry that shame for the rest of her career. I agree. Hillary has made a number of missteps. The Iraq War. I really hate her comments on Snowden! Here's my vow: If there's ever a day where the news about Donald Trump isn't worse than the worst news EVER about Hillary, then I'll focus on Hillary that day. My only condition is that it has to be something that really happened! Things that conservatives believe REALLY REALLY HARD don't count.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 17, 2016 15:02:38 GMT -5
Like when she had Harambe shot?
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 17, 2016 15:26:13 GMT -5
Like when she had Harambe shot? I found that meme. I can't figure out if the person that made it was making fun of Hillary or making fun of her opponents.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 17, 2016 15:40:42 GMT -5
Like when she had Harambe shot? I found that meme. I can't figure out if the person that made it was making fun of Hillary or making fun of her opponents. Poe's law is the law of the internet!
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 17, 2016 15:57:03 GMT -5
In order; 1) Too ridiculous to answer. And again, "Hellary?" I still don't know what it is about her you don't care for. 2) No nice points there. I'm using "nice" in one of its oldest meanings, "precise." Post, Schmost, it's warm beer no matter who printed it. Politicians have both public and private views? Shocking! Again, if this is what a potential voter is shocked by, said potential voter needs a big dish of "Grow up!" 3) I can say that because it is, but the Times has done no favors for HRC. Considering that you never seem to embrace anything anti-Hillary without rubbishing it, I don't expect you to appreciate the article. This is how you described Trump not too long ago. Trump is an empty vessel, a whitened sepulchre full of rotting bones, a confraglation fed by ignorance and resentment.
Buried in your torrential flood of antipathy toward Donald Trump, supposedly the most divisive and disliked presidential candidate in American history according to many in this thread, is this half-remembered fact - Hillary Clinton isn’t particularly well liked either. Primarily because she has a 30 year political history pock-marked with scandals, lies, questions about those emails, Wall Street, the Clinton Foundation and its donors. What is her crowning glory as Sec of State? Is there anything? All there for the taking if you're a spin doctor who wants to plaster her many sores... Her own political leader said she will say anything to get elected. And it's sad after 8 years, she was the best the democrats had to offer. Even if those emails revealed Bernie was screwed and the chairwoman had to resign over it. Enjoy your candidate. Don't know how much clearer to make it. And RR beat me to a lot of it. Is Hilalry my first choice? Nope, voted for Bernie in the primary. Did I agree 100% with bernie? nope. Do I think Hillary's been hawkish more than I'd like? Yep! Is she flawed, in some ways, a la Nixon, i.e. defensive, un-warm, secretive? Yep! But I'm not voting for someone to be our mommy or daddy. I'm voting for someone who can work with both sides, as she has; someone who knows how the governemnt and the Constitution work; and perhaps above all, for someone who will nominate Supreme Court justices who will not turn the country back to back-alley abortionists, racists, and corporations unfettered by regualtion of any kind. I stand by what I said about Trump: he is driven by nothing but his own discontent, his ego and his megalomania. Good to have you back, Jez!
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 17, 2016 18:12:34 GMT -5
I've always been a fan of McCain but he's really disappointed me with this comment, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” on one hand I want to say he's just stumping hard for Sen. Pat Toomey of Pensylvania but on the other hand it's still fear-mongering which someone who feels so strongly about election reform should be above so whether he actually means it or not it's a disapointing move.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 17, 2016 18:29:27 GMT -5
.. for someone who will nominate Supreme Court justices who will not turn the country back to back-alley abortionists, racists, and corporations unfettered by regulation of any kind. I don't think you'll find Hillary as one to champion against corporate power. She has very chummy over the years with Wall Street and banking institutes, given plenty of private speeches to their directors as both a politician or on behalf of the Clinton Foundation. She is as much a part of the elite as Trump is As far as human rights go, how do you feel about her position on gay marriage. For years she was a vocal opponent to gay marriage. Plenty of video clips and speeches against the granting of those rights. It was not until approximately 2013 that she became pro-gay marriage Now, I don't mind a politician evolving their thought process about certain issues. However in this case, it was a question of political expediency to jump on a bandwagon. And typical of Hillary, she now claims she was always for gay marriages. I can respect a person more for admitting they used to be wrong and re-thought the issue, but abhor this blatant denial and flip-flopping just to get in line for more votes
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 17, 2016 18:30:47 GMT -5
I've always been a fan of McCain but he's really disappointed me with this comment, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” on one hand I want to say he's just stumping hard for Sen. Pat Toomey of Pensylvania but on the other hand it's still fear-mongering which someone who feels so strongly about election reform should be above so whether he actually means it or not it's a disapointing move. I used to like McCain much more back when he ran against George W. Bush. I think he might have been as good a president as Al Gore, in fact. But after his defeat, he seemed to try and get closer to the more conservative faction of his party... he started backing ideas that made little sense and that really didn't sound like his usual cup of tea. Perhaps he thought he had to compromise in order to retain enough influence to help steer the GOP? In any case, right now he sounds like a much better choice than the current candidate... but his recent denunciation of Trump, while welcome, was not a whole lot of the old McCain. I'd like to see more.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 17, 2016 20:00:15 GMT -5
I've always been a fan of McCain but he's really disappointed me with this comment, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” on one hand I want to say he's just stumping hard for Sen. Pat Toomey of Pensylvania but on the other hand it's still fear-mongering which someone who feels so strongly about election reform should be above so whether he actually means it or not it's a disapointing move. This is a completely irresponsible statement by McCain whether he means it or not. If he means it, he is essentially saying that the Republican Senate will completely abrogate their Constitutional responsibilities. We're going to take our ball and go home. And damn what the Constitution says. We'll burn the country down because we can't win. If he doesn't mean it then he's playing games. And it's unbecoming to play games of these types. He's become a sad little man. The only thing good I can say about him at this point is that he hasn't become Giuliani.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 17, 2016 21:01:14 GMT -5
I've always been a fan of McCain but he's really disappointed me with this comment, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” on one hand I want to say he's just stumping hard for Sen. Pat Toomey of Pensylvania but on the other hand it's still fear-mongering which someone who feels so strongly about election reform should be above so whether he actually means it or not it's a disapointing move. This is a completely irresponsible statement by McCain whether he means it or not. If he means it, he is essentially saying that the Republican Senate will completely abrogate their Constitutional responsibilities. We're going to take our ball and go home. And damn what the Constitution says. We'll burn the country down because we can't win. If he doesn't mean it then he's playing games. And it's unbecoming to play games of these types. He's become a sad little man. The only thing good I can say about him at this point is that he hasn't become Giuliani. Because I do admire the man,I want to think he's just playing games to get people to go out and vote for Toomey who's seat I'm guessing is contested but still it's a crumby move. It's bad enough that they've dragged their feet this long, but another four years? That would be unspeakably terrible, both for the country but also for themselves. How do they imagine the country would react if they refused to do their job for four years? The only reason why it's not big news right now that they continue to refuse to even meet with President Obama's nomination is because Trump is pushing just about every other story off the news board, if this were a normal election the partisan games on the hill would be something both candidates would be hammered about left and right.
|
|