Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've ordered humble pie by the truck load. First serving when Hillary gets the nomination, second when she thrashes whichever clown the Republicans throw up. Get in line guys.
 
jhunter1163 said:
They're really going to be silent after Clinton sweeps on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, but once they manage to persuade all the superdelegates to pledge for Bernie (including those who have already pledged for Hillary) then he'll be back in the game. :rolleyes:

On that basis Bernie is actually leading by a significant 1,850 (1153 + 700 superdelegates) to 1,428 (1428 + 0 superdelegates) ;)
 
16.5 said:
Umm, you know that those are just pro Hillary arguments that bear no resemblance to reality, right, and certainly don't take into account anti Hillary arguments like the fact she is phony as a three dollar bill and is war mongering sociopath?
Click to expand...

Evidence for those assertions ?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
The kiss of death:- Charles Koch: Clinton Might Make Better President Than Republican CandidatesSo Charles Koch thinks Hillary might do what he wants, rather than what she's telling us she will do? What more proof do we need that Hillary is untrustworthy and in bed with Wall Street?
Click to expand...
Good grief, he was asked if he could vote for Clinton given how bad the GOP options were and he said only if she didn't mean what she says.

The news media has completely distorted his not saying no as him saying yes. :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Good grief, he was asked if he could vote for Clinton given how bad the GOP options were and he said only if she didn't mean what she says.
The news media has completely distorted his not saying no as him saying yes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It sounded as if Koch has reason -- or thinks he does -- to doubt whether H. means what she says, and Koch is nothing if not well-connected politically. It's hard to imagine him saying the same thing about Sanders.
 
Bob001 said:
It sounded as if Koch has reason -- or thinks he does -- to doubt whether H. means what she says, and Koch is nothing if not well-connected politically. It's hard to imagine him saying the same thing about Sanders.
Click to expand...
Am I supposed to believe a John Birch society product, climate change denier has insight? :rolleyes:
 
I'm with Monica Lewinsky

"Outspoken Bernie Sanders surrogate Rosario Dawson said Saturday she stands with Monica Lewinsky's fight against bullying, and suggested that the Clinton campaign is engaging in such behavior.

"We are literally under attack for not just supporting the other candidate. Now I'm with Monica Lewinsky with this: bullying is bad. She's actually dedicated her life now to talking about that," Dawson said, before introducing the Vermont senator on-stage at a rally in Delaware.

"All along, the big problem for the Clinton machine is that it is impossible to demonize the Sanders campaign as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Principled opposition from the left attacks an undefended flank of her campaign. She needs the support of the left, so cannot demonize them.

"With the choice of Monica Lewinsky as poster girl for the Clintons’ bullying style, Dawson has scored a bull’s-eye."

Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ssue_from_the_sanders_camp.html#ixzz46t68aUEG

 
Last edited:
That you would post that article together with that picture says a lot about your agenda.
 
16.5 said:
Another CLASSIC: Iraq War Authorization.
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote
The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,”...

“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.”
Click to expand...
And she wasn't alone. 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. 29 people who (like me) were naive and trusting enough to think that the President wouldn't abuse his powers.

But of course none of this matters. Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War VoteAnd she wasn't alone. 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. 29 people who (like me) were naive and trusting enough to think that the President wouldn't abuse his powers.

But of course none of this matters. Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
Click to expand...

Facts like she voted for the Iraq war resolution, unlike Bernie and lots and lots of others?

Odd how her actual vote is dismissed but her cherry picked speech somehow is a fact? Lolz, she is a pathological liar, her words are meaningless.

Utterly meaningless.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War VoteAnd she wasn't alone. 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. 29 people who (like me) were naive and trusting enough to think that the President wouldn't abuse his powers.

But of course none of this matters. Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
Click to expand...

What you've quoted could be paraphrased as "I think this is a really bad idea, we shouldn't do it, but I'll give the President whatever he wants because he's the President." For her to vote for something she didn't support might actually be worse than claiming she really believed Saddam had WMDs. Some of us like to see some backbone in our leaders. It's not like she would have been standing alone if she had voted (what she now claims is) her conscience: she could have placed herself among the 42% who opposed the resolution, including Sanders, Obama, Edward Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski and Robert Byrd.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.”
Click to expand...

