The All Purpose Hillary Clinton Thread

And all this pales into insignificance compared to the worst major-party candidate in living memory.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Mmmm hmmmm? And how does that make you feel?

(Sorry, but if you're going to have conversations with yourself covering broad ranges of what are apparently supposed to be connected items, with no links or substantive proof, I'm just going to respond as your therapist would.)
Click to expand...

What is amusing is that he fails to see how corrupt Trump is......
 
PartSkeptic said:
This post is inspired by the rot in South Africa. One man, President Jacob Zuma, making appointments in all the key areas, and they make appointments and so on and so on. He is now almost untouchable and ruining the country. Unless we have a revolt.

So, be careful what you guys wish for.

They say a fish rots from the head down. If (Rotten?) Hillary is appointed the head of the USA, I wonder what state it will in when she leaves.
....
Click to expand...

The President is elected by the American people, not appointed by anybody. Senior government officials are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (or not, which explains why we have a vacant Supreme Court seat and hundreds of judicial vacancies). Executive and legislative actions are always subject to challenge in the courts. There are simply no parallels between the United States and your post-colonial hellhole.

And what do you think the U.S. would become if Trump could put his mindless acolytes like Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani in top jobs?
 
I find it amusing that PartSkptic is screaming about corrupt politicians,but seems to ignore Christie,who is facing probably criminal charges in New Jersey for "Bridgegate". It could not have anything to do with Christie being a Trump supporter, could it?
 
logger said:
No, she's an *******. But more importantly it shows the true character of her, the way she treats people who serve and protect her. Loser leftists won't care, because most of them are exactly like her.
Click to expand...

I guess the secret service will have to grow thicker skin as she is going to be the POTUS.
 
logger said:
No, she's an *******. But more importantly it shows the true character of her, the way she treats people who serve and protect her. Loser leftists won't care, because most of them are exactly like her.
Click to expand...

It's amusing reading your sexist hypocrisy. The NY Times documented that Trump insulted 282 people and places and you're bothered by how Hillary treats people? You can't be serious.

Trump attacks anyone and everyone that displeases him. But your obsessed that a single ex-Secret Service agent wrote a book that trashes Hillary?

Maybe he just hates having a woman boss.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
....
Trump attacks anyone and everyone that displeases him. But your obsessed that a single ex-Secret Service agent wrote a book that trashes Hillary?
....
Click to expand...

The book is actually by someone who recounts what he claims unnamed SS agents and others told him. I'm willing to guess that someone as grasping and ambitious as Clinton is not easy to work for or be around. I might also guess that being surrounded by armed guards continuously and having limited privacy, even in her own home, would be hard to deal with. But to paraphrase Oprah, "It don't matter that you don't like her. She ain't comin' to your house."

I personally would much prefer Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or any of several other Democrats to Clinton. But they're not on the ballot. Neither are FDR or JFK. The choice is between a competent if seriously flawed public servant, and a raging fascist lunatic. It shouldn't be a hard decision for anyone.
 
Bob001 said:
The book is actually by someone who recounts what he claims unnamed SS agents and others told him. I'm willing to guess that someone as grasping and ambitious as Clinton is not easy to work for or be around. I might also guess that being surrounded by armed guards continuously and having limited privacy, even in her own home, would be hard to deal with. But to paraphrase Oprah, "It don't matter that you don't like her. She ain't comin' to your house."

I personally would much prefer Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or any of several other Democrats to Clinton. But they're not on the ballot. Neither are FDR or JFK. The choice is between a competent if seriously flawed public servant, and a raging fascist lunatic. It shouldn't be a hard decision for anyone.
Click to expand...

But she also someone that is well regarded by people you prefer. At the very least they find her formidable.
 
Bob001 said:
The book is actually by someone who recounts what he claims unnamed SS agents and others told him. I'm willing to guess that someone as grasping and ambitious as Clinton is not easy to work for or be around. I might also guess that being surrounded by armed guards continuously and having limited privacy, even in her own home, would be hard to deal with. But to paraphrase Oprah, "It don't matter that you don't like her. She ain't comin' to your house."

I personally would much prefer Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or any of several other Democrats to Clinton. But they're not on the ballot. Neither are FDR or JFK. The choice is between a competent if seriously flawed public servant, and a raging fascist lunatic. It shouldn't be a hard decision for anyone.
Click to expand...

I don't think she is seriously flawed at all. She's not a great public speaker. She's calculating and doesn't come across as all that approachable. I see her as steady eddie, Nothing flashy, just workman like. The kind of person you may not notice at work except that they quietly get it done.

There seem to be dozens of scandals about her over the last 30 years and there is never anything other than quibbles. She very well may be a very good President when all is said and done.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think she is seriously flawed at all. She's not a great public speaker. She's calculating and doesn't come across as all that approachable. I see her as steady eddie, Nothing flashy, just workman like. The kind of person you may not notice at work except that they quietly get it done.

There seem to be dozens of scandals about her over the last 30 years and there is never anything other than quibbles. She very well may be a very good President when all is said and done.
Click to expand...


Even her closest advisors recognize her flaws.
Tanden responded, “Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ceefdc-9ae0-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html

Clinton lies a lot about a lot of different things, big and small, and always has, the saga of her emails being just one. She is much closer to Wall Street than, say, to union workers. And her foreign policy inclinations are usually to blow something up: Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. She is indisputably preferable in every way to Trump. That doesn't mean she's the best the Democrats could have put up, or that another Republican couldn't beat her. It certainly doesn't mean that she is without flaws.
 
Bob001 said:
I personally would much prefer Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or any of several other Democrats to Clinton.
Click to expand...

None of whom have been subjected to the kind of scrutiny that Clinton has, I suspect they would do no better if they were. Indeed I would be willing to bet that if you hacked the emails of any of the above you would find items just as NSFW as anything that's been dug up against Clinton.


But they're not on the ballot. Neither are FDR
Click to expand...

Infidelity
Newport sex scandal
Introduced unconstitutional legislation
Tried to pack the supreme court
Japanese internment



or JFK.
Click to expand...

Infidelity

Vote rigging

Bay of Pigs

Assassination attempts on Castro

South Vietnam Coup



To be clear I think FDR in particular was a great president but to illustrate that objectively their not as different from Clinton as you appear to think.
 
Bob001 said:
The President is elected by the American people, not appointed by anybody. Senior government officials are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (or not, which explains why we have a vacant Supreme Court seat and hundreds of judicial vacancies). Executive and legislative actions are always subject to challenge in the courts. There are simply no parallels between the United States and your post-colonial hellhole.
Click to expand...


Pardon my Freudian slip. Supposed to be elected by the people. Actually appointed (annointed?) by the rich establishment who control the media to demonize Trump.

And there are more parallels than you can imagine. Racism for example.

President Zuma and his cabinet were chastised by the Constitutional Court. Result - he borrowed money from a "special" bank funded by taxpayers to pay back the small amount of money he enriched himself with, and sent a letter to the cabinet saying in one line "You are hereby reprimanded"

Despite clear and prima facia evidence of corruption the lawsuits drag on without any conviction as they stall the system.
 
I read the excuses for Hillary being secretive and that she has not been convicted.

Al Capone was also secretive, and never got convicted for his mob crimes. The US had to get him on tax fraud.

Hillary has run her campaign on anti-Trump slogans. Policy? What policy?

Here is one comment by her. "Trump spends more time on his hotels than campaigning."

More time? Is this just hyperbole, or a downright lie? No, it is okay when Hillary engages in smear and dirt to avoid policy and her record.

I expect no defenses or explanations -just more attacks on Trump personally in reply to this post. Or on me.
 
PartSkeptic said:
I read the excuses for Hillary being secretive and that she has not been convicted.

Al Capone was also secretive, and never got convicted for his mob crimes. The US had to get him on tax fraud.

Hillary has run her campaign on anti-Trump slogans. Policy? What policy?

Here is one comment by her. "Trump spends more time on his hotels than campaigning."

More time? Is this just hyperbole, or a downright lie? No, it is okay when Hillary engages in smear and dirt to avoid policy and her record.

I expect no defenses or explanations -just more attacks on Trump personally in reply to this post. Or on me.
Click to expand...

Boohoo that Hillary attacks Donald for things that he really said/did. And it is your Fuhrer that lacks policy ideas. Because he doesn't know anything about policy. I definitely know more than he does.
 
Last edited:
PartSkeptic said:
I read the excuses for Hillary being secretive and that she has not been convicted.

Al Capone was also secretive, and never got convicted for his mob crimes. The US had to get him on tax fraud.

Hillary has run her campaign on anti-Trump slogans. Policy? What policy?

Here is one comment by her. "Trump spends more time on his hotels than campaigning."
More time? Is this just hyperbole, or a downright lie? No, it is okay when Hillary engages in smear and dirt to avoid policy and her record.

I expect no defenses or explanations -just more attacks on Trump personally in reply to this post. Or on me.
Click to expand...

Hilited: There is one result for a search of that quote. This thread; your post. Is it possible you are paraphrasing? I find nothing similar in a search for "Clinton Criticizes Trump Hotel", Clinton Comments Hotel Opening" or "Clinton Trump Hotel".
 
Bob001 said:
And her foreign policy inclinations are usually to blow something up:
Click to expand...

Really?

Iraq
Click to expand...

Um... Ever heard of George W Bush?

Libya
Click to expand...

Was going to be blown up by France and the UK even if the US didn't get involved. The blowing it up solution was Sarkozy's not Clinton's.

Syria
Click to expand...

What part of Syria is she responsible for blowing up?

etc.
Click to expand...

You mean like Iran? Oh wait, she didn't blow that up either. Well there was Osama Bin Laden, we'll give you that one...
 
The Yale Record has officially not endorsed Hillary Clinton.



In its 144-year history, The Yale Record has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. In fact, we have never endorsed any candidate for president. This is, in part, due to our strong commitment to being a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization, which mandates that we are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

This year’s presidential election is highly unusual, but ultimately no different: The Yale Record believes both candidates to be equally un-endorsable, due to our faithful compliance with the tax code.

In particular, we do not endorse Hillary Clinton’s exemplary leadership during her 30 years in the public eye. We do not support her impressive commitment to serving and improving this country—a commitment to which she has dedicated her entire professional career. Because of unambiguous tax law, we do not encourage you to support the most qualified presidential candidate in modern American history, nor do we encourage all citizens to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all by electing Secretary Clinton on November 8.

The Yale Record has no opinion whatsoever on Dr. Jill Stein.

—The Editorial Board of The Yale Record
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom