• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know if Hillary Clinton is "done", but I sure agree with Paul Krugman that she is being "Gored" by the media.

Krugman said:
Americans of a certain age who follow politics and policy closely still have vivid memories of the 2000 election — bad memories, and not just because the man who lost the popular vote somehow ended up in office. For the campaign leading up to that end game was nightmarish too.

You see, one candidate, George W. Bush, was dishonest in a way that was unprecedented in U.S. politics. Most notably, he proposed big tax cuts for the rich while insisting, in raw denial of arithmetic, that they were targeted for the middle class. These campaign lies presaged what would happen during his administration — an administration that, let us not forget, took America to war on false pretenses.

Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest. Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false. No, he never claimed to have invented the internet. But the image stuck.

...

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
For them: He knows that internationally Labo(u)r Day is May 1st. Yet he accuses others of being "campfire lefties", playing to the audience's ignorance.
Click to expand...

You're making less sense than usual. Have you run out of funny Hillary pictures and decided to go with random word association?

The thread is in USA Politics. You've heard of the USA, right? It's that be country between Canada and Mexico. Labor Day in the USA is not May 1. Sad, I know, but then again, a whole bunch of our old lefty icons have come and gone. I have trouble getting people to honor Eugene Debs Day on November 5. Can you imagine!

Americans recognized the reference. (American) Labor Day is a notable bellwether on the election calendar.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Now he pretends that he doesn't know that those "leftists" who aren't "campfire leftists" (if that junk term has any meaning) couldn't care less about (US-American) nationalist oddities.
Click to expand...

Are you able to read?

The thread title is "Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3". That would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic Party (of the USA) candidate for President (of the USA). It is in a thread in a sub-forum called "USA Politics", and a specific sub-section referred to as "2016 USA Presidential Election". My post was addressing a member who is from...... Why, the USA. Imagine that.

Now if you wish to discuss the local plebiscite in Bern or the city elections in Bucharest, I'll try to upgrade my knowledge and vernacular so I can keep up with you fancy-shmancy Europeans and I'll be sure to include only references to European-recognized holidays. Alas, this thread is not about those imaginary coming elections, it's about the USA. I know that hurts, but it is what it is, eh? Perhaps you should report us to Brussels.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Well, I guess there's no button in reach of your hands with more terrible consequences for the public than the "post" button, so that's a bit less relevant I'd say. But quick recovery I wish! ;)
Click to expand...

First of all, you'd have to prove that she actually has those health issues, and second you'd have to show how they would make her dangerous. It's entirely a coincidence, I'm sure, that you are already opposed to her being president.
 
PhantomWolf said:
No, it wasn't. War of Aggression has a specific definition under International Law, and Iraq was not one, even if you disagree with the reasons behind it occurring.

Except that this is also incorrect. She and the others in congress voted to allow force to be used is Saddam failed to comply with the Inspectors, something that was allowed to be done under the UN Resolution.

It is clear from the context of the speech that the military measures she refers to in the context of hacking is to get the military capable of engaging in cyber warfare, not physical warfare.
Click to expand...
Mere facts and reality bounce off against the armour of CDS that shields caveman1917.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Are you able to read?

The thread title is "Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3". That would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic Party (of the USA) candidate for President (of the USA). It is in a thread in a sub-forum called "USA Politics", and a specific sub-section referred to as "2016 USA Presidential Election". My post was addressing a member who is from...... Why, the USA. Imagine that.

Now if you wish to discuss the local plebiscite in Bern or the city elections in Bucharest, I'll try to upgrade my knowledge and vernacular so I can keep up with you fancy-shmancy Europeans and I'll be sure to include only references to European-recognized holidays. Alas, this thread is not about those imaginary coming elections, it's about the USA. I know that hurts, but it is what it is, eh? Perhaps you should report us to Brussels.
Click to expand...


It was you who called a fellow forumite "campfire leftist", and it was me who put this into perspective.
 
Argumemnon said:
First of all, you'd have to prove that she actually has those health issues, and second you'd have to show how they would make her dangerous. It's entirely a coincidence, I'm sure, that you are already opposed to her being president.
Click to expand...

Argumemnon said:
No, it's evidence-based: no one has demonstrated that she has any major health issue, so I do not accept the claim.
Click to expand...


We'll see, dude, don't panic. LOL
 
Argumemnon said:
No, it's evidence-based: no one has demonstrated that she has any major health issue, so I do not accept the claim.
Click to expand...

Seems like those videos of her struggling to speak despite huge coughing fits are very GOOD evidence of a major health issue. So is the analysis of Dr Pinsky.

It is plain that SOMETHING really bad is going on with her health, whether it's just a bug she can't shake or (as some have suggested) a form of epileptic fit.

She should be examined by a panel of independent physicians immediately and the results disclosed.
 
caveman1917 said:
There is no such UN resolution which sanctions the use of military force against Saddam for failure to comply. It is up to people who claim that such a resolution exists to provide evidence of its existence, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, paragraph 34. This allows the taking of any "further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

This was used twice prior to G. W. Bush as the justification of attacks against Iraq, so the idea that Bush came up with it it bunkum.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 affirmed 687, and "warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

The use of "serious consequences" in 1441 was used instead of "further steps as may be required" (a political code for force) because there was a disagreement between the US and UK, and France over the consequences being war or not with the US and UK saying it should be, and France saying it shouldn't. However, 687 was still in force.

Yes, which was neither in self-defense nor sanctioned by the security council. By voting to give the authority for it she participated in a common plan for the initiation of a war of aggression.
Click to expand...

Not being self-defense or sanctioned by the UN does not make it a War of Aggression.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It was you who called a fellow forumite "campfire leftist", and it was me who put this into perspective.
Click to expand...

Ha! I laugh at your posturing. I just made up the term. I liked the image and was thinking of making tribute to Dog Town's sig line saluting Bernie long after the battle is over. Reminded me of an old scene in a movie with the Hollywood revolutionaries sitting around the campfire the night before the bound-to-fail attack of the next morning. I forgot to go back and include the analogy, though. The term is meaningless.

But you sure explained what Labo(ur) Day is elsewhere. Which proved.... what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom