Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
BenBurch said:
Then the DNC ought to be scared, and level the playing field.
Click to expand...
If you think because many in the Democratic Party apparatus support Clinton over Sanders that makes the playing field unlevel, it suggests you want Sanders to have the advantage of a facade of more support than he actually has.

If you believe the CT that somehow the number of debates was a conspired plan to benefit Clinton, that hasn't shown itself to be true.

Sanders didn't have any breakthrough moments in the debates so far. And honestly, the number of debates on the GOP side have done nothing but gotten ratings for the news corporations. How many times can you ask the same questions?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh for pity's sake!

Did you miss those 8 years Bush damaged this country? Can you imagine what 4 years of Trump will get us?

It's downright scary.
Click to expand...

Bush wasn't any more Conservative than Hillary is, though they do seem to share a lot of neoconservative perspectives of the world particularly with regard to foreign policy.
 
Trakar said:
Bush wasn't any more Conservative than Hillary is, though they do seem to share a lot of neoconservative perspectives of the world particularly with regard to foreign policy.
Click to expand...

What does conservative or liberal have to do with whackadoodle and or ignorant?

I'm less worried about the GOP being conservative than I'm worried about them being bat-guano crazy.

Bush made many ignorant decisions during his term from invading Iraq to hiring 20-something evangelicals and cronies for key positions and contracts. None of that had anything to do with his being a Conservative other than it would seem the GOP is saturated with like-minded corruption.
 
Travis said:
The argument to not support the establishment candidate in order to teach the DNC a lesson sounds shockingly like arguments I heard about supporting Nader over Gore in the 2000 election.

And, heck, that only gave us 8 years of W with two Supreme court appointments, a trillion dollar war, Katrina screwups, legalized torture, massive NSA infrastructure and a complete economy implosion.

But what are the odds that it would all happen again under president Trump?
Click to expand...

Probably not as high as it happening under Hillary, of course it will largely depend upon who Trump (or Hillary) would select as his advisors.

On Foreign Policy, Bernie Sanders Is the Democrat and Hillary Clinton Is a Republican - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-g...ernie-sanders-is-the-democrat-_b_8430036.html

The Next Act of the Neocons: Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/o...-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Clinton Slams Obama on Foreign Policy, Echoing the Neocons and the Far Right: Just a taste of what 2016 will look like - http://www.thenation.com/article/clinton-slams-obama-foreign-policy-echoing-neocons-and-far-right/

Look at where these articles are coming from! its not like I had to dredge the wingnut scandal sites to find support for this perspective.

I googled:

Hillary neocon foreign policy

These three were in the top ten links that popped up on the first page of results.
 
Trakar said:
Probably not as high as it happening under Hillary, of course it will largely depend upon who Trump (or Hillary) would select as his advisors.

On Foreign Policy, Bernie Sanders Is the Democrat and Hillary Clinton Is a Republican - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-g...ernie-sanders-is-the-democrat-_b_8430036.html

The Next Act of the Neocons: Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/o...-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Clinton Slams Obama on Foreign Policy, Echoing the Neocons and the Far Right: Just a taste of what 2016 will look like - http://www.thenation.com/article/clinton-slams-obama-foreign-policy-echoing-neocons-and-far-right/

Look at where these articles are coming from! its not like I had to dredge the wingnut scandal sites to find support for this perspective.

I googled:

Hillary neocon foreign policy

These three were in the top ten links that popped up on the first page of results.
Click to expand...
So you looked for articles supporting your opinion and gee, you found some. :rolleyes:

This is also from The Nation: OpinionNation: Hillary Clinton at the State Department: Hawk or Humanitarian?
Editor’s Note: As we approach the end of President Obama’s first term, we asked two of our correspondents—Barbara Crossette, who writes regularly on the United Nations, and Robert Dreyfuss, who covers foreign policy and the Middle East—to assess Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Crossette sees a skilled diplomat who has built bridges to many world leaders alienated by George W. Bush, and elevated the concern of human rights wherever possible. Dreyfuss argues that Clinton’s support for military intervention in Libya and elsewhere undermines her claims to humanitarianism. Round Two is immediately below; Crossette and Dreyfuss’s first exchange follows.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
So you looked for articles supporting your opinion and gee, you found some. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Indeed, more than some, and from left leaning sources according to most assessments. So why do you think that many of the progressive media outlets feel that Hillary Clinton is more than a little "republican lite"? Why do you feel this isn't a problem for a candidate who wants to excite the Democratic base to turn out in record numbers to offset the conservative firestorm that her campaign ignites in the conservative portion of America?

Skeptic Ginger said:
This is also from The Nation: OpinionNation: Hillary Clinton at the State Department: Hawk or Humanitarian?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you see here that contradicts or refutes anything being talked about in the last few posts,...but it does seem like there are more than a few progressives who don't see Clinton as a kindred spirit or acceptable candidate for the white house.
 
Trakar said:
...I'm not sure what you see here that contradicts or refutes anything being talked about in the last few posts...
Click to expand...
The Nation posts competing opinions on Clinton's foreign policy and you post one like it's a given. Right.

No contradictions there. :rolleyes:

Your posts here that Clinton is a NeoCon sound as desperate as the GOP Clinton haters. It's ludicrous. Eight years ago I was concerned Clinton would be on the hawk side on foreign policy only because the GOP was rattling their fear mongering swords. But this time around, after a few years as the Sec of State, and given the long Progressive track record of Clinton's, she's the best choice for a world in turmoil like we have today.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Nation posts competing opinions on Clinton's foreign policy and you post one like it's a given. Right.

No contradictions there. :rolleyes:

Your posts here that Clinton is a NeoCon sound as desperate as the GOP Clinton haters. It's ludicrous. Eight years ago I was concerned Clinton would be on the hawk side on foreign policy only because the GOP was rattling their fear mongering swords. But this time around, after a few years as the Sec of State, and given the long Progressive track record of Clinton's, she's the best choice for a world in turmoil like we have today.
Click to expand...

Well, my article from the Nation was from Aug. last year, your article was from June 2012, that may account for the evolution of consideration,...but speaking of 2012, its a good thing Hillary isn't investing heavily in any states that use the caucus system in their primaries...

Hillary Clinton is campaigning hard to win Iowa's caucuses -- but a 2012 email shows she might not care for the electorate there.

Clinton called caucuses "creatures of the parties' extremes" in a January 22, 2012 email to confidante Sidney Blumenthal.

That email was among a new tranche released Monday by the State Department as part of its ongoing effort, under a judge's order, to make public the former secretary of state's work-related emails...
Click to expand...

But of course such should always be understood within the proper context of the more complete statement, especially when they read like this one!

Clinton's email to her friend Blumenthal also includes nicknames for two of the Republican front-runners from that election cycle -- Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich -- as well as analysis on how their neck-and-neck race would play out.

"If Mittens (Mitt Romney) can't beat Grinch (Gingrich) in Florida, there will be pressure on state Republican parties to reopen or liberalize ballot access especially in the caucuses, which as we know are creatures of the parties' extremes," Clinton wrote.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/clinton-caucuses-party-extremes/index.html
 
I wouldn’t vote for Dick Cheney, so I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton

...If the DNC wants to risk future Supreme Court nominees or getting stuck with a neon-lit Trump sign atop the White House in 2016, then ignoring negative favorability ratings, in addition to an expanding FBI investigation, will result in defeat. In reality, even the prospect of a Trump victory, or a conservative Supreme Court, aren’t enough to make many progressives support someone with a “neocon” foreign policy (advised by neoconservatives) also funded by prison lobbyists...

Democrats will lose in 2016 with low voter turnout, and only Bernie Sanders ensures that progressive voters in aggregate don’t struggle to get to the polls. First, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure, even for progressives. Thus far, 25,000 progressives have already pledged to write in Sanders if he’s not the nominee...

Based on the CBS News findings, around 52% of Democrats will either stay home or reluctantly drive to the polls. That’s not the recipe to beat a Republican, who if Clinton is the nominee, will have millions of new conservatives/independents doing everything possible in order to ensure Hillary Clinton doesn’t get elected...

However, people change with time and Hillary Clinton has leaned to the right (all the way to neoconservative territory) on a number of issues, especially foreign policy. I wouldn’t vote for Dick Cheney, therefore I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton...

As for my recent Huffington Post and Salon articles, and video, on why I’ll only vote for Bernie and won’t support Clinton, other progressives agree. Walker Bragman in a brilliant Salon piece titled More like Reagan than FDR: I’m a millennial and I’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton writes that “Choosing Hillary threatens the future of the Democratic Party.”

Ultimately, Hillary Clinton would move the Democratic Party so far to the right that it might eventually be renamed the Moderate Republican Party...

The same NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in October showing Clinton with a commanding 31 point lead over Bernie Sanders also finds that many Democrats view Clinton in an unfavorable manner. In this poll, 26 percent of respondents gave Hillary Clinton a 1 out of 5 (the lowest rating, titled “Very Poor Rating”) and 11 percent gave her a 2 out of 5 pertaining to “Having the right temperament.”

Sorry, but if around 37 percent of respondents (in a poll that’s supposed to be favorable) don’t feel Clinton has the “right temperament,” low voter turnout is a logical consequence if Clinton becomes the nominee.

As for “Being compassionate enough to understand average people,” the October NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 30 percent of voters gave Hillary Clinton the worst rating, or a 1 out of 5.

Interestingly, when voters in this poll respond to “Having high personal standards that set the proper moral tone for the country,” 37 percent of respondents give Hillary Clinton a “Very Poor Rating” of 1 out of 5...
Click to expand...
- http://www.salon.com/2015/12/02/i_w...nt_only_sanders_voters_fires_back_at_critics/

Couldn't have said it better myself,...hey, wait a minute...
:)
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I wouldn’t vote for Dick Cheney, so I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...
This is revealing in one respect -- it demonstrates a mindset that is so starkly black and white that it borders on the absurd.
 
I think we need to start keeping a tally of how many times she uses rebuilding after 9/11 for why she is cozy with wall st.
 
Trakar said:
Well, my article from the Nation was from Aug. last year, your article was from June 2012, that may account for the evolution of consideration,...but speaking of 2012, its a good thing Hillary isn't investing heavily in any states that use the caucus system in their primaries...
Click to expand...
Your op ed was from Robert Dreyfuss and I posted Barbara Crossette's conflicting POV. It doesn't matter that 3 more years passed, Dreyfuss' opinion didn't evolve, it's the same anti-Hilary opinion it was in 2012.

From my link:
Editor’s Note: As we approach the end of President Obama’s first term, we asked two of our correspondents—Barbara Crossette, who writes regularly on the United Nations, and Robert Dreyfuss, who covers foreign policy and the Middle East—to assess Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Crossette sees a skilled diplomat who has built bridges to many world leaders alienated by George W. Bush, and elevated the concern of human rights wherever possible. Dreyfuss argues that Clinton’s support for military intervention in Libya and elsewhere undermines her claims to humanitarianism. Round Two is immediately below; Crossette and Dreyfuss’s first exchange follows.
Click to expand...
 
DavidJames said:
Can you elaborate on the "crookedness". Specifically site the laws that were broken. Thanks.
Click to expand...

If you don't consider the conflict of interest I stated as "crooked". read the link. It's about lying on IRS returns and violating an agreement with Obama. 16.5 has a god summation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom