Author Topic: Hillary  (Read 153 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6913
Re: Hillary
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2019, 09:49:50 pm »
Or ask the many millions that voted for her but still thought she was corrupt.  Not all thought that, but many.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but without any substantiation that's all it is.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Hillary
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2019, 09:51:51 pm »
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but without any substantiation that's all it is.


His opinion is a Trump speaking point....  nothing more.
Agree Agree x 3 View List

Offline Poonlight Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
Re: Hillary
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2019, 11:00:39 pm »

His opinion is a Trump speaking point....  nothing more.

Trump didn't provide links.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"  - African proverb

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Hillary
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2019, 11:10:50 pm »
Trump didn't provide links.

I thought you said you were going to provide proof of corruption.   being a back stabbing politician isn’t the same as being corrupt.

“The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical”

The author couldn’t even say that it was unethical...   just that it looked unethical.   You bore me Poonlight.   Another fail.

Offline Poonlight Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
Re: Hillary
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2019, 11:20:59 pm »
I thought you said you were going to provide proof of corruption.   being a back stabbing politician isn’t the same as being corrupt.

“The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical”

The author couldn’t even say that it was unethical...   just that it looked unethical.   You bore me Poonlight.   Another fail.

I am truly a failure.  Like Hillary i guess.

The Super PAC info is out there, go google it.  Here allow me to move your mouse for you:  https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/hillary-clinton-super-pac_n_5812833ce4b0990edc303558?ri18n=true

She's not Donald Trump corrupt, he just goes out and does dumb stuff without thinking.  She's more of a snake in the grass type, like a lot of politicians.  And she's the Queen B!tch.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"  - African proverb

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6913
Re: Hillary
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2019, 11:52:43 pm »
I am truly a failure.  Like Hillary i guess.

The Super PAC info is out there, go google it.  Here allow me to move your mouse for you:  https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/hillary-clinton-super-pac_n_5812833ce4b0990edc303558?ri18n=true

She's not Donald Trump corrupt, he just goes out and does dumb stuff without thinking.  She's more of a snake in the grass type, like a lot of politicians.  And she's the Queen B!tch.

I don't think Hillary is the failure, but once again you try to claim she is one...ah because....a lot of people donated a lot of money to her. I find quite often that people who tend to do nothing more than hark back to try and cast aspersions on Hillary are actually Trump supporters hiding in the woods. You are correct in one comment though, she is certainly not Donald Trump corrupt.

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
Re: Hillary
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2019, 11:12:42 am »
Do you think Clinton is highly ethical
"Highly" ethicial? How do you measure 'ethics'?

I admit she is imperfect. If I had to rate her though, I would say she is more ethical than 99% of the republicans, and probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to Democrats (and probably no more or less ethical than Sanders).

Quote
not bought and paid for by monied interests?
What makes you think she was 'bought and paid for'?

Yes, Clinton did get paid for a few speeches to large companies. However, she also had as part of her platform, policies to curtail risk-taking by big banks, increased oversight on derivatives trading, and increasing the statute of limitations on some financial crimes. Granted, she was not as far left as people like Sanders, but her plans were certainly more 'left wing' than 'right wing'.

If anyone thought she was 'bought and paid for', the would have wanted their money back.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-war-on-wall-street-000175
Quote
Her and her husband are slime.  The 2 main House of Cards characters were based on her and Billy.
Why should some fictitious portrayal on some TV show be relevant?
Quote
She has Super PAC money coming out of her eyeballs.
Yes, she raised a lot of money. And yes, some came from large donors.

This doesn't mean Clinton was unethical. It means a lot of people (including some rich people) looked at her policies and felt it was best for the country.

Its a sad fact that elections cost money. A lot of it. And whomever the democratic candidate was, they would have been up against a republican party that had the funding of people like the Koch brothers, who regularly help raise millions for republican presidential and congressional politicians. I know Sanders got some good publicity with his plan to only take money from small donors, but if he would have tried that in a general election it would have been a death sentence.

Oh and by the way, Also keep in mind that Clinton actually had plans for campaign finance reform, including matching donations for small donors and overturning citizens united (that second one would have been a long shot for any politician unfortunately.)

https://time.com/4024830/hillary-clinton-campaign-finance-proposal/

Quote
Clinton Foundation political money out her eyeballs.
The Clinton foundation was a non-political organization. Its an effective organization that has improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and generally gets high ratings from organizations like Charity Navigator.

There are no real scandals involving the Clinton foundation. If I remember correctly, the Bill and Hillary did not take a salary from it, and it did not engage in any sort of political work. The only 'scandal' was the totally fabricated Uranium 1, backed by Trump, the republicans and Russians. (So a decent charity was smeared by false rumors, all in an attempt to get a man elected who is no longer legally allowed to run a charity because he can't be trusted.)

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Quote
Her and the DNC tried to undermine Bernie Sander's campaign in 2015.
No, it didn't happen that way.

Yes, it is true... some executives at the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders. But their preferences were not relevant to the primaries. The primaries themselves are controlled at the state level, and the DNC just doesn't really have the influence to affect the results.

The fact is, Clinton was a long time democrat who had been working within the party for decades. Sanders was an outsider who was attempting to hijack the party for his own purposes. Under those circumstances it makes sense that most Democrats would have preferred Hillary to Bernie.

Quote
She'd now trying to destroy Gabbard.
Except maybe she's not.

Clinton made a comment where she suggested the republicans might try to set up a woman as a 3rd party candidate in order to siphon votes from the Democrats. Somehow this got mangled into 'Russians' instead of republicans, and somehow Gabbard's name got dragged into it. Clinton's people have issued a clarification but the issue won't die.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gabbard-lawyers-call-context-clinton-comments-defamatory-demand/story?id=66920033
Quote
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
That article is supposedly about the 'takeover' of the Democratic party by Clinton.

But lets put that into context... prior to the 2016 election the Democrats had significant financial problems (which had little to do with Clinton). Clinton had both the resources and willingness to help them out. What do you think they should have done? Let the Democrats declare bankruptcy? Fight the 2016 election with no paid staff or similar resources?
Quote
She's a liar and phony

Has Clinton lied? Yes, but then pretty much every politician has.

But, if you look at her record, she is pretty reliable. According to politifact, most of her statements are rated as either being true or partly true. Only a small fraction is rated as 'false' or 'pants on fire'.

For comparisons sake, Obama had roughly the same percentage of statements rated as 'false' or 'pants on fire'.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
Quote
and a well-connected
Why exactly is that a bad thing?

Having connections means that you have people to contact to help get things done, to push your agenda. It may also means more of an ability to compromise and/or build a consensus. Why do you automatically assume being an 'outsider' is necessarily better?
Quote
well paid-off elitist that would do almost anything to get elected.
Yet Clinton lost to someone who 1) lied constantly, 2) won through the support of Russian efforts.
Quote
She's so bad the Americans especially the swing states told her to suck it in favour of Trump-tard.
The way I see it, Clinton's biggest problem is that she was honest. She told people "you might need to retrain". On the other hand, Trump gave voters a bunch of false promises... he told coal miners he would bring their jobs back (even though he couldn't), and told people he would give them health care (when he had no plans to).

Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 4 View List

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
Re: Hillary
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2019, 11:17:04 am »
She's not Donald Trump corrupt, he just goes out and does dumb stuff without thinking.  She's more of a snake in the grass type, like a lot of politicians.  And she's the Queen B!tch.
I think that speaks volumes about the effectiveness of republican and Russian smear campaigns.

The fact is, as politicians go, Clinton was not bad. She did have flaws, but there were a lot of highlights in her political career too.

Now, I do not necessarily think that You (poonlight graham) are a Trump supporter. However, you are more than willing to engage in the type of rhetoric that amplifies the republican/Russian echo chamber... Hillary is a 'snake in the grass'. The 'Queen B!tch'. Yet when you look at her actual record, it shows little of the ethical problems she has been accused of.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 4 View List

Offline Poonlight Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
Re: Hillary
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2019, 03:25:20 pm »
I admit she is imperfect. If I had to rate her though, I would say she is more ethical than 99% of the republicans, and probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to Democrats (and probably no more or less ethical than Sanders).

More ethical than most GOP is a pretty low bar.  No less ethical than Sanders?  Give me a break.  The guy sat as an independent for decades because he wanted to stay away from their corporate-whored BS.  How he was treated by a bought-off (by Hillary) and corrupted DNC during his 2016 run proves his point: Washington is corrupted by money.

Name me a more ethical politician in Washington than Sanders?

Quote
Yes, Clinton did get paid for a few speeches to large companies. However, she also had as part of her platform, policies to curtail risk-taking by big banks, increased oversight on derivatives trading, and increasing the statute of limitations on some financial crimes. Granted, she was not as far left as people like Sanders, but her plans were certainly more 'left wing' than 'right wing'.

Her "platform" is BS until talk is turned into action.  She has decades of voting with the establishment.  Election promises mean nothing.

Quote
If anyone thought she was 'bought and paid for', the would have wanted their money back.  https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-war-on-wall-street-000175

More promises, where's the action?  Show me how tough she's been on Wall Street in her voting record.  Meanwhile she takes many millions from Wall Street to fund her campaign.

Quote
Yes, she raised a lot of money. And yes, some came from large donors.

Not "some", most.  She raised 1.2 billion dollars.  That's twice what Trump raised.  Most lobbyists and corps and industries chose her, she was the establishment candidate and plays the game. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Quote
This doesn't mean Clinton was unethical. It means a lot of people (including some rich people) looked at her policies and felt it was best for the country.

Well some did.  But are you unaware of how politics and especially DC works?  Money buys power, influence, a seat at the table, favours to be paid back in policy.  You think the Clinton's are immune to this?  You think 1.2 billion was given to her with no strings attached? Do you think Bernie Sanders, mayor from 1981-1989, and Congressman since 1991 doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't seen 1st-hand how the levers of money are greased with money.

Why are you against Citizen United?  If money has no influence in DC politics, unlimited donations to SuperPACS would be inconsequential because " It means a lot of people (including some rich people) looked at candidate X's policies and felt it was best for the country".  Give me a break.  You can't be against Citizens United and for campaign finance reform as you are and then deny money has no influence, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Donna Brazile, who worked for CNN, was for decades a Clinton insider, running campaigns for Bill and Al Gore etc.  She was caught feeding CNN debate questions to Clinton before the debate, and was subsequently fired from CNN for it.  Please convince us how this just had nothing to do with Hillary, this is how the power-hungry Clintons & cronies operate:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile#Sharing_debate_questions_with_Clinton_campaign

Quote
Oh and by the way, Also keep in mind that Clinton actually had plans for campaign finance reform, including matching donations for small donors and overturning citizens united (that second one would have been a long shot for any politician unfortunately.)  https://time.com/4024830/hillary-clinton-campaign-finance-proposal/

Proposals and election promises in DC are BS.  Obama spoke for years as POTUS about campaign finance reform, but he did virtually NOTHING.  He was a very good POTUS as far as POTUS's go, but he was still part of the machine.  He and Bill Clinton are just better at fooling people than Hillary was.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/08/obamas-legacy-inaction-campaign-finance-reform-exposed

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/257112-obamas-not-yet-fulfilled-legacy-on-money-in-politics

Quote
No, it didn't happen that way.  Yes, it is true... some executives at the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders. But their preferences were not relevant to the primaries. The primaries themselves are controlled at the state level, and the DNC just doesn't really have the influence to affect the results.

The fact is, Clinton was a long time democrat who had been working within the party for decades. Sanders was an outsider who was attempting to hijack the party for his own purposes. Under those circumstances it makes sense that most Democrats would have preferred Hillary to Bernie.
Except maybe she's not.

A bunch of malarkey.  Sanders attempted to "hijack" the party??  They allowed him to run, and ran the same game he's done for decades.  If by "hijack" you mean get corporate money out of politics and the party, i guess you're right!  Hillary is the one who hijacked the party.  she gave (other people's) money to the DNC in exchange for a deal where she had virtual complete control over the party.  Imagine one candidate of many having that kind of power over the party? It's full-scale corruption.  The DNC was a corrupt piece of crap and Hillary was the headmaster.  Even Warren agreed the damn thing was rigged:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBYnJh45WS8

Quote
But lets put that into context... prior to the 2016 election the Democrats had significant financial problems (which had little to do with Clinton). Clinton had both the resources and willingness to help them out. What do you think they should have done? Let the Democrats declare bankruptcy? Fight the 2016 election with no paid staff or similar resources?

She could have helped out by not demanding almost complete control over the party, which sought to undermine Sanders' campaign.  Stop shilling for her.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders

"The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] Marc Elias— specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised."

“[Clinton’s] campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

During the 2016 election, Sanders allies alleged that the DNC did not act as a neutral arbiter of the Democratic primary, favoring Clinton in its selection of debate times and fundraising. Their suspicions were only heightened when leaked emails published by WikiLeaks,


Quote
But, if you look at her record, she is pretty reliable.

Reliable at crappy decision making and crappy votes in the Senate:  https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/

Quote
Why do you automatically assume being an 'outsider' is necessarily better?

Because Washington is corrupt to the core and bought off by corporations.

Quote
Yet Clinton lost to someone who 1) lied constantly, 2) won through the support of Russian efforts.

Because she's not a good politician and is a loser, twice.

Quote
The way I see it, Clinton's biggest problem is that she was honest.

She was too honest???  Hahaha.  Her problem is that she was Queen **** of the Washington establishment that people were sick of, given the rise of Sanders and Trump, and people don't trust her or like her, for all the reasons i've explained.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"  - African proverb

Offline queenmandy85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Hillary
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2019, 12:31:55 pm »
I think she had the potential to be a good POTUS but I am certain the voters who supported President Trump likely saved her life. I believe she would have been assasinated.
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6825
Re: Hillary
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2019, 07:40:35 am »
I think she had the potential to be a good POTUS but I am certain the voters who supported President Trump likely saved her life. I believe she would have been assasinated.

If Trump and Obama weren't then maybe they have solved the assassination problem.  Then again never say never.  Trump seems to ignore advice which may put him in harm's way, for example at Mara Lago.

---------------

BTW- did anyone catch all or part of Clinton on Howard Stern ?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hillary+stern

I was actually stunned about the level of compliment he paid her and the amount of dirt he threw at Trump.  That's gotta be his fan base right ?


Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6825
Re: Hillary
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2019, 07:42:00 am »
One of the things I didn't know was that Kissinger praised her work as Secretary of State.

Obama was, to me, a status quo president although he took America out of Bush's recession.   The US needs a true people's president next time.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
Re: Hillary
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2019, 02:16:44 pm »
The US needs a true people's president next time.

Not sure what that means. I expect any example you give will have holes poked in it by someone.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6825
Re: Hillary
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2019, 04:28:51 pm »
Not sure what that means. I expect any example you give will have holes poked in it by someone.

Let's just say somebody I like and that precludes any fighting...  ;D
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Poonlight Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
Re: Hillary
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2019, 07:03:13 pm »
One of the things I didn't know was that Kissinger praised her work as Secretary of State.

Obama was, to me, a status quo president although he took America out of Bush's recession.   The US needs a true people's president next time.

It's hard for a POTUS to be truly transformative since laws are made by Congress and not the POTUS.  I think that's a good thing since no one person should have vast law-making powers.  Hundreds of people figuring out laws together usually won't screw things up too badly unlike one person, unless most are corrupt because the system allows them to be, which is the case in some ways.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"  - African proverb