Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[pgwenthold]

Huh, you keep insisting that Clinton is a terrible candidate, yet it seems no one can defeat her.

I was thinking about this last weekend, what does it take to "defeat" Clinton. I was thinking, maybe you should actually look to the person who actually HAS defeated her in an election. AFAIK, the only one to do that is Obama. His approach was based on the promise of a new hope that he could provide. He didn't talk much about her failings, but how he was the one who could make a difference.

Now, Sanders tried that, too, kind of. He sold himself as something different. Unfortunately, the masses weren't going for it. Most importantly, he couldn't sell the message that he had the ability to get it done. And in doing so, he had to paint Clinton as more of the same.

Of course, that is miles better than the republican approach, which is to focus so much effort on trying tear her down so she will lose that they fail to actually put up a real candidate of their own.

The difference in approaches is striking. It the difference between trying to win as opposed to trying to make the other side lose. When you try to win, you force candidates to up their game and do well. When you focus on making the other side to lose, all you do is drag everything down. Admittedly, that doesn't have to be case, but that is the way it turns out.

 

[Crossbow]

"The request for a new investigation is not a surprise. Last week when James Comey testified before a House panel some Republican lawmakers said that they would seek a Justice Department perjury investigation into Clinton's testimony. Last year, Clinton had testified before the House Benghazi Committee that there had been no emails marked classified on her server, but Comey testified that several had classification markings within the body of the email."

Reference:
Did Clinton lie to Congress about email? GOP seeks perjury probe (July 11, 2016)


"It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble."
-- Senator Howard Baker circa 1974

Just more worthless crap.

And it will take far more than worthless crap for Hillary Clinton to loose the upcoming election.

 

[wareyin]

I was thinking about this last weekend, what does it take to "defeat" Clinton. I was thinking, maybe you should actually look to the person who actually HAS defeated her in an election. AFAIK, the only one to do that is Obama. His approach was based on the promise of a new hope that he could provide. He didn't talk much about her failings, but how he was the one who could make a difference.

Now, Sanders tried that, too, kind of. He sold himself as something different. Unfortunately, the masses weren't going for it. Most importantly, he couldn't sell the message that he had the ability to get it done. And in doing so, he had to paint Clinton as more of the same.

Of course, that is miles better than the republican approach, which is to focus so much effort on trying tear her down so she will lose that they fail to actually put up a real candidate of their own.

The difference in approaches is striking. It the difference between trying to win as opposed to trying to make the other side lose. When you try to win, you force candidates to up their game and do well. When you focus on making the other side to lose, all you do is drag everything down. Admittedly, that doesn't have to be case, but that is the way it turns out.

IIRC, the same poster who has been calling Clinton "terrible" has also claimed that the only one who ever beat her was also "terrible". It makes you wonder who would actually be a good candidate?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I was thinking about this last weekend, what does it take to "defeat" Clinton. I was thinking, maybe you should actually look to the person who actually HAS defeated her in an election. AFAIK, the only one to do that is Obama. His approach was based on the promise of a new hope that he could provide. He didn't talk much about her failings, but how he was the one who could make a difference.

"Hillary will say anything to get elected, and change nothing." -- Barack Obama circa 2008

Reference:
Flashback: Oh, That Time Obama Said Hillary Would 'Say Anything To Get Elected' and 'Change Nothing' (June 10, 2016)

 

[Maya22]

I started a new thread. Happy posting!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11382597#post11382597

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't want to send this thread off on a tangent but in the 2008 election McCain's polling numbers actually went up following the selection of Sarah Palin. As we neared November the economy began going into a steep recession and public support for the war in Iraq, which was in its fifth year, was waning. The Bush Administration was increasingly unpopular. I think the American people were ready for a change. The turnout in 2008 was over 130 million, the highest turnout in history.

To bring this back on topic, the situation is considerably different in 2016. The economy is doing quite well and the Obama Administration has been able to keep us out of any new military adventures. I think the majority of Americans want to see this continue and consider Hillary Clinton the most likely choice to achieve that.

What was Libya then? Were those fake bombs we were dropping?

 

[Fudbucker]

IIRC, the same poster who has been calling Clinton "terrible" has also claimed that the only one who ever beat her was also "terrible". It makes you wonder who would actually be a good candidate?

I claimed Obama was terrible? Citation please.

 

[RobRoy]

"Hillary will say anything to get elected, and change nothing." -- Barack Obama circa 2008

Yes. Well done. During the primary campaign, Obama at times directly addressed some of his opponents perceived failings. However, the thrust of the argument was not that he did this from time to time, but the bulk of his campaign was focused elsewhere—which it was. Cherrypicking individual quotes doesn't disprove that.

 

[RobRoy]

What was Libya then? Were those fake bombs we were dropping?

No boots on the groups, as I recall. Was that not the case?

 

[Marcus]

A Pew poll in 2013 found "70 percent of Jewish voters were Democrats," and the Jewish News Service found, "Surveys indicate that more than 90 percent of Jews who are registered to vote make it to the polls, compared to only 74 percent of all Americans."

From looking at Jewish-oriented media, the latest gaffe by Trump -- the ad showing Hillary with the five-pointed star -- is apparently considered offensive. That the image apparently originated on a white supremacist site, followed by the Trump campaign's blather about it being "a sheriff's badge," is considered evidence that Trump, if not necessarily anti-Semitic, is pretty clueless.

It's almost impossible to see how The Don can win in November without Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American Muslims, most college-educated men and women of all races and religions voting for him.

It was a five pointed star? What does that have to do with Judaism? I just assumed it was a Jewish star from all the fuss. Were the white supremacists so clueless that they didn't know the difference between a Jewish Star and a Texas star?

 

[RobRoy]

It was a five pointed star? What does that have to do with Judaism? I just assumed it was a Jewish star from all the fuss. Were the white supremacists so clueless that they didn't know the difference between a Jewish Star and a Texas star?

That's a misquote. It was very much a six-pointed star:

 

[Fudbucker]

No boots on the groups, as I recall. Was that not the case?

Is that the criteria for "military adventure" now? Boots on the ground? We can drop as many bombs as we want, but as long as it's only airmen's lives at stake, it doesn't count?

 

[wareyin]

I claimed Obama was terrible? Citation please.

Do note the IIRC at the beginning, which commonly stands for "if I recall correctly". As you are disputing this, I must have confused you with another poster.

Still, the question of who you would consider a good candidate stands.

 

[RobRoy]

Is that the criteria for "military adventure" now?

Is there another definition that newyorkguy was using?

Boots on the ground? We can drop as many bombs as we want, but as long as it's only airmen's lives at stake, it doesn't count?

Were airmen's lives in danger? That wasn't my understanding.

 

[Fudbucker]

Is there another definition that newyorkguy was using?

I don't know. I pointed out Libya, and then you jumped in with "boots on the ground". To the Libyans killed in the bombing campaign, I'm sure it felt like a military operation.

Were airmen's lives in danger? That wasn't my understanding.

We didn't take many casualties (if any), but I don't think any pilot flies into hostile airspace for a lark (except the Russians).

 

[RobRoy]

I don't know. I pointed out Libya, and then you jumped in with "boots on the ground". To the Libyans killed in the bombing campaign, I'm sure it felt like a military operation.

The Libyan point of view, or a military operation was not what was being discussed. The quote you highlighted was:

To bring this back on topic, the situation is considerably different in 2016. The economy is doing quite well and the Obama Administration has been able to keep us out of any new military adventures. I think the majority of Americans want to see this continue and consider Hillary Clinton the most likely choice to achieve that.

My understanding of that term's usage, which newyorkguy can clarify, is in theater deployment—aka boots on the ground. That was not the case in Libya. If you have information that supports a different point of view, kindly provide it.

We didn't take many casualties (if any), but I don't think any pilot flies into hostile airspace for a lark (except the Russians).

This feels like a conflation of the issue. Any military deployment or operation—even training operations—have the potential of danger and lost lives. That does not discount the original statement made by newyorkguy.

 

[Fudbucker]

The Libyan point of view, or a military operation was not what was being discussed. The quote you highlighted was:

When a country kills a bunch of people, as we did in Libya, by dropping bombs on them, how is that not a "military adventure"? What would you call it? A "sustained bombing campaign with unintended consequences"?

My understanding of that term's usage, which newyorkguy can clarify, is in theater deployment—aka boots on the ground. That was not the case in Libya. If you have information that supports a different point of view, kindly provide it.

My understanding is the term is thrown around without much definition. My feeling is that whenever you attack a country militarily, you're going on an adventure.

The absurdity of including "boots on the ground" means we could drop nuclear bombs on Iran, and it wouldn't be considered a military adventure as long as we kept ground troops out of it. Is that what you have in mind?

This feels like a conflation of the issue. Any military deployment or operation—even training operations—have the potential of danger and lost lives. That does not discount the original statement made by newyorkguy.

I was addressing your statement:

Were airmen's lives in danger? That wasn't my understanding.

Flying a load of bombs into hostile airspace is inherently risky, no?

 

[RobRoy]

When a country kills a bunch of people, as we did in Libya, by dropping bombs on them, how is that not a "military adventure"? What would you call it? A "sustained bombing campaign with unintended consequences"?

I've already addressed this.

My understanding is the term is thrown around without much definition. My feeling is that whenever you attack a country militarily, you're going on an adventure.

I've already addressed this.

The absurdity of including "boots on the ground" means we could drop nuclear bombs on Iran, and it wouldn't be considered a military adventure as long as we kept ground troops out of it. Is that what you have in mind?

That seemed to be the argument newyorkguy was making. He can advise if that's not the case.

Flying a load of bombs into hostile airspace is inherently risky, no?

I've already addressed this.

 

[Fudbucker]

I've already addressed this.



I've already addressed this.



That seemed to be the argument newyorkguy was making. He can advise if that's not the case.



I've already addressed this.

I don't know why you jumped into this discussion in the first place. My comments were clearly not directed at you, and you haven't really done much to move the conversation along, except bail out when I pointed out the reductio ad absurdum of dropping nuclear bombs on a country not counting as a "military adventure" if there are no "boots on the ground" (another nebulous phrase).

 

[newyorkguy]

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:

​

As for my comment about Obama keeping us out of any more military adventures, yes he has continued certain military activities. He agreed to have the U.S. take part in the NATO bombing campaign in Libya (and in Syria too) and, due to treaty obligations I think he pretty much had to. (I'm not suggesting he did it unwillingly.) He has resisted calls for boots on the ground-type actions.

Let's be realistic, Obama has been continually criticized by the Republicans (and Donald Trump) for NOT being willing to use U.S. military force on the scale they think is needed. You can't have it both ways.