That's CYA right there. If she were being honest, that is some of the rankest incompetence I've ever heard of, and I wouldn't dream of voting for anybody that stupid. I know Hillary better than that, though, and there's no way she's that stupid. She was simply providing cover for herself so that she could later say "Oh, no! Look! I was taking the president at his word! How could I have known???"

Taking. George W. Bush. At his word. Seriously, Ms. Secretary?
:dl:
 
5 Things We’ve Learned About Hillary Clinton Since She Won the New York Primary

1. Clinton is now statistically tied with Donald Trump in national polling, while Sanders beats Trump by 10 points.

2. Charles Koch has revealed that Clinton is conservative enough that he might vote for her over any of the remaining Republicans.

3. It turns out that neither Hillary nor her staff ever had any respect for Sanders, his supporters, or the causes he (and they) have championed.

4. Clinton has been paying millions of dollars to spread campaign propaganda illicitly, part of which effort was designed to play up the “Bernie Bro” meme.

5. There will be no attempt whatsoever to bring Sanders supporters back into the Democratic fold.

In other words, America is already seeing the Hillary Clinton they’ll get during the fall election campaign — and also, should Clinton somehow manage to squeak by Donald Trump in November, the sort of Nixonian White House we can expect in consequence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/5-things-weve-learned-abo_b_9772408.html
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
5 Things We’ve Learned About Hillary Clinton Since She Won the New York Primary

1. Clinton is now statistically tied with Donald Trump in national polling, while Sanders beats Trump by 10 points.

2. Charles Koch has revealed that Clinton is conservative enough that he might vote for her over any of the remaining Republicans.

3. It turns out that neither Hillary nor her staff ever had any respect for Sanders, his supporters, or the causes he (and they) have championed.

4. Clinton has been paying millions of dollars to spread campaign propaganda illicitly, part of which effort was designed to play up the “Bernie Bro” meme.

5. There will be no attempt whatsoever to bring Sanders supporters back into the Democratic fold.

In other words, America is already seeing the Hillary Clinton they’ll get during the fall election campaign — and also, should Clinton somehow manage to squeak by Donald Trump in November, the sort of Nixonian White House we can expect in consequence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/5-things-weve-learned-abo_b_9772408.html
Click to expand...

So why is she winning?
 
16.5 said:
War mongering? Another CLASSIC: Iraq War Authorization.
Click to expand...

You've set the bar pretty low for war monger then :rolleyes:

I happened to disagree with those who voted in favour of giving the U.S. the option of going to war in Iraq (because I didn't believe the "intelligence" provided by the Bush administration - it didn't align with what Hans Blix was saying among other things) but I think classifying anyone who voted Aye in that vote as a warmonger is stretching the point. If you believed the intelligence, then the decision to authorise force was not an unreasonable one.

For real warmongers (or chickenhawks if you prefer) you have to look a those GOP candidates whose response to any international crisis or regional tension is to suggest that the area should be carpet bombed/bombed back to the stone age/turned into glowing glass (delete as applicable).
 
BobTheCoward said:
So why is she winning?
Click to expand...

That's the big mystery. Democrats love the Clintons. It's great watching the Dems bend over backwards to dig their own graves, though. This will be a fun election no matter what happens. Of course, I would love to see both parties implode, but I'll be happy if just one goes.

The Don said:
If you believed the intelligence, then the decision to authorise force was not an unreasonable one.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I think that war is always wrong.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Disagree. I think that war is always wrong.
Click to expand...

You may, but I think there are circumstances when war is justified.

For example a Sierra Leone style military intervention in Rwanda may have prevented the genocide. I also think that a country or a group has a right to defend itself if it is invaded.

Different people set the bar at different levels but it's a rare person who, like yourself, thinks that war isn't justified under any circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom