Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Here's an interesting interpretation of Hillary's ill-starred service during Watergate, “my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Hey, maybe this is the type of case that we should ascribe to Hillary's incompetence and not to her dishonesty.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Or simply her lack of experience? Which would then make one wonder why her boss gave the job to an inexperienced youngster.
 
Where did this bizarro Watergate claim even come from. The Watergate hearings were in 1972-73. Clinton graduated Yale Law school in 1973.:boggled:
 
16.5 said:
Interesting hypothesis. It does not smack me as inexperience, because it seems she had the skills to find the answer.

But I have an open mind, make your case....
Click to expand...

I have no case to make, I make no claim just trying to help you with your JAQing.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Where did this bizarro Watergate claim even come from. The Watergate hearings were in 1972-73. Clinton graduated Yale Law school in 1973.:boggled:
Click to expand...
Hold on, are you saying that someone who hasn't even graduated law school couldn't be termed 'inexperienced' while they work on the team who is Impeaching the highest office in the land?

Actually, it would be pretty darned impressive for a lawyer to have on their résumé, wouldn't it?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Where did this bizarro Watergate claim even come from. The Watergate hearings were in 1972-73. Clinton graduated Yale Law school in 1973.:boggled:
Click to expand...

The impeachment hearings were not in 1972-73 they were 1973-74...

Darat said:
I have no case to make, I make no claim just trying to help you with your JAQing.
Click to expand...

Well, you managed to hit on a potentially substantive claim, which makes one for the Hillary fans in this part of the thread.

kudos.
 
Just a reminder: the most recent poll averages has Clinton at 49%, Sanders at 25%, and that was with 16% still supporting Biden.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Sanders is only barely ahead in New Hampshire and Biden has 12% yet to be redistributed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

Clinton is way ahead in Iowa, Florida and South Carolina.

Just reminding the Hillary haters they might want to start planning for a Clinton Presidency.
 
Do you people realize that you're being trolled into arguing about whether or not Clinton was fired from the Watergate investigation when the whole thing is ineluctable nonsense. Why not just say 'BS' and stop responding about it? Don't be suckers.
 
Knock off the personal remarks. The topic is NOT the other posters EVER. No matter how wrong, stupid, funny smelling, ill-mannered, pig headed, or whatever other negative (or hell, even positive trait) you might think they are. THE OTHER POSTERS ARE NOT THE TOPIC.

AM I CLEAR?!

Good.

And remember, you can't fight in here, it's the war room.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Just a reminder: the most recent poll averages has Clinton at 49%, Sanders at 25%, and that was with 16% still supporting Biden.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Sanders is only barely ahead in New Hampshire and Biden has 12% yet to be redistributed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

Clinton is way ahead in Iowa, Florida and South Carolina.

Just reminding the Hillary haters they might want to start planning for a Clinton Presidency.
Click to expand...

Certainly wouldn't be the first stupid thing Americans did, the Supreme court may have given Bush his first term, but even after all the stupid idiotic crap he did that he should have been tarred and feathered for, not just impeached, the voters put him in office the second time. That they could be convinced to put Hillary in place to run as the Democratic nominee does not surprise me. But I hope they really don't expect actual progressives to get excited about it and turn out in the national election supporting her.
 
Trakar said:
Certainly wouldn't be the first stupid thing Americans did, the Supreme court may have given Bush his first term, but even after all the stupid idiotic crap he did that he should have been tarred and feathered for, not just impeached, the voters put him in office the second time. That they could be convinced to put Hillary in place to run as the Democratic nominee does not surprise me. But I hope they really don't expect actual progressives to get excited about it and turn out in the national election supporting her.
Click to expand...
Maybe you have to be a female actual Progressive. :thumbsup:
 
Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton: What is their impact on the presidential race?

...Bernie Sanders has gained more of Barack Obama’s previous campaign donors than Clinton. The Vermont senator has already received contributions from 24,582 of Obama’s donors, whereas Clinton is at a mere 9000. The self-proclaimed ‘Democratic-Socialist’ is notorious amongst the electorate as one of the most progressive candidates in Washington. His performance at the Democratic debate was dynamic, passionate, and bold which echoed the frustration of the U.S.’s split between wealth and poverty. Sanders provides an uplifting change to politics and plays on the same tune that surged Obama into power. In comparison to Clinton, Sanders has historically been a public activist for human rights, trade and foreign policy. Many voters feel that Clinton’s track record within the senate has been shaky with her previous support of denying same sex marriage and favouring bans on immigrants that are HIV+ from entering the United States. Clinton was also in favour of the Iraq war which she later came to regret. Sander’s rise into power lies on scrutinizing Clinton’s political instability and poor judgement on past affairs and criticizing his Republican opposition...

...Despite both candidates being in the same party and sharing similar values on a variety of issues, Bernie and Clinton have different approaches to when it comes to the challenges the U.S. faces. A critical issue is the divide between rich and poor, Clinton wishes to tackle this extreme inequality by raising money from the wealthiest citizens to tackle issues whereas Sanders wants to increase and reform taxation. In foreign policy Bernie wants to repair the U.S.’s reputation globally by dismantling Guantanamo Bay and recognizing Palestinians have the right to live peacefully in Israel. Clinton’s approach has been considered ‘hawkish’, with proposals to call for a no fly zone in Syria and add further pressure on Iran to disarm its nuclear capabilities. In health reform, Sanders wants to support a ‘single payer system’ in an attempt to thwart insurance and drug companies from exploiting patients by fixating medical prices to affordable levels. Clinton wishes to allow citizens to choose and raises concerns on an expanded socialist health care system, worried that the overall standard of care will decay if Sander’s plans come to fruition. Finally they clash on the monumental issue of gun control with Clinton advocating greater measures against the acquisition of firearms by requiring more checks and paperwork. Sanders historically argued that gun control is not a federal concern and even signed a law in 2005 making it much harder for citizens to sue gun manufacturers...
Click to expand...
- http://www.politicallore.com/bernie-sanders-and-hilary-clintons-impact-on-the-u-s-election/1060

I like the contrasts portrayed (even in Clinton's campaign counterpoints, which I didn't quote because forum rules rightly require us to pick and choose which quoted snippets we fairly use - and this is a small article) and I think there is plenty to explore.


((I don't want to make this a major part of the discussion about what this article finds, but I did find this ending contrast between Sanders and Clinton on gun issues curious. Why would Sanders make it more difficult to sue gun manufacturers? So, I did a little research and these are links to what I ran into: http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/bernie_sanders_is_no_gun_nut_20150520 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ate-for-president-opposes-strict-gun-control/ ))
 
The "Electability" Argument Is Dead: (...) Polls Show Bernie Does Better Against GOP

You hear this a lot: "I would vote for Bernie, but he's just not electable. We need a candidate who can beat the GOP." Sounds reasonable enough, right? So I started digging into the data. And it turns out, that not only does Hillary not poll better against GOP candidates than Bernie, but Bernie consistently polls better than she does...

...And to those who claim that these polls are meaningless because "Sanders is just functioning as a generic Democrat," here is my response: do you really want to nominate a candidate who is polling below a generic D? I mean, why not nominate Martin O'Malley? Generic is practically his middle name.

And to those who will inevitably comment "but the GOP attack machine hasn't started on Bernie yet! Just wait! They're gonna call him a socialist!!" Um, OK? They've been calling Obama a socialist for 7 years now. They'll call Hillary a socialist. I'm really not worried about a word, and if you are, you're overthinking it. Whoever the Dem nominee will get endless hours of national airtime, so Bernie will have plenty of time to explain what democratic socialism is. And trust me when I tell you that the GOP would rather run against a candidate advocating a vague Rube-Goldberg type policy to lower college debt based on some Byzantine income-based formula than a guy advocating FREE college for everyone.

So go ahead. Make your case about why Hillary should be the nominee. Maybe you think she is stronger on guns. Maybe you think she is more experienced. Maybe you want the first female POTUS instead of the first Jewish POTUS right now. But whatever your reason is, don't say it's because she is "more electable." Cuz it aint true.
Click to expand...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...-Bernie-Does-Better-Against-GOP-Than-Hillary#

I have to admit, a part (a very small, but real, part) of my reason for choosing to support Clinton after my preferred candidate in 2008 stepped on his own genitals in public, wasn't just based upon lessor evil issues, it was also because I thought there was a significant likelihood that Obama was unelectable in the national general election.
 
Clinton backs decision to send US troops into Syria, while Sanders expresses concern

...As secretary of State, Clinton advocated for a more aggressive U.S. role in the Syrian conflict. Earlier this month, she called for a no-fly zone over the area, a move the administration opposes.

Clinton's main challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, said through a spokesman that he has "concern about the United States being drawn into the quagmire of the Syrian civil war which could lead to perpetual warfare in that region." Sanders reiterated in the statement that he believes the "crisis in Syria will be solved diplomatically, not militarily."
Click to expand...
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/clin...yria-while-sanders-expresses-concern-1.376315


...perhaps she'll change her opinion in the correct way (yet again), this time, before her decision matters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom