Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's my point. Clinton will give up a lot to get Bernie out of the way so she can focus on Trump.

Your point? I don't think you've addressed the issue yet.

No one is going to let Sanders give an "I'm still campaigning" speech on the convention floor after losing the popular vote.

Care to address that issue?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Did the FBI contact Clinton? Hillary dodges question

Hillary Clinton side-stepped a question this morning when asked if she had been contacted by the FBI regarding the agency's ongoing investigation into her emails.

'I have not been asked to come in for an interview,' Clinton told ABC 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos.

'Do you now accept their conclusion that your exclusive use of a personal account was not allowed, that you broke State Department rules?' Stephanopoulos prodded.

'You know, look, George, I thought that the report actually made it clear that the practice I used was used by other secretaries, other high ranking State Department officials,' Clinton answered.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-agency-hasn-t-requested-interview-yet.html (June 5, 2016)

Fact check:

Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice never used email for official government business.

Colin Powell did use email for official government business, but he limited his use to government approved/encrypted systems only.

Crooked Hillary is the only Secretary of State to use a private server set up in her own home in Chappaqua, devoid of any security features -- and in all likelihood her web traffic (which contained "top secret" classified information) was being closely monitored by hackers working for foreign governments (Russia, North Korea, China, et al).

Reference:
Inspector General's report on the Clinton security breach

 

[Fudbucker]

Your point? I don't think you've addressed the issue yet.

No one is going to let Sanders give an "I'm still campaigning" speech on the convention floor after losing the popular vote.

Care to address that issue?

I agree with you. That's not the kind of speech he's going to give. He'll talk in general terms about progressive ideals, thank his supporters, attack Trump, and pledge his support to Hillary. I'm sure what he really wants is to push the party platform as far left as it can realistically go.

 

[Travis]

Evidence that Hillary destabilized Libya? Do you even follow politics?

"The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven."

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

You seem to have bought into some alternate, fictitious, history. Libya was in a civil war before America did anything. That you, wrongly, think America destabilized that nation does not make your fiction a reality. America did the right thing in Libya. I would have done the same thing every day of the week and twice on Sunday. So don't bring that BS here and expect it to persuade me.

I think foreign policy is a strength for Hillary, not a weakness. I like Bernie but I trust Hillary more with matters of foreign policy.

I'm sure domestically, Obamacare will have more patches slapped on it, income inequality will continue to grow, as it has under Obama, and a couple liberal judges will be appointed to SCOTUS. We might even get some kind of immigration reform done. Clinton's domestic agenda will basically be Obama part 3, complete with Obama's chumminess towards Wall Street and look-the-other-way policy on fracking and coal mining.

Obama has been pretty awesome. So sign me up for Obama part 3.

But, do indulge me, what policy do you think Sanders would implement to eliminate income inequality that Hillary would not?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Her lead is stable, 65-35 and both CBS and CNN have called PR for Clinton. Gives her about 30 more delegates bringing her up to 2353 using the current NYT numbers.

 

[Fudbucker]

You seem to have bought into some alternate, fictitious, history. Libya was in a civil war before America did anything. That you, wrongly, think America destabilized that nation does not make your fiction a reality. America did the right thing in Libya. I would have done the same thing every day of the week and twice on Sunday. So don't bring that BS here and expect it to persuade me.

I think foreign policy is a strength for Hillary, not a weakness. I like Bernie but I trust Hillary more with matters of foreign policy.

Who knew there was a neocon streak in the Democratic party? Count me out for bombing Middle East countries. I've had enough of that.

Obama has been pretty awesome. So sign me up for Obama part 3.

But, do indulge me, what policy do you think Sanders would implement to eliminate income inequality that Hillary would not?

Higher minimum wage, higher taxes on capital gains, top marginal rate would be much higher, national health care, higher estate taxes, greater expansion of the Earned Income Tax Rate, college tuition subsidies, zero influence from Wall Street, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks, reenact Glass-Steagall... That's off the top of my head.

Hardly any of that would get through (maybe none), but that's what he would push for.

 

[BobTheCoward]

A Hillary nomination is good for Gary Johnson. Thank you Democratic party.

 

[Fudbucker]

A Hillary nomination is good for Gary Johnson. Thank you Democratic party.

He might actually make the debates. I was wrong when I said the libertarians would be irrelevant this cycle.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Secretary without honor

Apologists for Hillary Clinton’s alleged criminal mishandling of classified documents say that it doesn’t matter, that she really did nothing wrong, or nothing significant. But the real question is not so much what she did as how she has responded to being found out.

Clinton is someone with no honor, little courage and commitment only to her endless ambition. This has nothing to do with gender, party affiliation, ideology or policy. It is a question of character — not just hers, but ours.

Electing Clinton would mean abandoning holding people accountable for grievous errors of integrity and responsibility. What we already know about her security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign.

But beyond that, her responses to being found out — dismissing its importance, claiming ignorance, blaming others — indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal. Those elements reveal her character. And the saddest thing is that so many in America seem not to care.

Read more:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...nsequences-integrity-honesty-column/85205018/ (June 5, 2016)

Yeah, it's sad that some American's just don't seem to care. But perhaps they'll change their minds once Crooked Hillary has been indicted for "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act.

Reference:
U.S. Code 18 Section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 

[Childlike Empress]

You seem to have bought into some alternate, fictitious, history. Libya was in a civil war before America did anything. That you, wrongly, think America destabilized that nation does not make your fiction a reality. America did the right thing in Libya. I would have done the same thing every day of the week and twice on Sunday. So don't bring that BS here and expect it to persuade me.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Go read a book.

 

[Wayward son]

Who knew there was a neocon streak in the Democratic party? Count me out for bombing Middle East countries. I've had enough of that.

Liberal interventionism is nothing new - FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson etc all supported hawkish interventionist foreign policies.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Go read a book.

CT ----->

 

[Travis]

Who knew there was a neocon streak in the Democratic party? Count me out for bombing Middle East countries. I've had enough of that.

Saying you'll never take action is just as irrational as invading nations for no reason.

Higher minimum wage, higher taxes on capital gains, top marginal rate would be much higher, national health care, higher estate taxes, greater expansion of the Earned Income Tax Rate, college tuition subsidies, zero influence from Wall Street, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks, reenact Glass-Steagall... That's off the top of my head.

Hardly any of that would get through (maybe none), but that's what he would push for.

First off Hillary has actually endorsed the need for almost all of that. But I find it interesting that you admit that there actually wouldn't be much difference between the two in the end.

But more importantly I don't see how much of that would actually effect income inequality. I would say it would be more important to give unions more power again. Something Hillary is also in favor of.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Go read a book.

Apparently I'm the only one that watched CNN when this was all going down.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Apparently I'm the only one that watched CNN when this was all going down.

CNN? At least my sources reported from the right Tripoli...

 

[Fudbucker]

Liberal interventionism is nothing new - FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson etc all supported hawkish interventionist foreign policies.

And Clinton and Bosnia. I thought Iraq had purged the Dems of that. Clinton lost to Obama partly because of her Iraq vote (maybe primarily). To hear a liberal like Travis support bombing Libya is kind of jaw dropping (esp. since we know how intervening in Libya turned out), but then again when Obama asked me for support to bomb Syria for "crossing the red line", I had to do a couple double-takes. Obama? The guy who placed so much emphasis opposing Iraq? HE wants to bomb Syria?

 

[Fudbucker]

Saying you'll never take action is just as irrational as invading nations for no reason.

I think history has shown that bombing countries in the Middle East is not a smart thing to do.

First off Hillary has actually endorsed the need for almost all of that. But I find it interesting that you admit that there actually wouldn't be much difference between the two in the end.

Not on healthcare (she wants to improve Obamacare), not on breaking up big banks and curbing Wall Street influence, and her economic policies wouldn't go as far as Sanders would. With Hillary you get incremental progress, with Sanders, you get pretty close to European socialism.

As far as the end result, I would rather someone try and possibly fail then not try at all.

But more importantly I don't see how much of that would actually effect income inequality.

Really? Expanding the EITC? Subsidized college and health care? The EITC is a full-on wealth transfer to working lower-middle class people. Health care and education are disproportionately expensive for those who aren't rich, so subsidizing those is also pretty much a wealth transfer. And if you're funding all this with higher taxes on the rich, it's all just a massive wealth transfer to the non-rich.

I would say it would be more important to give unions more power again. Something Hillary is also in favor of.

I would trust them both on unions.

Apparently I'm the only one that watched CNN when this was all going down.

If you think intervening in Libya was a good idea, you need to do more than watch CNN.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And Clinton and Bosnia. I thought Iraq had purged the Dems of that. Clinton lost to Obama partly because of her Iraq vote (maybe primarily). To hear a liberal like Travis support bombing Libya is kind of jaw dropping (esp. since we know how intervening in Libya turned out), but then again when Obama asked me for support to bomb Syria for "crossing the red line", I had to do a couple double-takes. Obama? The guy who placed so much emphasis opposing Iraq? HE wants to bomb Syria?

This really is a very US centrist view. What happened in Libya was going to happen with or without the US. Clinton supported the move against Libya because the UK and France were pushing her to get them US backing before they launched their attacks. French and British forces were in Libya well before the US even made up its mind to act. All that the US not backing its NATO allies would have done was damaged their relationships inside of NATO, it wouldn't have changed a thing about what happened in Libya.

If you must blame someone from the West for the mess, the real blame lies with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy who were the masterminds of the whole intervention.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you must blame someone from the West for the mess, the real blame lies with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy who were the masterminds of the whole intervention.

No, I'm pretty sure they never would have done it if Hillary hadn't worn pantsuits. that's how politics works, you see. /s

 

[Steve]

This really is a very US centrist view. What happened in Libya was going to happen with or without the US. Clinton supported the move against Libya because the UK and France were pushing her to get them US backing before they launched their attacks. French and British forces were in Libya well before the US even made up its mind to act. All that the US not backing its NATO allies would have done was damaged their relationships inside of NATO, it wouldn't have changed a thing about what happened in Libya.

If you must blame someone from the West for the mess, the real blame lies with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy who were the masterminds of the whole intervention.

This is ignored because it cannot readily be tied in the US to the "Hillary is evil" mindset.

 

[Fudbucker]

This is ignored because it cannot readily be tied in the US to the "Hillary is evil" mindset.

It's ignored because it's not accurate. Clinton did not just go along with the crowd. She actively advocated toppling Ghaddifi. Obama was on the fence, and Clinton convinced him, unless the notoriously right-wing New York Times is just trying to smear Clinton:

"Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

Don't try and re-write history by implying Hillary had no hand in what happened. She was a vocal proponent of Libyan regime change.