Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[wareyin]

Yes because heaven forbid that my experience and knowledge differ from yours. That would be a terrible crime.

I've ever only heard the term used to describe particularily-annoying women, and not women in general, just like I've only ever heard "dick" used to describe asshat males.

And people only use n-word to describe uppity black folks, not all of them.[/sarcasm]

 

[Axiom_Blade]

It's not your opinion that's at issue, it's the almost unbelievable lack of awareness of the issue.

Well, whatever we do, let's not talk about her position on the issues. Somehow, Hillary's vote on the Iraq War is a distraction, yet discussing sexist language is not.

 

[Belz...]

And people only use n-word to describe uppity black folks, not all of them.[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm noted, but I do think it was used to refer to all of them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, whatever we do, let's not talk about her position on the issues. Somehow, Hillary's vote on the Iraq War is a distraction, yet discussing sexist language is not.

Straw alteration of the issue highlighted. I never said it was a distraction. I did say it was cherry picking a single vote, and a discussion of who was to blame for the Iraq war was well beyond the thread topic.

 

[The Big Dog]

Straw alteration of the issue highlighted. I never said it was a distraction. I did say it was cherry picking a single vote, and a discussion of who was to blame for the Iraq war was well beyond the thread topic.

The discussion of whether Hillary is blame for her vote in favor of Iraq War Vote is front square and center for this thread, just like it was back in 2008.

Sure it is a short discussion: Hillary is to blame, but it seems that people want to forget that.

 

[wareyin]

The discussion of whether Hillary is blame for her vote in favor of Iraq War Vote is front square and center for this thread, just like it was back in 2008.

Sure it is a short discussion: Hillary is to blame, but it seems that people want to forget that.

One of the majority of Senators to vote for giving the President the authority to go to a war that he misled us all about, and she alone shoulders the blame? That's quite an irrational stance.

 

[The Big Dog]

The discussion of whether Hillary is blame for her vote in favor of Iraq War Vote is front square and center for this thread, just like it was back in 2008.

Sure it is a short discussion: Hillary is to blame, but it seems that people want to forget that.

One of the majority of Senators to vote for giving the President the authority to go to a war that he misled us all about, and she alone shoulders the blame? That's quite an irrational stance.

For her vote, yes, obviously. C'mon....

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For her vote, yes, obviously. C'mon....

Actually, no.

5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary’s 2002 Iraq War Vote

Myth #1: The 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, on which Hillary Clinton and a large majority of U.S. Senators voted yes, gave George W. Bush “carte blanche” to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.

False! In fact exactly the opposite is true: While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.

Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war—and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually, no.

5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary’s 2002 Iraq War Vote

Actually Yes.

Curious that you managed to find a sloppy wet kiss to Hillary from someone who worked on her campaign in 2008. Also curious? He failed to mention it. He also failed to mention that his employer administered grants distributed while Hillary was SoS.

Say, you know what was a big issue in 2008? You guessed it:

THE FACT THAT HILLARY VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE IRAQ WAR.

Thank goodness Bernie doesn't need such ridiculous propaganda.

 

[varwoche]

Curious that you managed to find a sloppy wet kiss to Hillary from someone who worked on her campaign in 2008. Also curious? He failed to mention it.

Curious that when I point out this same sort of issue in your citations, you reject the criticism. Oh dear?

 

[The Big Dog]

Curious that when I point out this same sort of issue in your citations, you reject the criticism. Oh dear?

Oh dear, a tu quoque fallacy?

Beyond the fact that the linked article is maudlin wet kiss from a former worker on her campaign and someone whose employer had direct business with State while Hillary was SoS:

HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS BLATANT BIAS AFFECTING HIS PECUNIARY INTEREST.

Despicable

 

[Slings and Arrows]

"Hillary Clinton has argued that in the larger scheme of things, the speeches are basically irrelevant. Paying a former secretary of state for giving a speech is what companies and associations do when they want to feel important, not when they want to influence legislation and regulations."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They can expect it all they want, where's the evidence Clinton is beholden? Should she be worried about funding her 2020 campaign? She's already rich, why does she owe them anything?

Now comes the coup de grâce, first woman POTUS showing all those men that came before her how it's done.

Beholden to some peon corporate donors? I think not.

Realistic, yes, you have to be.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

$15 Million from Wall Street Disqualifies Hillary

Clinton not qualified to be president

"Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds," he said. "I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."

 

[Slings and Arrows]

“I don’t have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton told the Greenpeace activist before accusing Senator Bernie Sanders’ rival campaign of “lying” about her.

However, data compiled by Greenpeace in March shows that Clinton’s campaign received $3.25 million from fossil fuel companies and related sources through a “Pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC,” which is supporting her current run for the White House.

https://www.rt.com/usa/338576-clinton-fossil-fuel-money/#

 

[Belz...]

Clinton not qualified to be president

That isn't about qualification, but trust.

 

[The Don]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_696355704898b73480.png[/qimg]

“I don’t have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton told the Greenpeace activist before accusing Senator Bernie Sanders’ rival campaign of “lying” about her.

However, data compiled by Greenpeace in March shows that Clinton’s campaign received $3.25 million from fossil fuel companies and related sources through a “Pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC,” which is supporting her current run for the White House.

https://www.rt.com/usa/338576-clinton-fossil-fuel-money/#

Is that same information available from a source other than Russia Today ?

The reason I ask is that “I don’t have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” is a very sweeping and stupid statement for a professional politician to make. All it would take is evidence of one $10 donation from one individual who happened to be a miner for it to be falsified. I wonder if the quote has been taken out of context (i.e. was the question whether Hillary herself, as opposed to her campaign, received money from fossil fuel companies).

If it hasn't, and if Hillary has simply lied then that's very stupid of her and/or her campaign.

edited to add....

Re-reading, the article confusingly switches between the Clinton foundation and the Hillary Clinton's campaign and on timescales.

 

[Darat]

"Hillary Clinton has argued that in the larger scheme of things, the speeches are basically irrelevant. Paying a former secretary of state for giving a speech is what companies and associations do when they want to feel important, not when they want to influence legislation and regulations."


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_696355705dd565f0bc.jpg[/qimg]

I think "Wall Street" have demonstrated many times that they really are a special kind of stupid.

 

[The Don]

Interesting, from an energy industry site we get a different view

At another point, Clinton grew angry when Eva Resnick-Day, an organizer with Greenpeace USA, asked whether she’d forego contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

“I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton said in a video posted and later confirmed by Greenpeace.

“I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about that,” Clinton added, pointing her finger at the questioner. “I’m sick of it.”

http://theamericanenergynews.com/energy-politics/hillary-clinton-money-fossil-fuel-companies

So either Russia Today slipped in a "don't" or the americaenergynews dropped it....

 

[Slings and Arrows]

(Hillary Clinton with her BFF, Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein)

The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.

"While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.

"To understand this worldview, one need look no further than the foundation at which Hillary Clinton works and which bears her family name. The mission of the Clinton Foundation can be distilled as follows: There is so much private wealth sloshing around our planet (thanks in very large part to the deregulation and privatization frenzy that Bill Clinton unleashed on the world while president), that every single problem on earth, no matter how large, can be solved by convincing the ultra-rich to do the right things with their loose change. Naturally, the people to convince them to do these fine things are the Clintons, the ultimate relationship brokers and dealmakers, with the help of an entourage of A-list celebrities."

http://www.thenation.com/article/th...r-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/ (April 6, 2016)