Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Animus said:
Clinton is not progressive. If you took my statement to be a tacit endorsement of Drumpf, that is not the case. Trump is worse but I won't be voting for either of them.
Click to expand...

I did not. I took it exactly as you meant it, and it still makes no sense.

By any measure, Clinton is more progressive than Trump. So if progressives are counting and believe that the election will be Trump v. Clinton, then the choice of agendas is clear. There's no reason for a progressive to give up their cards, dice, or commemorative notepads.
 
RobRoy said:
I did not. I took it exactly as you meant it, and it still makes no sense.

By any measure, Clinton is more progressive than Trump. So if progressives are counting and believe that the election will be Trump v. Clinton, then the choice of agendas is clear. There's no reason for a progressive to give up their cards, dice, or commemorative notepads.
Click to expand...
On top of which, important aspects of progressive agenda, e.g. campaign finance / citizens united, depend on SCOTUS. It seems to me that people in general, and bitter Sanders supporters in particular, have a naive view about the power of POTUS, SCOTUS be damned.
 
Oh God, Hillary Could Actually Screw This Up

It was more than just the polls that made this week the one in which a Trump presidency became not so farfetched. This was the week we realized that Hillary Clinton's political talents (such as they are) probably aren't up to the task of tearing down Trump.

On Monday, she told a labor rally in Detroit, "We need a president who will use the bully pulpit to stand up for working families. But the last thing we need is a bully in the pulpit." Ugh.

It's possible, even likely, that Hillary will come up with better lines as the campaign goes on—but she is what she is, so there's a ceiling on her improvement.

http://www.gq.com/story/hillary-clinton-could-screw-this-up (May 26, 2016)
Click to expand...


Sure, it's certainly possible that Crooked Hillary will come up with "better lines", but don't hold your breath waiting -- she has yet to come up with even one good platitude, slogan, quip or zinger.

Does Crooked Hillary write her own material? If so, "there's your trouble," as the Dixie Chicks would say. Her staff is too intimidated by the gasbag wrapped in a pantsuit to step forward and tell her how bad it really is.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
Does Crooked Hillary write her own material? If so, "there's your trouble," as the Dixie Chicks would say. Her staff is too intimidated by the gasbag wrapped in a pantsuit to step forward and tell her how bad it really is.
Click to expand...

You mean, in comparison with the stuff that falls out of Trump's mouth?

1. “An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud"
​

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/550112/donald-trump-quotes.html
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Dismissing Trumps constant lies while assailing Clinton for so much less is not a tu quoque argument, it's a "you're a hypocrite argument."
Click to expand...

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Oh man, oh man....

In the unlikely event anyone did not know, a tu quoque fallacy is also refered to as an appeal to hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
RobRoy said:
I did not. I took it exactly as you meant it, and it still makes no sense.

By any measure, Clinton is more progressive than Trump. So if progressives are counting and believe that the election will be Trump v. Clinton, then the choice of agendas is clear. There's no reason for a progressive to give up their cards, dice, or commemorative notepads.
Click to expand...

You've moved the goalposts from whether Clinton is a progressive candidate to whether she is more progressive than Drumpf.

Further I specifically said Drumpf is worse than Clinton so I'm not sure why you'd replace what I said with your strawman.
 
The_Animus said:
You've moved the goalposts from whether Clinton is a progressive candidate to whether she is more progressive than Drumpf.

Further I specifically said Drumpf is worse than Clinton so I'm not sure why you'd replace what I said with your strawman.
Click to expand...

And we're back to the "not sufficiently ideologically pure" argument.

In the post I quote, you admit that progressiveness is a scale, and Hillary is higher on the scale than Trump. Therefore your issue isn't that Hillary isn't progressive, it's that she's not sufficiently progressive for you.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Sure, it's certainly possible that Crooked Hillary will come up with "better lines", but don't hold your breath waiting -- she has yet to come up with even one good platitude, slogan, quip or zinger.

Does Crooked Hillary write her own material? If so, "there's your trouble," as the Dixie Chicks would say. Her staff is too intimidated by the gasbag wrapped in a pantsuit to step forward and tell her how bad it really is.
Click to expand...


While in Las Vegas, she responding to accusations of using the 'woman car' with, "Deal me in!" Not sure if that's much better, though.
 
Earlier this week, Crooked Hillary unveiled her new and improved campaign slogan: "Stronger Together" -- it sounds better when accompanied with a laugh track.

But let's look back at her best and most quoted quip so far:

"If fighting for paid leave and affordable child care is playing the woman card, well deal me in." -- Crooked Hillary (April 2016)

Now that may get rave reviews from the geriatric community (her core constituency), but for those of us still under the age of 80, it's embarrassingly lame and feeble.

Hard to believe she can demand $225,000 per speech, unless that's just straight-up bribe money (which it most likely is).
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
You've moved the goalposts from whether Clinton is a progressive candidate to whether she is more progressive than Drumpf.
Click to expand...

I can see why you would think that, but that’s because you’re not arguing your original point. I often forget my original point, and instead argue what I thought was the spirit of that point, until someone points it out to me again. It’s a failure of others to only know what I said, rather than what I meant. :D

That is, your original comment was:

The_Animus said:
I think anyone still supporting Clinton at this point needs to hand in their progressive card.
Click to expand...

So I haven’t moved any goalposts. I’ve disagreed with your conclusion that progressives can’t support Clinton and still consider themselves progressives.

Further I specifically said Drumpf is worse than Clinton so I'm not sure why you'd replace what I said with your strawman.
Click to expand...

I haven’t. But I see how you got there. We’re on the same page in this regard.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Hard to believe she can demand $225,000 per speech, unless that's just straight-up bribe money (which it most likely is).
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Some people get paid a lot of money to speak based on what can be taught, while others get paid a lot based on what can be given. Hillary is in the latter group.
 
What odds that HC withdraws or is prosecuted , based on FBI findings ?
Regardless , her November chances are now non existent unless her sponsors maim or kill The Donald .
1000 -1 looks generous .
 
uke2se said:
And we're back to the "not sufficiently ideologically pure" argument.

In the post I quote, you admit that progressiveness is a scale, and Hillary is higher on the scale than Trump. Therefore your issue isn't that Hillary isn't progressive, it's that she's not sufficiently progressive for you.
Click to expand...

Progressiveness is a scale, that's not the same as whether a candidate is 'a progressive' in the context of current US/world political ideology.

If the race were between Trump and Hitler, Trump would be more progressive, but to call him a progressive candidate would be silly. To call a vote for him, a progressive vote, also would be silly.

Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would have been to say anyone still voting Clinton at this point shouldn't consider their vote a progressive one. Or for those who would nitpick that, maybe anyone still voting Clinton shouldn't consider themselves to be voting for a progressive candidate. :p
 
Malbec said:
What odds that HC withdraws or is prosecuted , based on FBI findings ?
Regardless , her November chances are now non existent unless her sponsors maim or kill The Donald .
1000 -1 looks generous .
Click to expand...

Is this from your magic 8 ball? :sdl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom