Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Keith said:
Not every lawyer working in DC has passed the bar. There are many types of jobs that don't require you to pass the bar.

You can retake the bar every six months in most sates.

Law firms only require newby attorneys to pass it within their first year of joining the firm. I knew several attorneys with national firms that had to take bar exams during their first year of employment either due to failure or moving to a new state. She could have still taken a job with a DC firm, it would not have been an issue.

At the time she was working in Massachusetts in a role that didn't require her to pass the Local bar.

There is nothing there that makes this anything more than a slight embarrassment. A bit like failing a driving test. You just try again if it is important.
Click to expand...

All true, but it was mission critical for her to pass the DC bar eventually, and failing was no doubt a bitter disappointment that drove her into the arms of Bill. All of history could have been changed if she had passed that exam. For example, there wouldn't have been any investment in Whitewater, and subsequently no investigation by a special prosecutor, and therefore no uncovering of Bill Clinton's perjury in the Paula Jones suit, no impeachment, and therefore no baggage preventing Al Gore from winning in 2000, and therefore no global warming. So, really, the fate of the world turned on whether or not she passed that damned exam. We're all going to cook like eggs on a Phoenix sidewalk in August thanks to her inability to pass an exam that over 50% of people pass the first time, not to mention graduates of the most prestigious and selective law school in the country. Thanks Hillary!
 
BenBurch said:
Not going to happen. Not because she is horrible, she's not, but because Sanders is better by every measure that matters.
Click to expand...

I would rather see Sanders win, but I think Hillary is going to. Either candidate is exponentially more qualified (and sane) than anyone on the Republican side.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I would rather see Sanders win, but I think Hillary is going to. Either candidate is exponentially more qualified (and sane) than anyone on the Republican side.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think Clinton will be president largely because the GOP can't field a reasonable opponent. Back in the day, many of us hated Nixon, but someone with even his thin measure of charisma and integrity would be a breath of fresh air for the GOP right now. He certainly had more common sense than the current crop.

It seems the right has gone right off a cliff.
 
NoahFence said:
You think Obama is worse than W?
WHAT?!?!?
Click to expand...

Of course. Far worse. Obama is simply terrible at leadership, and he has a wrongheaded idea about how the world works. All of our enemies are laughing at us. He also doesn't understand how ignorant he is. He is the quintessential personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

W was actually quite good in the leadership department. He had some serious flaws - first and foremost his dyslexia of the mouth, but he could make tough decisions and see them through, he didn't hold grudges, and he cared more about this country than he did his own career or reputation. That last thing alone puts him well ahead of his father and those who have followed.
 
16.5 said:
Exactly when do facts rebutting Loss Leader's ridiculous hagiography of Slick Hilly become "desperate"?
Click to expand...

When those facts are presented without any consideration of context. That's ok. I don't think you're going to trick anyone in this forum with that kind of nonsense.
 
thaiboxerken said:
When those facts are presented without any consideration of context. That's ok. I don't think you're going to trick anyone in this forum with that kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...

It was I who was providing the context in response to Loss Leader's hero worship post.

Remember posting facts on "this forum" is showing "hatred." This is a "skeptics" forum!

:rolleyes:
 
16.5 said:
It was I who was providing the context in response to Loss Leader's hero worship post.

Remember posting facts on "this forum" is showing "hatred." This is a "skeptics" forum!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are not fooling anyone here. This might get you high fives in your echo chamber, but that's the only place it will.
 
DavidJames said:
It is a fact that HRC failed the DC bar. It is also a fact that this 30 year old fact is of interest to only those who suffer acute HDS.
Click to expand...

It seems this is one point of agreement we share. Although maybe worth a mention i see no indication that this has a substantial effect on her present circumstances., not withstanding there are examples of people who have had far worse screw ups who many years later managed to turn things around and have a successful life.

I have many reasons to not "like" Clinton but the DC bar test item is not one of them and the need to nitpick a 30 uear old thing like this is overkill
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
It seems this is one point of agreement we share. Although maybe worth a mention i see no indication that this has a substantial effect on her present circumstances., not withstanding there are examples of people who have had far worse screw ups who many years later managed to turn things around and have a successful life.

I have many reasons to not "like" Clinton but the DC bar test item is not one of them and the need to nitpick a 30 uear old thing like this is overkill
Click to expand...

well, it is utterly clear. I posted that to rebut this hero worship:

As a graduate of Yale Law School, she has proven to have the intelligence and education to grasp complex subjects.

Yet people are complaining that I am nitpicking a "30 year old thing"? Cripes, she graduated from Yale forty years ago. Ohhh, she can grasp complex things! Not a complex thing like the DC bar, of course, but complex subjects. :rolleyes:

the ironic thing is that everyone piled on me to spin the fact she failed the bar, yet none of those people jumped on the original poster to point out that his statement was a bit *********** ridiculous.

By the way? HDS: DRINK!
 
I'm sure that failure at the DC bar will be the final straw. It's done so much damage to her political career up until this point.

Any day now....
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It seems this is one point of agreement we share. Although maybe worth a mention i see no indication that this has a substantial effect on her present circumstances., not withstanding there are examples of people who have had far worse screw ups who many years later managed to turn things around and have a successful life.

I have many reasons to not "like" Clinton but the DC bar test item is not one of them and the need to nitpick a 30 uear old thing like this is overkill
Click to expand...
Agreed. All the candidates have "issues" today allowing us to make our decision without having to dredge up things from long ago.
 
16.5 said:
well, it is utterly clear. I posted that to rebut this hero worship:
Click to expand...
Going by the significance of Benghazi apparently and the matter of her email server I would think that her DC bar exam grades from 30 years ago is a non-issue by comparison regardless of how it was brought up unless you can point to a definitive example where her failure to pass that test is relevant to the current events AND supersedes the more recent debates

16.5 said:
As a graduate of Yale Law School, she has proven to have the intelligence and education to grasp complex subjects.
Click to expand...
I don't particularly care whether people want to call it HDS or not. But, given some of the other big issues that I've given input on, this only IMO deserves a passing remark and then people can move on... but if you believe it's such an important consideration reflective of everything she does now I obviously can't dictate that. Yes the bullet point point in isolation may have been an appeal to authority, but I see nothing significant enough that necessitates a full page of discussion on the one item here. Why there is a need to given more recent examples is beyond me.

And for those who have seen me argue on the other issues (I.E. Benghazi, and her email server), I'm well aware of where people will not agree with my stance but it's rather silly to treat every scandal with the same degree of urgency unless there's a specifically good reason to take them that far. By treating this exam with the same priority as recent scandals it really shows no discrimination regarding their impacts and I don't think there's much guess work on the implications of that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom