Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slings and Arrows said:
Excerpt from the article:

"The implications of all of this [the email server issue] are that Hillary Clinton did not want her emails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress. And that’s why she set up a home-brew server.

"I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in free fall because of this distrust factor. Indeed, Trump has a similar problem, but she’s the one whose numbers are going south.

"And the great hope in the White House, as well as the Democratic leadership and people who support her, is that she can just get to this convention, get the nomination — which they’re no longer 100% sure of — and get President Obama out there to help her, he’s got a lot of credibility, it’s an election that’s partly about his legacy.

"But she needs all the help she can get because right now her campaign is in huge trouble…"

-----------------

So the plan is to get President Obama out on the campaign trail.

Well, former President Bill Clinton has been on the campaign trail for months. And his results? Near empty rallies with a few yawning spectators.

No one, not even President Obama, will be able to gin up any enthusiasm for Crooked Hillary -- assuming "she can just get to" November, without being carted off to the hoosegow first.
Click to expand...

Whoa there, we'll have none of this, "carted off to the hoosegow" talk around here, we have our standards.
She's to be Frogmarched to Prison, nothing less.
I still don't know exactly what a frogmarch is, but it sounds delightful, like something from a storybook, I picture rows of frogs doing a sort of goose-steppy thing, so I'm very much looking forward to it.
Except no substitutes. :thumbsup::D
 
Last edited:
Fun read about Killary's incompetent attempt at attacking Teh Donald and his "preemptive broadside" a day earlier:

Crooked Hillary Shrieks at Trump for Not Hating Putin Enough

Ricky Twisdale said:
[...] You can believe Putin has absolutely no respect for Hillary Clinton, nor probably does anyone else who had the misfortune of having to deal with her during her horrendous tenure as secretary of state. Her incompetent staff couldn't even manage to translate the single word "reset" correctly into Russian in the infamous "reset button" scene she staged with Lavrov. That in itself is pathetic. But worse is that after Lavrov told her the word they wrote meant "overcharged", she barked, "Don't worry, we won't let you do that to us!"

The diplomatic, or just simply polite rejoinder might have been, "Don't worry, Mr. Lavrov, we have no intention of doing that to you." But Hillary Clinton is so schooled in the arrogance of American Exceptionalism by her policy handlers, that it never entered her mind that the USA could ever be perceived as an aggrieving party. Only other states which buck the instructions from the Washington-enforced World Order can do wrong in world affairs.

Even more embarrassing to Clinton was the incident [...]
Click to expand...


The "reset button" scene:

Conclusion:

Ricky Twisdale said:
[...] Personally, I plan to vote for Donald Trump on the off chance he will even marginally improve relations with the rest of the world. And yeah, updating the US 1950s-era infrastructure and securing national borders rather than foreign ones, wouldn't be half bad either.

After all, the worst thing that can happen is, he's lying.

In that case, get ready for World War III as reality TV, and FEMA camps that are incredibly luxurious. It beats dying to the sound of Hillary's bellowing wicked witch laugh.
Click to expand...


Hard to argue with that. ;)
 
Clintons strategy looks good at this point. She know many people, especially swing voters, would have to hold their nose to vote for her, so she is emphasizing what a disaster a Trump presidency would be rather than touting her own merits.
 
Bob001 said:
An unfavorable assessment of Hillary's foreign policy views:

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/04/we_...l_dangers_of_hillary_clintons_foreign_policy/
Click to expand...
From the link:
Trump may well be dangerous. But know what you're getting with Hillary: American hegemony that's hated worldwide...Two, in her remarks Thursday Clinton asserted that electing Trump would be “an historic mistake.” This it may be, but in the San Diego context it was mere rhetoric with an odd irony in it: Clinton betrays a very poor understanding of what time it is in history.
Click to expand...
What's that supposed to be, a veiled hint the guy actually does fantasize Trump a better choice?

He goes on to discuss cherry picked positions of Trump's as if Trump had any realistic plans to address the cherries.
The part that interests me now is the question of funding. It is against the orthodoxy to raise the question of who pays what in the NATO budget. The U.S. does indeed shoulder far and away more of the organization’s costs than any other member. Why should this not be raised? Why not corrected? This is Trump’s question, and he is probably the only one around who does not know the answer.
Click to expand...
That's right, one cherry picked part, we pay more than our share to support NATO.

But he ignores the other 'part' that Trump would withdraw from NATO if the other countries didn't pony up. You think we are hated now? How do you think the world would see us if we elected the biggest bully in the country to be POTUS?

Second issue: Trump also asserted recently that he would talk to Kim Jong–un to persuade him to abandon North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Talk to Kim Jong–un? This is another faux pas in Clinton’s book. Same question: Why would this be?
Click to expand...
Yes it's a bad idea, Kim is also mentally unpredictable. Past talks have amounted to agreements to pay his father bribes for agreements that weren't kept anyway. A better approach to N Korea is to negotiate with the Chinese, get them to deal with Kim. Not sure if Clinton feels the same but the idea you can just negotiate with Kim is foolish.

The article goes on to compare Clinton to Bush's ignorant refusals to negotiate with anyone and that is a total analogy fail.

And the author wasn't even aware that he shouldn't be using a blatantly sexist term in his writing.
Now think again about Hillary Clinton’s shrill blasts at Trump for his willingness to talk to the North’s new leader.
Click to expand...
shrill (shrĭl)
adj. shrill·er, shrill·est
1. High-pitched and piercing in tone or sound: the shrill wail of a siren.
Click to expand...
Clinton's speech was as far from shrill as you could get. That suggests the likelihood he has a real and not an accidental underlying sexist attitude.
 
Bob001 said:
Gee, that's a thoughtful analysis. I guess Hillary must be right about everything: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Russia, NATO, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

Saying that Hillary is more dangerous than Trump is delusional.

Only criticizing Hillary for stuff that Trump also espouses, or were he's more extreme shows bias.

In short, a crap article written by someone with a clear agenda.

I might be wrong in that he's a Berntard, though. Seems to be shilling more for Trump than for Bernie.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
A poll released yesterday says 2/3 of voters want Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches. But someone might spin it negatively so who cares about giving voters relevant information they want...
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, the transcripts were leaked by someone (at Goldman Sachs?) a few weeks ago. Most of Clinton's remarks were said to be pretty routine stuff. There was one comment she made that could be considered damaging. Reference:
17 days after promising to ‘look into it,’ the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs Investment Firm were leaked online today by an unknown source. Posted onto the file sharing site PasteBin, most of the speeches texts were innocuous. Clinton spoke glowingly about Goldman Sachs, how much money they make and what a great friend they are to her SuperPAC. However, one quote from Hillary has drawn particular fire from observers:

“And so I say to you Goldman Sachs, I am on your side. Do not pay attention to the noise of the political season, I will always remember your support and put your priorities first, above all else. Thank you."

Link
Click to expand...

I'm a moderate (registered) Democrat and I've been in private business all my adult life. I don't have any big problem with Hillary having told Goldman Sachs, "I will always...put your priorities first, above all else..."

None of the companies I've worked for, or companies where I knew people, none of them are evil. Basically they want to make money. Rape and pillage is usually not an agenda item. When American business is doing well the American economy is usually doing well. Take out a new car loan and buy a house, that kind of thing. So she's essentially telling Goldman Sachs, 'Don't worry about me.' If I worked for Goldman Sachs, even in a low level position, I'd think she was pretty cool.
 
newyorkguy said:
The funny thing is, the transcripts were leaked by someone (at Goldman Sachs?) a few weeks ago. Most of Clinton's remarks were said to be pretty routine stuff. There was one comment she made that could be considered damaging. Reference:


I'm a moderate (registered) Democrat and I've been in private business all my adult life. I don't have any big problem with Hillary having told Goldman Sachs, "I will always...put your priorities first, above all else..."

None of the companies I've worked for, or companies where I knew people, none of them are evil. Basically they want to make money. Rape and pillage is usually not an agenda item. When American business is doing well the American economy is usually doing well. Take out a new car loan and buy a house, that kind of thing. So she's essentially telling Goldman Sachs, 'Don't worry about me.' If I worked for Goldman Sachs, even in a low level position, I'd think she was pretty cool.
Click to expand...

I don't see a transcript in that link. And the anonymous source plus the highly suspect statements say the source is completely made up.
it sounded to us like she was our employee.”

“It felt like a generous tongue bath from a loving puppy,”

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon confirmed that the leaked transcripts are authentic.
Click to expand...
Really, confirmed? Where's that evidence?

I especially call bull on this one:
"And so I say to you Goldman Sachs, I am on your side. Do not pay attention to the noise of the political season, I will always remember your support and put your priorities first, above all else. Thank you.’
Click to expand...
It's in quotes. "So I say to you"? :rolleyes: Talk about a red flag for made up tripe.

I can't believe you take that account seriously.


There have been other reports from people who there is more evidence actually did hear at least one speech:
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047#ixzz4Ad5D4wGQ
Click to expand...

That's a far cry from the over-the-line not credible pandering in your link.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The funny thing is, the transcripts were leaked by someone (at Goldman Sachs?) a few weeks ago. Most of Clinton's remarks were said to be pretty routine stuff. There was one comment she made that could be considered damaging. Reference:


I'm a moderate (registered) Democrat and I've been in private business all my adult life. I don't have any big problem with Hillary having told Goldman Sachs, "I will always...put your priorities first, above all else..."

None of the companies I've worked for, or companies where I knew people, none of them are evil. Basically they want to make money. Rape and pillage is usually not an agenda item. When American business is doing well the American economy is usually doing well. Take out a new car loan and buy a house, that kind of thing. So she's essentially telling Goldman Sachs, 'Don't worry about me.' If I worked for Goldman Sachs, even in a low level position, I'd think she was pretty cool.
Click to expand...

I don't think your source is very reliable, and...

I'm a moderate (registered) Democrat and I've been in private business all my adult life. I don't have any big problem with Hillary having told Goldman Sachs, "I will always...put your priorities first, above all else..."
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi
 
Nixonian palace guard now protects Hillary

It has taken almost 50 years, but the Democrats have finally found their inner Nixon. Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the most Nixonian figure in the post-Watergate period.

While Obama could be criticized for embracing Nixon’s imperial presidency model, his personality could not be more different from his predecessor. Clinton however is the whole Nixonian package. On a policy level, her predilection for using executive and military power is even coupled with praise for (and from) Nixon’s secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. However, it is on a personality level that the comparison is so striking and so unnerving. Clinton, like Nixon, is known to be both secretive and evasive. She seems to have a compulsive resistance to simply acknowledging conflicting facts or changes in position. She only makes admissions against interest when there is no alternative to acknowledging the truth in a controversy.

Clinton’s history of changing positions and spinning facts is now legendary. For example, she spent much of a year assuring the public that she was fully cooperating with investigators into her use of an unsecure server for her communications as secretary of State. Indeed, she used her claimed cooperation as the reason that she would not answer more questions. When the State Department Inspector General issued its highly critical report on the scandal, many were shocked to learn that Clinton not only refused to speak at all with investigators but so did her top aides. Where Clinton repeatedly said that her use was allowed by the State Department, the report said that the rule was clearly violated, she never received approval for such a security breach and that a personal server would never have been accepted.

Read more:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-richard-nixon-aides-fawning-column/85297456/ (June 3, 2016)
Click to expand...


Donald Trump could have justifiably given her the nickname 'Hillary Rodham Nixon' -- it's a near perfect fit. But the public has already latched onto the name 'Crooked Hillary', and it's too late in the day to change it now.

Reference:
Inspector General's report on the Clinton security breach
 
Fudbucker said:
:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Yes, Hillary Clinton can be as pro-business as she wants to be, I have no problem with it. Goldman Sachs doesn't have internment camps or the end of Free Speech on their 'most wanted' list, I'm certain.

At the same time, I was pleased when Clinton came out for closing the "carried interest tax loophole." This allows hedge fund and private equity investors and venture capital firms to have their profits taxed under the capital gains rate despite the fact the earnings are essentially regular income. They pay a very low taxation rate and it's a sizeable amount of money. When Clinton was campaigning in Iowa she told a rally:
"There's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers..." [url="There's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers]Link[/url]
Click to expand...


This issue is a serious irritant to a lot of financial investors and Hillary Clinton resisted efforts at reform but she finally came around. Hillary Clinton was my Senator from New York and you could usually count on her to do the decent thing. At least she listens.

A few months ago you were pretty worked up when it looked like the U.S. Supreme Court was going to take an action that would've crippled your union. Then Scalia died. You might want to remember that Hillary Clinton has a record of being pretty reliable at supporting unionists and working families. That would seem to be a lot more relevant than what she may or may not have told Goldman Sachs.
 
The_Animus said:
Travis, this is just like your disingenuous "How is Hillary a Liar" question. You know the answer, or at least you should, given that you read these forums and it's been posted over and over and over and over and over and over. Even if you might not agree with the reasons people have given, you know them or could easily look them up again.

No one answers you because you're not genuinely asking.
Click to expand...

We won't explain to you how 2 + 2 = 5 because you will just say it is wrong and is actually 4. So of course we won't answer you.


This is what I'm reading.

You claim someone who is clearly in favor of progressive issues (gay rights, women's rights, income equality, worker rights, racial equality) is not a progressive and then get all uppity when I ask for clarification on how she isn't a progressive.
 
Who needs transcripts when you can watch the video.

Skip ahead to 3:40...




Steve S
 
newyorkguy said:
The funny thing is, the transcripts were leaked by someone (at Goldman Sachs?) a few weeks ago. Most of Clinton's remarks were said to be pretty routine stuff. There was one comment she made that could be considered damaging. Reference:
Click to expand...

Because anonymous sources posting something to pastebin makes it true!


None of the companies I've worked for, or companies where I knew people, none of them are evil. Basically they want to make money. Rape and pillage is usually not an agenda item. When American business is doing well the American economy is usually doing well. Take out a new car loan and buy a house, that kind of thing. So she's essentially telling Goldman Sachs, 'Don't worry about me.' If I worked for Goldman Sachs, even in a low level position, I'd think she was pretty cool.
Click to expand...

Yeah all those financial crimes and fraud for which major corporations are always getting caught aren't doing anything evil at all. Who cares about money being improperly taken from others for their own greedy selves at the expense of society as a whole? I mean it's just business, just money, so not evil!

The addiction to money over other priorities often results in choices that are bad for others and society as a whole. Whether you want to call that evil or the equivalent of a powerful drug addict, it doesn't change the negative results.
 
newyorkguy said:
Yes, Hillary Clinton can be as pro-business as she wants to be, I have no problem with it. Goldman Sachs doesn't have internment camps or the end of Free Speech on their 'most wanted' list, I'm certain.
Click to expand...

I've never heard a Democrat candidate claim to be "pro-business", likely because that's a GOP dog-whistle for "screw environmental regulations". Are you sure you're a Democrat?

And no, Goldman Sachs is not turning people into soap, but they have paid billions in fines, have way too much influence on Wall Street, and lobbied like hell against new banking regulations, like Dodd-Frank. If anything could breathe new life into Sander's campaign, and cause a mass exodus of super delegates from Clinton, it would be video of her saying:

"And so I say to you Goldman Sachs, I am on your side. Do not pay attention to the noise of the political season, I will always remember your support and put your priorities first, above all else. Thank you."

I can't imagine even the most ardent Clinton supporter being OK with that. Prioritizing Goldman Sachs "above all else" is about as far as you can get from core Democratic principles. It would be like Clinton claiming Dodd-Frank should be repealed and banking regulations should be more relaxed. After all, that is a priority for Goldman Sachs.



At the same time, I was pleased when Clinton came out for closing the "carried interest tax loophole." This allows hedge fund and private equity investors and venture capital firms to have their profits taxed under the capital gains rate despite the fact the earnings are essentially regular income. They pay a very low taxation rate and it's a sizeable amount of money. When Clinton was campaigning in Iowa she told a rally:



This issue is a serious irritant to a lot of financial investors and Hillary Clinton resisted efforts at reform but she finally came around. Hillary Clinton was my Senator from New York and you could usually count on her to do the decent thing. At least she listens.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt she did.

A few months ago you were pretty worked up when it looked like the U.S. Supreme Court was going to take an action that would've crippled your union. Then Scalia died. You might want to remember that Hillary Clinton has a record of being pretty reliable at supporting unionists and working families. That would seem to be a lot more relevant than what she may or may not have told Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...

Yes, Clinton would be better than Trump on just about every issue. That doesn't have anything to do with pointing out that "prioritizing Goldman Sachs above all else" would be universally condemned by Democrats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom