|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 17, 2016 21:35:03 GMT -5
I used to love John McCain... I was all on board for a McCain presidency around 2000 or so. It was during the '08 campaign that I realized he was just too old.. he mixed up the Sunnis and Shi'as in a speech on the floor of congress, when he's supposed to be a foreign affairs expert. It's only go down hill from there.. from Sara Palin to all the rest.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, I find it very Ironic that the stone walling the republicans are doing in not moving the process forward would most likely have horrified Justice Scalia, whom they claim to be honoring.
Also, Can we hurry up and get to the part where Cory Booker runs for President? He's definitely my guy.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 17, 2016 21:54:05 GMT -5
I was done with McCain when he kept his mouth shut in 2000 after the South Carolina GOP torpedoed his presidential run by claiming his adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his black love-child.
Dude. You should have said SOMETHING about how vile that tactic was. But he knew the party as a whole was riddled with enough racism that saying anything about it would hurt his chances for the presidency in the future.
And look. He never became president anyway.
Was it worth it, Senator?
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 4:57:12 GMT -5
Bring the facts, not the feelings. There ain't no Santa, the earth revolves around the sun, and elections ain't about choosing your Savior. Is Hellary your saviour? Some nice points here. Of course, you can then say the New York Post is anti-Hillary...but then, I can't find an ounce of fairplay in the New York Times either. Wow, you actually managed to spell Hillary with an "i" 50% of the time in that post. Color me impressed.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 5:04:10 GMT -5
Actually, I'm surprised that someone who's been in politics for so long manages to score so high! Most politicians have a sharp upward popularity curve when they hit their stride and then go down and down for the rest of their career. Even Churchill got booted out after winning WWII! Now it's true, Hillary isn't very popular. I'm sure a "normal" Republican candidate (say, McCain) would have a pretty good chance of trouncing her at the polls. However, she's demonstrated she has the chops for the job and she has one great, great quality in this election: she's not Donald Trump. I trust her to handle the ship of state with competence, if nothing else. Trump just hasn't demonstrated any leadership quality, and his oft-repeated populist speeches lambasting Latinos, Blacks, Women, Liberals, Transnational accords and now even the very American electoral system make him a very scary candidate indeed. Far from a unifier, he's the personification of the divisive leader: he's even managed to cause a rift within his own party, mere weeks before the election. Bush was awful, but I fear Trump would be even worse. IRT the line I have bolded, in what way has she demonstrated she has "the chops" for the job? That's a nebulous statement, much like "the skeevies", which Prince Hal called out another poster for using that term. Mind you, I'm not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form, but I don't see a whole lot on her ledger that actually points to her being qualified to be POTUS other than she is miles better than the little orange goblin. 11 hour hearings? Staying calm when Trump tells her to her face that he wants to throw her in jail and puts Bill's mistresses and accusers in the audience? Having the most detailed policy proposals of all 4 candidates on her web site and demonstrating detailed knowledge of those issues again and again? Being able to do bipartisan work as a senator? Having inside knowledge of the workings of the White House? Having diplomacy experience from her time as secretary of state? Just off the top of my head. What exactly do you want from a candidate to be qualified?
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 5:08:53 GMT -5
I love John Oliver's Bill Clinton imitation. It's terrible but hilarious. Thanks for that video, Wes. It simplifies some complex issues. Anybody who wants to attack Hillary on the emails with some specific charges instead of just vague sound-bites and smug quips should start from here. (I do have one quibble: They were a little mean to Tim Tebow.) The Clinton critics and attackers could never explain what exactly her crime was with Whitewater, nor with Benghazi. Now there are two new boogeyman words they love throwing around yet can't really fill with substance: E-Mail and Wikileaks.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 5:17:06 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. Could this statement be an attempt to sabotage Trump though? He is basically saying not to worry about Clinton nominees as long as people vote Republican down ballot. They won't have to hold their noses and vote for the serial groper.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 9:06:02 GMT -5
The Clinton critics and attackers could never explain what exactly her crime was with Whitewater, nor with Benghazi. Now there are two new boogeyman words they love throwing around yet can't really fill with substance: E-Mail and Wikileaks. Can't be filled with substance? After the first spell of leaked emails, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Scultz had to resign her post. Why is that pip? Perhaps you can answer that if you take off your rose-coloured Clinton glasses. As for Bengazi, Clinton is being sued by 2 of the parents of victims who were killed in the Bengazi terrorist attacks. The lawsuit, filed by Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, blames the attacks in part on the current Democratic presidential nominee’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
The server, which was the object of foreign government hack attempts, enabled the Islamic State allied terrorists to “obtain the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and thus the U.S. State Department and covert and other government operations in Benghazi, Libya and subsequently orchestrate, plan, and execute the now infamous September 11, 2012 attack,” the suit claims.
This will be decided by a court of law, and not something as mediocre as your Hellary fandom.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 9:12:41 GMT -5
OMG, I had no idea! I will totally tell my American friends that they cannot vote for Debbie Wassermann-Schultz for president now!
And you are aware between civil suits and criminal proceedings? For the latter, there has been found no grounds. And they looked. They looked very carefully, for a long time, at considerable cost for the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 9:38:23 GMT -5
As senator, Clinton promised 200,000 jobs in Upstate New York. Her efforts fell flat.
In her presidential bid, Hillary Clinton has made job creation a centerpiece of her platform, casting herself as a pragmatist who would inspire “the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II.’’
Her argument that she would put more Americans to work has focused on her time in the Senate, when she took on the mission of creating jobs in chronically depressed Upstate New York. As her husband, former president Bill Clinton, put it recently, she became the region’s “de facto economic development officer.”
But nearly eight years after Clinton’s Senate exit, there is little evidence that her economic development programs had a substantial impact on upstate employment. Despite Clinton’s efforts, upstate job growth stagnated overall during her tenure, with manufacturing jobs plunging nearly 25 percent, according to jobs data.
The former first lady was unable to pass the big-ticket legislation she introduced to benefit the upstate economy. She turned to smaller-scale projects, but some of those fell flat after initial glowing headlines, a Washington Post review shows. Many promised jobs never materialized and others migrated to other states as she turned to her first presidential run, said former officials who worked with her in New York.
Perhaps her fans like RR and Hoosier can speak of her other accomplishments that qualifies her to be commander-in-chief?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 18, 2016 9:51:12 GMT -5
The Clinton critics and attackers could never explain what exactly her crime was with Whitewater, nor with Benghazi. Now there are two new boogeyman words they love throwing around yet can't really fill with substance: E-Mail and Wikileaks. Can't be filled with substance? After the first spell of leaked emails, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Scultz had to resign her post. Why is that pip? Perhaps you can answer that if you take off your rose-coloured Clinton glasses. As for Bengazi, Clinton is being sued by 2 of the parents of victims who were killed in the Bengazi terrorist attacks. The lawsuit, filed by Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, blames the attacks in part on the current Democratic presidential nominee’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
The server, which was the object of foreign government hack attempts, enabled the Islamic State allied terrorists to “obtain the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and thus the U.S. State Department and covert and other government operations in Benghazi, Libya and subsequently orchestrate, plan, and execute the now infamous September 11, 2012 attack,” the suit claims.
This will be decided by a court of law, and not something as mediocre as your Hellary fandom. First...the "Hellary fandom" thing is silly and makes it really hard to take anything you say seriously. Are you going to add in a couple of "libtards" and "sheeples" so you can really sound informed. So what if she's being sued by parents of Benghazi victims? Civil suits are filed all the time with specious allegations. They're also dismissed all the time because they have no merit. So how about that Trump rape lawsuit?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 9:53:53 GMT -5
First...the "Hellary fandom" thing is silly and makes it really hard to take anything you say seriously. Are you going to add in a couple of "libtards" and "sheeples" so you can really sound informed. You always seem to have a problem with anything I say, thank you for remaining consistent and sarcastic as always.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:00:05 GMT -5
Donald Trump is currently facing a civil suit from a woman who claims he tied her up and raped her when she was 13. And as for Hillary's accomplishments, anyone who is sincerely interested (instead of just being a shill for a serial groper) can use this newfangled device called the Internet to find out things like that. Here's a link to a list of Hillary's accomplishments. Anybody who is not sincerely interested can just keep on ignoring them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 10:04:51 GMT -5
Here's a link to a list of Hillary's accomplishments. Anybody who is not sincerely interested can just keep on ignoring them. Oh my, all those accomplishments and yet such a large unfavourable rating, with many democrats wishing there was another option. What went wrong Hoosier?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 18, 2016 10:06:19 GMT -5
Not pointing fingers, but since the tone is progressively getting more heated...
I remind my fellow posters that for a thread as explosive as one on politics to thrive, we must all maintain a courteous tone with one another.
Let us please stick to facts and arguments, not to personal attacks.
Thanks for a passionate but respectful debate.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:10:20 GMT -5
|
|