• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
You are still avoiding the question.

You did no such thing, and that wasn't what I asked.

Man up. If you don't, you can't complain that no one takes your claim seriously.
Click to expand...

Did you really just tell me to "man up"?

Bwhahaha!

Oh well, it ain't Tuesday yet so I guess I get a couple more days of silly harassment.

I get it, I didn't answer one of your Jaq'ing off to your satisfaction. I answered, you didn't like the answer, so I have to man up or something.

Man up, he tells me, for cripes sake....
 
wareyin said:
Speaking of blind to the facts, a statement such as the highlighted makes one wonder if it was typed in Braille.
Click to expand...

"Equivalent" - equal in value, amount, function, meaning.

"As a shareholder and director of our company, I’m always proud of Wal-Mart.” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoCPRSrScG8

Hillary’s Mexican fence idea sounds a lot like Trump’s - http://nypost.com/2015/11/11/hillarys-mexican-fence-idea-sounds-a-lot-like-trumps/

A Hawk Named Hillary - http://www.thenation.com/article/hawk-named-hillary/

The problem with Hillary Clinton's stance on the death penalty - http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...mes-out-against-abolishing-the-death-penalty/

Hillary Clinton's 'Tough On Wall Street' Speech Wasn't Very Tough - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-wall-street_us_56b423e0e4b08069c7a6c432
 
Trakar said:
"Equivalent" - equal in value, amount, function, meaning.

"As a shareholder and director of our company, I’m always proud of Wal-Mart.” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoCPRSrScG8

Hillary’s Mexican fence idea sounds a lot like Trump’s - http://nypost.com/2015/11/11/hillarys-mexican-fence-idea-sounds-a-lot-like-trumps/

A Hawk Named Hillary - http://www.thenation.com/article/hawk-named-hillary/

The problem with Hillary Clinton's stance on the death penalty - http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...mes-out-against-abolishing-the-death-penalty/

Hillary Clinton's 'Tough On Wall Street' Speech Wasn't Very Tough - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-wall-street_us_56b423e0e4b08069c7a6c432
Click to expand...

Ok. Now what are their stances on global warming, or freedom of speech, or whether or not black people deserve to be roughed up at one of their rally's? Not to mention protectionism, or walls.
 
varwoche said:
Plus health care, abortion rights, minimum wage, commanding knowledge of policy in general, and temperament. Plus I reject Trakar's points but I'll come back to that later.
Click to expand...

Again, one has barely sufficient and acceptable positions and the other does not even approach the minimal acceptable bar. And this isn't my personal bar, this is the bar as to what policy actions are needed to address the agreed upon problem. In many cases, Hillary does acknowledge the problem she merely fails to do much of anything of significance to actually address the roots and main body of the problem in her policy proposals.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I never quite get this one. If a politician changes their mind on an issue when they have been convinced by the public that they should, they are a flip flopper only changing because of public pressure or because they don't want to lose votes, but if a politician never changes their minds on an issue despite the evidence and public opinion, then they are bloody minded, close minded, who refuse to listen to their electorates and the do the will of the people.

Seems that you're doomed either way

So what do you really want, a Politician that can be convinced by argument that they are wrong and should switch positions when shown that the evidence is against them, or one that steadfastly refuses to accept any amount of evidence presented and will never change their minds from their initial stance?
Click to expand...

A candidate who takes in new information and changes their position because they truly believe the new position is the best and correct position, is preferable. This assumes the new information is accurate.

A candidate who believes a certain position is the best/correct position, but discards that in favor of public opinion is okay. The problem being that just because it is favored by public opinion doesn't make it the best/correct choice. Further I would argue that a candidate wouldn't do as good a job trying to implement something they don't believe in, but is publicly supported, vs something they truly believe in.

A candidate who believes a certain position is best/correct, keeps that position, but tells the public what they want to hear in order to get elected and then end up doing whatever they were going to do anyway is the worst candidate.

The problem of course lies in figuring out which of those is the reason for the change in position. Each person has to look at the candidate and draw the best conclusion they can.
 
16.5 said:
Did you really just tell me to "man up"?

Bwhahaha!
Click to expand...

I guess it was too much to expect that you'd actually start supporting your claim rather than act as if asking you to do so was ridiculous.

Oh well, it ain't Tuesday yet so I guess I get a couple more days of silly harassment.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. I'm harassing you for asking you to support your claim. Totally oppressed, you are. Triggered, probably.
 
Note: I've skipped over the preceding few pages, because they're all the same.

Hillary's done, all right. Specifically, she's done gone and whipped Bernie's ass in SC.

I still wish Biden was running.
 
Note: I've skipped over the preceding few pages, because they're all the same.

Hillary's done, all right. Specifically, she's done gone and whipped Bernie's ass in SC.

I still wish Biden was running.
 
At least we dodged the Bernie bullet. Now we have to decide between the other completely retched people.
 
The_Animus said:
A candidate who takes in new information and changes their position because they truly believe the new position is the best and correct position, is preferable. This assumes the new information is accurate.

A candidate who believes a certain position is the best/correct position, but discards that in favor of public opinion is okay. The problem being that just because it is favored by public opinion doesn't make it the best/correct choice. Further I would argue that a candidate wouldn't do as good a job trying to implement something they don't believe in, but is publicly supported, vs something they truly believe in.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

A candidate who believes a certain position is best/correct, keeps that position, but tells the public what they want to hear in order to get elected and then end up doing whatever they were going to do anyway is the worst candidate.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The worst candidate is the one who does all that and is wrong (see G W Bush - invasion of Iraq).

Or perhaps the worst candidate is the one who convinces the people that he is right, but is actually wrong. Worse because it's much easier to kick out a leader that everybody knows is wrong than one everybody thinks is right.

I would vote for a candidate who wasn't telling us what he really intended to do if I knew that what he wanted was best/correct - even if I didn't know what that was. And in fact, that is what we do most of the time. Very few of us know what really needs to be done - so we just have to trust that our leaders do know. That trust is often misplaced...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom