Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bernie Slams Clinton on transcripts

'When you get paid $225,000, that means that that speech must have been an extraordinarily wonderful speech,' he joked. 'I would think that [with] a speech so great... you would like to share it with the American people. So I think she should release the transcript.'
Click to expand...

Nice "bern"!:D

She won't release them of course, the self described most transparent official in modern history is a colossal fraud.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So here are 2 examples from tonight's debate:
Both Sanders and Clinton voted for the stand alone auto industry bailout. It failed.

Along comes the bank bailout with the auto bailout attached. It's your only option at this point. Sanders stood his ground and had the bill been defeated there wouldn't have been either the auto or the bank bailout. Clinton compromised and voted for the good and the bad together.

Now you may be against either bailout, I get that. But if you were for saving the auto industry and all the related jobs, then which was the right decision: a sacrifice on principle or a compromise on principle to avoid the sacrifice?

The second example is Sanders' continual complaint that the decision to oust Gaddafi had terrible consequences. But had we not taken that route we'd have the thing we have in Syria where Assad is slaughtering his people and the population is flooding into Europe. Which is worse? Which was preventable and how? Which is the bad decision when both are bad?

The Middle East is a mess and the invasion of Iraq lit the fuse, neither Sanders nor Clinton are at fault for that. Then came the Arab Spring. Was it wrong for Clinton to think the Arab Spring had a chance? To help it grow by helping get a dictator out that was threatening to slaughter the rebellion?

It failed, so far anyway. And now we have ISIS. But hindsight doesn't include how we'd feel had the US not intervened and had Gaddafi slaughtered millions or had the EU been inundated with Libyans as well as Syrians?
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a certain Senator Clinton voting for the war in Iraq. There was nothing wrong with intervening in Libya. What was wrong was having no plan for the upcoming "Arab Spring". And I do get that after the costly and lengthy Iraq war that we're reluctant to get involved in other ground war in the ME.

I would like to know more about Sanders' foreign policy and views on the military. From the little I know he's not super dovish, ie a Ron or Rand Paul.
 
16.5 said:
Nice "bern"!:D

She won't release them of course, the self described most transparent official in modern history is a colossal fraud.
Click to expand...

Goldman paid $225,000 for that speech. Why should the rest of us get it for free? I think Bernie should offer her $225,000. Of course, it's probably the case that the speech really cost zero, and Goldman was paying Hillary for something else entirely.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Goldman paid $225,000 for that speech. Why should the rest of us get it for free? I think Bernie should offer her $225,000. Of course, it's probably the case that the speech really cost zero, and Goldman was paying Hillary for something else entirely.
Click to expand...

Yes, if only you had an actual shred of evidence that was the case ... :rolleyes:
 
Travis said:
Interesting. To heck with pragmatism lets live on a cloud where fundamentalist extremism has become a platform.

I find it interesting that, if those are your pet issues, there really isn't any particular reason to hate Hillary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some of the more extreme Bernie supporters are mirror images of the right wing wackjobs in the GOP:Ideological purity at all costs.
 
dudalb said:
Yeah, some of the more extreme Bernie supporters are mirror images of the right wing wackjobs in the GOP:Ideological purity at all costs.
Click to expand...

(irony meter smouldering)

The more fanatical Hillary supporters make them look like a garden tea party.

I mean these are the people that went after Obama on race in 2008.

The apple don't fall far from the tree.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Goldman paid $225,000 for that speech. Why should the rest of us get it for free? I think Bernie should offer her $225,000. Of course, it's probably the case that the speech really cost zero, and Goldman was paying Hillary for something else entirely.
Click to expand...
Sanders likes to make it sound like that was some outrageous overpayment, but it was not unusual for a former Sec of State to get paid $200,000+ for a speech.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sanders likes to make it sound like that was some outrageous overpayment, but it was not unusual for a former Sec of State to get paid $200,000+ for a speech.
Click to expand...

If I were her, I'd just give out the speeches to show that she has nothing to hide. Wouldn't you? What does she gain by keeping them a secret?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Goldman paid $225,000 for that speech. Why should the rest of us get it for free? I think Bernie should offer her $225,000. Of course, it's probably the case that the speech really cost zero, and Goldman was paying Hillary for something else entirely.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that Republicans who get paid a lot of money for those types of speeches are doing it as a cover for bribery? Or is it only her that you suspect?
 
Trakar said:
I don't hate Hillary, I don't trust Hillary, she generally works against the issues I laid out and I dislike her propensity to go right on governance, economics, foreign policy, and individual rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...

What about gay rights? What about abortion? What about freedom of religion? Do you care about those?

Trakar said:
I am not in support of U.S. military interventionism on a global scale, it is crude and often ineffectual, mostly counter-productive and ridiculously expensive, if not immediately, in the fat tail of it.
Click to expand...

Which sounds nice but has consequences of its own. Take the Libya example, are you cool that not intervening might have led to a huge slaughter and certainly would have led to a huge refugee situation?
 
Travis said:
What about gay rights? What about abortion? What about freedom of religion? Do you care about those?
Click to expand...

Without being able to trust the candidate, I can't be sure that they will stand up for any of the issues I care about. More specifically to your issues, yes I do care about these issues, but making sure that our planet, and society survive the issues that are currently threatening the existence of much of the life on the planet and a relatively stable human society, is at the top of the list of my concerns.

Which sounds nice but has consequences of its own. Take the Libya example, are you cool that not intervening might have led to a huge slaughter and certainly would have led to a huge refugee situation?
Click to expand...

If you want me to choose between a US military intervention which causes a huge slaughter and causes a huge refugee situation or a non-intervention which eventually causes a huge slaughter and a huge refugee situation, I'll take the latter over the former without hesitation.
 
Tony Stark said:
Do you believe that Republicans who get paid a lot of money for those types of speeches are doing it as a cover for bribery? Or is it only her that you suspect?
Click to expand...

It's not bribery in the legal sense. But a Wall Street firm pays for those speeches to get access, not to hear what the speaker has to say. And, no, I'm not accusing Hillary of doing anything different from what Republicans do (although I think she and Bill have done a lot more of it).

It's one thing for an organizer to pay a speaker $225,000 so that he can charge 3,000 people $100 per head to hear the speech. That's called business. If there's enough demand to hear her speak, then her fee really could be to hear her speak. But I don't think that's the case with a speech to Goldman. In fact, the opportunity cost of forcing their employees to waste an hour listening to her ramble probably far exceeds her fee. Obviously, the economics is different. Some bean counter at Goldman was probably trying to figure out how few employees could show up without the whole thing being called out as a scam by the IRS or the FEC, or Hillary being insulted.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:D Surely you know words have multiple definitions but it turns out the 1st definition of upset is "To cause to overturn; knock or tip over"



It's not until you get to the 3rd definition that you reach the one you are using. :p
Click to expand...

Umm SG. The term upset in sports and politics comes from this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upset

(Note: and dammit but I thought the idea that it came from a horse named Upset beating Man o' War was real, but its not :( )

It does not mean to win by a large margin. It means to win when the odds were really slim. Its like when team USA beat the Soviets in Hockey in 1980. They only won by one goal, still one of the biggest upsets in sports history.
 
lobosrul said:
Umm SG. The term upset in sports and politics comes from this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upset

(Note: and dammit but I thought the idea that it came from a horse named Upset beating Man o' War was real, but its not :( )

It does not mean to win by a large margin. It means to win when the odds were really slim. Its like when team USA beat the Soviets in Hockey in 1980. They only won by one goal, still one of the biggest upsets in sports history.
Click to expand...

Um... it's a word, a word not perfectly defined and one which has multiple meanings.

The joke was dull and I merely pointed out why it was flat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom