Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
Well, this is the key, and it's begging the question to assume that it's true. Right? From my perspective it's far more likely that Goldman paid Clinton $675,000 as some sort of disguised bribe. Who the hell wants to pay that kind of money to hear her drone on. Even if you suffer from insomnia, and you're looking forward to getting some sleep, you can get pretty good prescription medicine that costs far less and is almost as effective.
Click to expand...
If I was in her position, I would take the *********** money and not do a god damn thing for them besides give the speech.

Even if they expect to get some kind consideration, it doesn't mean they will.

And certainly they are much more likely to get what they want from Ted Cruz. His wife works there and he is a radical right wing nutjob who openly says he wants to deregulate Wall Street.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
That sounds more like a dodge than as an address of said criticisms.
Click to expand...
Dodge what? The insinuation Clinton is on the take or overly influenced by her campaign donors or what?

Just WTF is the accusation?

That speaking fees which are the going rate for a person of Clinton's stature weren't deserved ergo it must have been a bribe? And yet the fees were indeed commensurate with her stature. No buying or bribing needed to pay that rate for Clinton to speak at a GS or any other event.

You obviously didn't read the article and you certainly made no effort to think about the quoted section.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
One from you: logical fallacies are non sequiturs pretty much by definition. Your number three is redundant.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, but given that there appears to be no dispute that no one is really trying to support the original fallacious statement, lets agree to disagree.

Good talk!
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Well, this is the key, and it's begging the question to assume that it's true. Right? From my perspective it's far more likely that Goldman paid Clinton $675,000 as some sort of disguised bribe. Who the hell wants to pay that kind of money to hear her drone on. Even if you suffer from insomnia, and you're looking forward to getting some sleep, you can get pretty good prescription medicine that costs far less and is almost as effective.
Click to expand...

Your position has thick sexist paint dripping all over your HDS.

But your personal opinion here is meaningless given the issue: What is the going rate for speaking fees for a person with Clinton's experience? The fees she was paid were in line with the industry standard with no influence peddling involved.

It's easy to imply otherwise when you are denigrating a female for earning such an amount.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Dodge what? The insinuation Clinton is on the take or overly influenced by her campaign donors or what?
Click to expand...

The insinuation that she is too closely associated with the people she's supposed to keep in check -- something we usually call a conflict of interests.

It's very surprising that you didn't know that until now.

You obviously didn't read the article and you certainly made no effort to think about the quoted section.
Click to expand...

What's obvious with you may not correspond to reality, so perhaps you should not rely on it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Dodge what? The insinuation Clinton is on the take or overly influenced by her campaign donors or what?

Just WTF is the accusation?

That speaking fees which are the going rate for a person of Clinton's stature weren't deserved ergo it must have been a bribe? And yet the fees were indeed commensurate with her stature. No buying or bribing needed to pay that rate for Clinton to speak at a GS or any other event.

You obviously didn't read the article and you certainly made no effort to think about the quoted section.
Click to expand...

Three problems:

1. Goldman Sachs paid her for three separate events after she left the State Department and before she geared up to run for the White House
2. She won't release the transcripts
3. she is a hypocrite.
 
Bob001 said:
You have summarized the problem. Do you want a president (and a former president) who see Wall Street and other corporate interests as "their clients?" Some of us think public servants should be serving the public.
Click to expand...
I want a POTUS with a long history of proven competence and of working toward interests that I want to see accomplished.

"Wall Street" is a dog whistle. I prefer to look at the actual accomplishments. Clinton has worked for universal health care and women's rights, she has supported liberal causes since her college years.

She voted to give Bush war powers, a mistake. It doesn't mean she was gung-ho let's invade Iraq. Libya was a lose lose situation of course one can criticize in hind sight. There is no one more experienced and knowledgeable about the world's unrest running for POTUS than Clinton. I'm not worried she's too hawkish.

Sanders is all ideals and little plan other than 'the voters will rise up'. No they won't so then what?
 
Bob001 said:
https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/
Click to expand...
And we should accept this op ed like the op eds that are certain an email indictment is in the works and if they just keep looking the Benghazi committee is sure to find a coverup of something criminal. :rolleyes:

Silverstein's views are hardly without bias. Besides involvement with CounterPunch, there is more from Wiki:
In December 2013, Silverstein was hired as senior investigative reporter by First Look Media.[6] In November 2014, Silverstein began writing for First Look's The Intercept and gained negative attention for an article on the hugely popular NPR featured podcast, Serial.[7][8] He and his writing partner, Natasha Vargas-Cooper, were widely criticized for alleged poor comprehension of the case facts, controversial editorializing and their failure to fact-check which later resulted in three corrections.[9][10][11][12] Various media outlets challenged their professionalism after they separately responded to the criticism with "defensive and, in many cases, snarky tweets".[13][11]

In February 2015, Silverstein announced his resignation from The Intercept in a series of Facebook posts calling his former employers a "pathetic joke." Expressing anger and disillusionment towards the company, Silverstein stated, "I am one of a many employees who was hired under what were essentially false pretenses; we were told we would be given all the financial and other support we needed to do independent, important journalism, but instead found ourselves blocked at every step of the way by management's incompetence and bad faith."[14]
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And we should accept this op ed like the op eds that are certain an email indictment is in the works and if they just keep looking the Benghazi committee is sure to find a coverup of something criminal. :rolleyes:

Silverstein's views are hardly without bias. Besides involvement with CounterPunch, there is more from Wiki:
Click to expand...

Far be it for me to agree with SG, but that article is bizarre.

Why does he think the Benghazi Committee would investigate the Clinton Family Foundation?

“All the Benghazi committee has to do is match up Hillary’s travel as secretary of state with Bill’s speaking arrangements,” my source in the Middle East said. “Bill heads out to foreign countries and he gets paid huge amounts of money for a thirty-minute speech and then she heads out for an official visit as a favor. She racked up more miles than any secretary of state [other than Condoleezza Rice] and that’s one of the reasons why. How can they get away with that? The committee is either corrupt or incompetent, or both.”
Click to expand...

What. The. ****?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So what? You think she's going to take over the country or the world?


What does your fear of her competence mean?
Click to expand...

It means that the other candidates are absolutely terrible choices, which shows how insane the system has become. Sanders is the only exception but I'm not sure he knows how to run a country. Clinton definitely does.
 
Argumemnon said:
The insinuation that she is too closely associated with the people she's supposed to keep in check -- something we usually call a conflict of interests.

It's very surprising that you didn't know that until now.



What's obvious with you may not correspond to reality, so perhaps you should not rely on it.
Click to expand...
More innuendo and insinuation. According to Sanders' platform he's about the only one in government that is clean.

I don't believe the world is that black and white. I think the Democratic Party does need to be pushed further to the left and they are often too similar to the Republican Party that is more closely aligned with big business. The revolving board room door, the movement into lobbying directly from government regulating bodies, all of that is a serious problem.

I don't think Sanders is the magic bullet. I don't believe his movement is big enough and I think Clinton can do more within the system than Sanders trying to change it from without.

And by without I include Sanders as POTUS but still not working within the system as it currently is. Sanders is calling everyone corrupt, without degree. You are either clean like him or you are dirty like everyone else.

I don't believe that is a practical position and it certainly won't be an effective one.

And I don't believe for a minute that Sanders is tested, meaning OMG, Trump might actually win if it's against Sanders. Keep in mind,Trump also has an army of enthusiastic minions. That's too much of a gamble in my book.
 
Argumemnon said:
It means that the other candidates are absolutely terrible choices, which shows how insane the system has become. Sanders is the only exception but I'm not sure he knows how to run a country. Clinton definitely does.
Click to expand...

So it's scary because Clinton is the better POTUS choice? I'm sorry, I'm still not following your meaning of, "that's a bit scary".
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So it's scary because Clinton is the better POTUS choice? I'm sorry, I'm still not following your meaning of, "that's a bit scary".
Click to expand...

Obviously, since you're looking for the insult in my statement. Perhaps you should just take my explanation as it stands, instead: that only one competent candidate is scary.
 
Argumemnon said:
I just called Clinton the most competent candidate on the board and you take it as an insult. Clearly you're not being rational about this issue.
Click to expand...
Do you not read your own posts?:confused:
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The insinuation that she is too closely associated with the people she's supposed to keep in check -- something we usually call a conflict of interests.

It's very surprising that you didn't know that until now.
Click to expand...
That is you saying she's the most competent candidate?


OooooKaay
 
Argumemnon said:
Obviously, since you're looking for the insult in my statement. Perhaps you should just take my explanation as it stands, instead: that only one competent candidate is scary.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're not only not clear, you're incredibly inconsistent.

I don't think it's my reading comprehension.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Your position has thick sexist paint dripping all over your HDS.

But your personal opinion here is meaningless given the issue: What is the going rate for speaking fees for a person with Clinton's experience? The fees she was paid were in line with the industry standard with no influence peddling involved.

It's easy to imply otherwise when you are denigrating a female for earning such an amount.
Click to expand...

How can I be a sexist? Some of my best friends are women. In fact, I'm married to a woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom