Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Conservatives too, it appears:

The DOJ is re-opening the investigation into Clinton's emails again.
Click to expand...

Yep. FMW may want to reconsider what he thinks is going on in this thread.

ETA: On the one hand, there's clearly a lot of progressives who wish this thread could be narrowly focused and drift-free on the topic of Hillary's loss last November. The sooner they stop getting reminded about that failure, the better. Can we all just shut up about Hillary now?

On the other hand, there's clearly a lot of progressives who see this thread as venue to fight back against the notion that Hillary doesn't matter anymore.

On the third hand, Hillary herself continues to be active in the public eye. She's made the rounds of the talk shows. She's published a book. She's endorsed a progressive news curation service. She's launched a SuperPAC. Etc. These are all events worth discussing in the context of this thread.

On the fourth hand, there's clearly a lot of conservatives who think that Hillary still has a lot to answer for, and losing the election doesn't make that go away. Indeed, a lot of progressives seem to be hoping that the loss will serve as a good excuse to close off all other discussion of Hillary's career, mistakes, and ongoing ambitions.

The question of whether Hillary is done gets a different answer depending on who you ask and what the context is. And it all gets discussed and debated right here in this thread. Which some progressives find extremely triggering. Sad!
 
Last edited:
Trump would have been fine with Hillary winning and then frogmarched to jail because of her emails. That seems to be what he wanted, revenge on Obama and Hillary. Because of the fun Obama had at the correspondents dinner. He only responds to praise and insults.

I don't know how frogs march but that is what they always say.:D
 
Giz said:
Yeah, I noticed her sterling work on the middle east, ISIS, russia, ukraine, north korea... etc etc.

She's the most overhyped American public figure sobe George McClellan.
Click to expand...

The SoS doesn't actually control any of those places. Of all the likely outcomes in those places, with the other factors unchanged, I can't think if a single action from the SoS that would have likely resulted in better outcomes. Now, I don't agree with all her actions and I am one of the rare liberals who would have preferred we took military action to uphold the nuclear disarmamrent treaties with Ukraine even if it cost lives (because the precedent is that important in my estimation), but that of course, was not her call either.

It always amuses me when some conservatives think government can't do much of anything good domestically believe it can reliably control outcomes in other countries.
 
theprestige said:
Huh. I'm almost convinced that the State Department is yet another useless government agency we'd be better off without.
Click to expand...

Well with the way Trump is undermining it, underfunding it, and leaving it unstaffed, right now we almost don't have one.

So which combination of straw man and/or excluded middle fallacies are you using? Is it 30% straw man and 60% excluded middle?

How bad a commander was Eisenhower for letting Russian troops gain so much German territory? Arguing that all the outcomes aren't in control of the State Department doesn't mean arguing the State Department is useless, especially when I specifically cited my belief in the possibility of worse outcomes with different choices.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The DOJ should investigate Hillary so that they can impeach her!!!
Click to expand...

They better hurry because by January of '19 we may have a Democratic House the way they're killing themselves with the battle of the thousand cuts. A Dem controlled house might want to investigate whether Sean Hannity was getting inside info from the DoJ -versus- Sean Hannity giving someone at the DoJ their marching orders. With the precedents set by Judicial Watch and the Republican House, why one might simply subpoena all the emails from the Attorney General and his top lieutenants for all of 2017 and '18.
 
GOP Strategy:

Step 1. - Throw some smoke grenades around the room.
Step 2. - Run around in circles yelling "FIRE! FIRE!" as loud as possible.
Step 3. - Indict Hillary Clinton for Arson.
 
xjx388 said:
She won that poll 16 years in a row yet she couldn’t get elected over Donald Frickin’ Trump. You can certainly stick a fork in her as far as presidential politics goes. Maybe that’s unfair but I think it shows that this doesn’t really mean much.
Click to expand...

I completely agree- she lost to Trump. This was because more people voted for Trump than did for Hillary as weighted geographically by the Electoral College. Those are the rules and that is how it worked. Okay. Which is why "popularity" and what people think is important in terms of elections. But it is notable that she edged out Trump in the popular vote and has until very recently consistently beat Trump in terms of favorable vs unfavorable polls. Of course we are talking about Donald freckling' Trump, so I am not claiming that Hillary had to leap a high bar to achieve these things. And yes, there is no doubt in my mind that she is done as far as presidential politics are concerns. But we are still discussing her, right? And I suspect she continues to have a lot of quiet political influence.

You can stick a fork in her but she's still raw enough to grab it and probably use it to make you sorry you did.
 
Hillary is clearly the Republican's Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984. "Don't think about what we are doing or have done. How about that evil, nasty, devil Hillary, huh! Think about her instead!"

Compare the treatment of Hillary, who has been through endless Republican sponsored investigations that repeatedly ended up with no evidence of criminal behavior (yes, I know- the next one will no doubt find something... if not, the one after that one or the one after that), to how Nixon or Agnew for example were treated. There were huge amounts of evidence in formal hearings that these two high level politicians were guilty of criminal acts. Both of whom would have undoubtably been found guilty if they had not resigned (and in the case of Nixon, pardoned. Agnew negotiated a plea deal in which he pled no contest to felony tax evasion). Yet they were not subsequently used as bogey-men in any way near the use of Hillary by the Republicans.

The idea that liberals are driving the continuation of this thread, or attempting to keep Hillary in the public eye, is pretty funny to me. New flash- liberals don't particularly like Hillary. As I look back over this thread it's a few of our more conservative members who continue to want to talk about Hillary. Endlessly. Personally I only post here because I don't like to see such venom unopposed. And I find the Hillary Hatred amusing to explore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom