Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The GOP should be able to defeat Hilary ,with her negatives, in a walk. That the odds are very heavy in favor of her winning in November in a walk says something about what a disasterous choice Trump is for the GOP.
 
RobRoy said:
This is my understanding as well. I believe this article sums it up reasonably well...
Click to expand...

I've read that article and others like it, including the Times piece referred to here. This seems pretty credible and probably on point.
In his account of Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, which lasted from 2009 until 2013, Landler reports that, during the administration’s internal deliberations over Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, she consistently supported the most interventionist option that was on the table. Even in dealing with China, she favored a robust approach. In 2010, after the North Korean military sank a South Korean navy vessel, she supported a Pentagon proposal to send a U.S. aircraft carrier into the Yellow Sea, which lies between North Korea and China, telling her aides, “We’ve got to run it up the gut!” Obama overruled the idea.
Click to expand...

I was a big supporter of Bill Clinton's and found him a fascinating President. I was also very curious to see what kind of Senator Hillary would make (I voted for her twice) and have always followed her career. She has disappointed me at times but I've always given her my support and I don't expect that to change. But...

As Senator she infuriated me with her rubber-stamp support of the Patriot Act, the creation of Homeland Security and the invasion of Iraq. I didn't vote for her to be a cheerleader for the Bush Administration. I (and many other New York Democrats) expected her to ask the hard questions -- as unpopular as that might've been during that emotional time -- and were profoundly disappointed when she failed to do that. I always had the impression that as U.S. Senator she had a pretty good working relationship with George Bush. In some ways I thought that was good, but at times I thought it made it difficult for her to pull back a bit and question his policies.

Over the years I also learned, or at least think I have, that with Clinton you're getting someone who believes in the military option. How that will play out with her in the White House I don't know. But I do think she is a very solid leader and I will be glad to vote for her.
 
dudalb said:
The GOP should be able to defeat Hilary ,with her negatives, in a walk. That the odds are very heavy in favor of her winning in November in a walk says something about what a disasterous choice Trump is for the GOP.
Click to expand...
HRC's negatives are, relatively speaking, huge. But the actual reasons behind shouldn't cause it to be so bad.

Benghazi was zip, but the constant pounding by the right has an effect.
Email, was an issue, no doubt, but the actual impact to the country was basically nil as shown by the FBI. But the impact to her trustworthiness should be real but not to the extent it should cause a rational persons "needle" to move as much as it seems to have.
Stuff during Bill's term, shouldn't have an impact but the right wing nut jobs have pounded and pounded.

Bottom line is I understand people having concerns about the email, I know I do, but if we can avoid the slime machine by the right, in the grand scheme of things, should barely have an impact on the vote. Sorry, but if the email issues causes you to vote for Trump over HRC, you have a turnip for a brain. If it causes you to not vote rather then vote for HRC, you are helping Trump win. If it causes you to vote for a third party instead of HRC, you are helping Trump win. If the logic behind the last two situation escapes you I'll refer you back to my turnip comment.
 
Please do not get me wrong, Hilary is a hundred times a better choice then Trump. All I am saying is I think any reasonable GOP candidate could have given her a run for her money..but now it looks like a disaster for the GOP come November.
 
dudalb said:
Please do not get me wrong, Hilary is a hundred times a better choice then Trump. All I am saying is I think any reasonable GOP candidate could have given her a run for her money..but now it looks like a disaster for the GOP come November.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The reality, of course, is that GOP voters . . . went in another direction. :rolleyes:
 
DavidJames said:
HRC's negatives are, relatively speaking, huge. But the actual reasons behind shouldn't cause it to be so bad.

Benghazi was zip, but the constant pounding by the right has an effect.
Email, was an issue, no doubt, but the actual impact to the country was basically nil as shown by the FBI. But the impact to her trustworthiness should be real but not to the extent it should cause a rational persons "needle" to move as much as it seems to have.
Stuff during Bill's term, shouldn't have an impact but the right wing nut jobs have pounded and pounded.

Bottom line is I understand people having concerns about the email, I know I do, but if we can avoid the slime machine by the right, in the grand scheme of things, should barely have an impact on the vote. Sorry, but if the email issues causes you to vote for Trump over HRC, you have a turnip for a brain. If it causes you to not vote rather then vote for HRC, you are helping Trump win. If it causes you to vote for a third party instead of HRC, you are helping Trump win. If the logic behind the last two situation escapes you I'll refer you back to my turnip comment.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely none on the email. That was a non-issue if there ever was one.

I'm more concerned that maybe she is too militaristic. That she's not liberal enough and won't fight hard enough for the poor and the middle class.

But the emails? It won't be forgotten by November but I doubt anyone on the fence will care.
 
dudalb said:
Please do not get me wrong, Hilary is a hundred times a better choice then Trump. All I am saying is I think any reasonable GOP candidate could have given her a run for her money..but now it looks like a disaster for the GOP come November.
Click to expand...

If Romney was running this election as opposed to 2012, I think he would clobber Hillary. But the whole Republican field was weak. I do think Kasich might have given her a run. But I think Cruz would have been almost as big a disaster as Trump. Only a different kind of disaster.
 
JohnnyG said:
If he is polling only a handful of points behind Clinton but has such weak support from Republicans, he must be getting support from somewhere. I doubt it is from Democrats.
Click to expand...

And who are those republicans who aren't supporting him polling for, then ?
 
I'd be wary of any promise by a candidate to stay out of military actions. After all it is easy to say one will not intervene in the abstract. It is another when you have the CIA handing you photos of armored columns surrounding villages with fresh mass graves being dug coupled with the knowledge that you could do something about it.
 
Fudbucker said:
Can't we walk a line where we're not constantly in the middle of a bunch of Mid East drama? It's like we can't help ourselves.
Click to expand...
No, it's like our government is much too influenced by the oil lobby, it's past time to invest in earnest in alternative energy and only then will we be able to break our ties to the ticking time bomb that is the Middle East.
 
Fudbucker said:
Yeah, that both candidates are lousy. One happens to be more terrible than the other. This is the worst election I can remember.
Click to expand...
Get your head out of Bernie Sanders [snipped] and wake up.

Clinton is competent, experienced, and not the talking point demon you've been fed (not a typo) to believe.

UNDERSTANDING HILLARY - WHY THE CLINTON AMERICA SEES ISN’T THE CLINTON COLLEAGUES KNOW (sorry, caps are not mine)
[the media/public at large version] And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.
Click to expand...
 
Fudbucker said:
Sure there is: Clinton voted for Iraq,
Click to expand...
Bull. She voted to give the reins to Bush, not the same thing as voting for the war. Bush was lying to everyone at the time of that vote.

Fudbucker said:
Clinton wanted regime change in Libya
Click to expand...
And as she has correctly stated, there was no better option. You don't intervene, people die, you do intervene people die. It's not like option B was the clearly better choice.
 
newyorkguy said:
I apologize, I saw a reference to the star and I thought it said five-pointed. It was six. In case anyone needs it spelled out, this was why many people found it objectionable:
Click to expand...

Personally I would've dismissed it as coincidence, if not for learning whence it came from originally.
 
JohnnyG said:
If he is polling only a handful of points behind Clinton but has such weak support from Republicans, he must be getting support from somewhere. I doubt it is from Democrats.
Click to expand...


Probably the same candidate that all the Republicans refusing to endorse Trump are endorsing - nobody.
 
Hillary Clinton did vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq and she has admitted as much. This is from The Atlantic magazine two years ago:
Among the biggest news from Hillary Clinton’s largely newsless new book ["Hard Choices'] is her blunt apology for voting to authorize war in Iraq. “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had,” she writes “And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong.” Link to article
Click to expand...

There were Senators at the time who were urging their colleagues to learn more. That the information the Bush Administration was giving them was one-sided:
Senators Bob Graham and Patrick Leahy would later say that reading the classified version [of the National Intelligence Estimate] helped convince them to vote ‘no.’ And during a lunch two days before Clinton’s [Oct. 2002] speech, according to Gerth and Van Natta Jr., Graham “forcefully” urged his Democratic Senate colleagues to read it.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton, as with most Senators, admits she never read the 92-page classified document, only the 5-page unclassified version. She says she "was briefed" on what was in the classified version.

I'm sure she could "get it wrong" again, too. As Secretary of State "she consistently supported the most interventionist option that was on the table." As I have said, I plan on voting for her and I think she'll make an excellent President but I do have concerns about her readiness to employ the military as a problem-solver.
 
16.5 said:
'k.

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 04/07/2027
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't notice the date on the email, April 8th, 2012, four years earlier. The Classification label is not part of the original email but is rather added to the pdf or scan of the email prior to release in Jan of 2016.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom