Hillary Clinton is Done

[Howie Felterbush]

I signed in to suggest that to EG3000. You beat me to it.

Of course, the tricky bit is that no one has yet defined "done."

"Done" means she has reached an internal temperature of 160 F.

 

[hgc]

"Done" means she has reached an internal temperature of 160 F.

LOL

It's funny because it's true -- or at least as realistic as the hopeful notion that launched this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

There's the proof that you and the rest of the witch hunters couldn't care less about what happened to those people in Benghazi. It's all about the political hit job.

That is utter nonsense, and you should be embarrassed.

You see what this thread is about? Hillary is done.

Not Bush.

Your post is the proof that you Hillary apologists will sink to any level to excuse her behavior.

Take a look at the posting rules here sometime, and don't expect me to derail the entire thread to talk about a grossly fallacious false equivalency.

Unbelievable.

 

[hgc]

That is utter nonsense, and you should be embarrassed.

You see what this thread is about? Hillary is done.

Not Bush.

Your post is the proof that you Hillary apologists will sink to any level to excuse her behavior.

Take a look at the posting rules here sometime, and don't expect me to derail the entire thread to talk about a grossly fallacious false equivalency.

Unbelievable.

I no more believe your outrage toward me than I believe your outrage about Benghazi. Hillary Clinton's behavior has nothing to with what happened there.

You just don't like the policy agenda of a potential Democratic president. Because of that, you're willing to construct all kinds of absurdities about that person. If you were to argue actual issues of public policy, you would get some respect.

In any case, you and Trey Gowdy and all the rest of the Outrage Machine will scream right up to her election and all through the 8 years of her presidency.

 

[Bogative]

Gosh, I wonder if Jeb Bush had such a massive donation to a charity of his (if he has any) would receive the same consideration, or if it would be portrayed of his collusion with devils and demons.

Only if those donating were responsible for closing down a couple of lanes of traffic.

 

[The Big Dog]

I no more believe your outrage toward me than I believe your outrage about Benghazi. Hillary Clinton's behavior has nothing to with what happened there.

You just don't like the policy agenda of a potential Democratic president. Because of that, you're willing to construct all kinds of absurdities about that person. If you were to argue actual issues of public policy, you would get some respect.

In any case, you and Trey Gowdy and all the rest of the Outrage Machine will scream right up to her election and all through the 8 years of her presidency.

********. There are literally 100's of post about this Bush tu quoque in the moderated thread on benghazi. Read that thread, and kindly save your personal attacks for reddit.

The nonsense I am forced to put up with lately is ridiculous

 

[wareyin]

********. There are literally 100's of post about this Bush tu quoque in the moderated thread on benghazi. Read that thread, and kindly save your persobnal attacks for reddit.

The nonsense I am forced to put up with lately is ridiculous

Did you respond to the wrong post? There was literally nothing in what you quoted that was about Bush, so how in the world could it be a Bush tu quoque?

Also, claiming that every other attack on an embassy was in the past so it doesn't matter, but Benghazi, which was also in the past, matters because...reasons? is inconsistent at best.

 

[12AX7]

Thanks much! I was thinking about the same thing.

I will be quite happy to remind 'Elf Grinder 3000' of what he said several times over the next several months.

I'm hopeful he'll take the "mhaze exit" at that point.

Would you care to comment about the 99 fatalities that occurred as a result of attacks against US diplomatic facilities during President Bush's tenure, with nary a peep from the Faux News outrage machine?

No, he'll just shout "tu quoque!" and call it a day. It's what he does.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the only thing that could save Hillary's candidacy at this point would be a bunch of right wing yahoos shouting so loud about irrelevant B.S. that no one gets around to asking what she has actually done to deserve the presidency.


So, start practicing a slightly higher pitched version of "Hail to the Chief".

 

[hgc]

I think the only thing that could save Hillary's candidacy at this point would be a bunch of right wing yahoos shouting so loud about irrelevant B.S. that no one gets around to asking what she has actually done to deserve the presidency.

Minor quibble here -- No one "deserves" to be president. In theory, we elect the president that we deserve. I think the sensible focus is what will we as a nation get out of electing this one or that one. What will they do in office? That's what matters.

 

[applecorped]

I think the only thing that could save Hillary's candidacy at this point would be a bunch of right wing yahoos shouting so loud about irrelevant B.S. that no one gets around to asking what she has actually done to deserve the presidency.

So, she's a shoe-in?

 

[The Big Dog]

By the way, the Bush Embassy Attacks shows up on page 8 of the moderated thread on Benghazi, as does my response. There are dozens and dozens of posts thereafter.

Here is the link. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258265&page=7

any questions? Post them there

 

[Craig4]

The scandal and impeachment was 2nd term. Whether he could have won a hypothetical 3rd term is interesting to speculate about. His approval numbers were quite high at the end of his presidency, despite it all.

My bad, faulty memory.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

19 months until the election. Scandal or none, far too early to make any determination of being "done"... and much as my partisan side would love it, I have to go with reality. And given Clinton's tenacity in 2008, whether she loses the election or not, unless she gets derailed by a democratic challenger for the primaries I expect she will stay in the race for the duration. She has the money to do it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Leaving aside the house extremely dubious source, I would have thought conservatives would applaud Hillary's behaving like an ultra-capitalist.

Not all conservatives are Neocons, they simply took control of the party in recent decades, mostly because corrupt big business interests are willing and able to fund political campaigns, and as this scandal proves, for both parties.

 

[Cavemonster]

A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. Thus, if one wants to shorten that to Democrat Party I don't think that's a "sneaky rhetorical tactic," or imputes the "honesty of the speaker."

Why would one want to shorten it? Those two extra letters or one extra syllable are not a meaningful burden. And why do I NEVER hear democrats use that shortening, only conservatives?

I think people who inject rhetoric even to the labels they use are being intellectually dishonest. They won't make a simple argument and let it stand on its merits. I can't imagine a plausible benign reason for the relabeling that jibes with the way it's used and the people who use it besides a rhetorical tactic.

 

[LSSBB]

I don't know if she's done, I'm not a political forecaster. That said, she's got a really big anchor to drag with this, and the fact that it's made of Uranium makes it pretty toxic too.

Maybe her potential opponents don't look to good either, however they will have to have a liability that looks as bad to independants as many millions of dollars of Russian money and Uranium.

 

[xjx388]

Why exactly would "one want to shorten that"?

'Cause their lazy? Perhaps they also write "should of?" Sometimes people just got bad grammar and don't actually mean an insult by it. And seriously, what kind of insult is "Democrat," supposed to be anyway?

 

[xjx388]

And they don't pronounce it "democrat" it's always "DemocRAT"


Is it ok to refer to Cruz as the Republic candidate or that he's a Republic? No, of course not. You don't hear that kind of silliness because Democrats graduated from 5^th grade a long time ago.

Republican is the correct thing to call a member of the Republican party. You wouldn't call a member of the Democratic party a "Democratic" would you? It's just the form of the word. And if people started calling Republicans, "Republics," so what? I can't see how it would be a big deal. Over the years I've been on this forum, I've seen people get all up in arms about such a small thing. I forget who still has this kind of silliness in their signature . . .

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Republican is the correct thing to call a member of the Republican party. You wouldn't call a member of the Democratic party a "Democratic" would you? It's just the form of the word. And if people started calling Republicans, "Republics," so what? I can't see how it would be a big deal. Over the years I've been on this forum, I've seen people get all up in arms about such a small thing. I forget who still has this kind of silliness in their signature . . .

I prefer to use Dems. That way it can taken as democrats or demons, both equally descriptive. Of course I also use cons ever since the neocons took control of the GOP. That way it could be taken as conservatives or con artists, both equally descriptive.