Do you also recognize then that Obama is even worse than Hillary in that he has made countless foreign policy decisions that result in the deaths of both US soldiers, enemy combatants, and tons of innocent people? Obama is also firmly pro-TPP and has raised more private money for the DNC and dem candidates as president than Hillary has in her entire career in politics. So by all accounts is Obama worse than Hillary Clinton by every measure except charisma? I'm just wondering how consistent your views are on these issues or if your anger is selective to Hillary Clinton.
Is Hillary smack-talk not allowed here anymore?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
Do you also recognize then that Obama is even worse than Hillary in that he has made countless foreign policy decisions that result in the deaths of both US soldiers, enemy combatants, and tons of innocent people? Obama is also firmly pro-TPP and has raised more private money for the DNC and dem candidates as president than Hillary has in her entire career in politics. So by all accounts is Obama worse than Hillary Clinton by every measure except charisma? I'm just wondering how consistent your views are on these issues or if your anger is selective to Hillary Clinton.
She also routinely gambled with lies from the start of her international career (sniper fire) and did no one any favors with the email investigation/speeches; not to mention Obama has also caught some terrible flak and preserved with solid ratings. Hopefully that can happen to Hillary and the downticket.
I've shat on Obama's and America's foreign policies (more like crimes against humanity) in many threads, last great president we had in that regard was Jimmy Carter. But I do think Obama is a chief that tried to keep forces at bay, a big difference being the open disagreements about Hillary's saber rattling (the no-fly zone vs Russia/Assad, Iraq vote). Obama/Kerry opened doors to Cuba and Iran (Hillary flopped); being pro-TPP is unfortunate but that's also the party line. In the end unlike his peers, Obama's got the personality, achievements, plus solid voter approval ratings to get away with it until hindsight helps clear things up.
Clockwork5
Member
Ms. Clinton is a slimy, lying, professional politician who would pick the benefit of her party over the benifit of the country.
Just like the rest of US politicians on both sides of the isle. They are all self centered egomaniacal crooks. I will openly shit on her as freely as I openly shit on the rest of them.
Just like the rest of US politicians on both sides of the isle. They are all self centered egomaniacal crooks. I will openly shit on her as freely as I openly shit on the rest of them.
googleplex
Member
Now show anything from her decades spanning career that backs up any of the bullshit you just posted.
Clockwork5
Member
"I never sent or received any classified email through my private server."
Lie.
Seriously one only need to look back a couple weeks to find evidence of her sliminess.
Edit. Not only was the fact that she lied about the server every opportunity she had damning enough, the acts which she lied about were also against the law.
neurosisxeno
Member
Except what happened technically wasn't. The only way she would have broken the law is if someone unauthorized was shown the information--which didn't happen. I suppose technically they could accuse her of negligence, but the legal definition of negligence is much stricter than the commonly-used variation of the word. The FBI didn't recommend charges because they knew nothing would stick and it would be a huge waste of time.
Try to avoid the low-hanging fruit, and that statement also doesn't support your claim that she put the party before the American people. It may have been dishonest, but none of this e-mail server bullshit seemed to be a problem when she actually worked as Secretary of State, and only came out because they have investigated Benghazi like 9 fucking times looking for anything they could to attack Clinton.
googleplex
Member
I'll ask again. Show me anywhere in her career that shows the bull shit you posted. Put up or shut up.
Clockwork5
Member
Voting for the Iraq war.
A healthy amount of holding our elected representatives to account is vital to a functioning democracy. Hillary certainly deserves no less. I think she should be held to high standards (and I think she can rise to them, potentially.) However, priorities should be considered. This election is monumentally important. Not only is the alternative objectively the worst option a major party has ever offered, EVER, but the SCOTUS appointment in the midst of the current environment of human rights threats is a fucking HUGE consideration that could easily outweigh the other effects of either candidate.
Smack talk all you want, but consider the consequences of your level of smackery. It's ok to have reservations, but considering them in isolation is playing with nuclear, fascist fire.
Smack talk all you want, but consider the consequences of your level of smackery. It's ok to have reservations, but considering them in isolation is playing with nuclear, fascist fire.
Wafflecakes
Member
Like how you ignored or failed to comprehend the question asked of you.
Best part is that you post is a perfect embodiment of the flaws you pretend Clinton has.
Completely ignoring all facts and logic to persue the narrative that you wish to create while lying to promote it.
How did that decision put party before country? Unless you're thinking Hillary played 7 dimensional chest and knew exactly how much that would blow up in Bush's and the Republican's face come 2008?
neurosisxeno
Member
Clockwork5
Member
I was asked for evidence of any of the accusations I placed on her. I provided one. While the individual bolder a certain phrase they clearly said "any of the bullshit". I avoided nothing.
Also, I pretended she lied?
I think that you can think this, and still think she's the best candidate for pres
Wafflecakes
Member
Don't play dumb. You were specifically asked to provide examples of times when Clinton put the good of her party above that of the people.
Instead you went on a deranged rant on a tangential topic with virtually no truth to your claims.
Honestly, I think that every politician is an egomaniac to some extent, especially if they're running for president. Which is fine, if they're interested in securing a place in history they'll make sure to do something beneficial to earn their place. Not like we're electing someone to have a beer with.
Clockwork5
Member
70% of the American public supported the Iraq war, because we were lied to.
Clinton was thinking of her popularity as well as the political future of her party when casting that vote to send thousands of Americans to their death, tens of thousands of Iraqis to theirs and burdening our nation with billions upon billions of dollars in debt.
I mean you all love her, that's fine. She has lied to you more times than I can count. Have a good night.
Wafflecakes
Member
... and you think politicians were not lied to as well? So think that Hillary is an all knowing God who knew the truth about the war then maliciously chose to support it?
neurosisxeno
Member
...what? So you're saying that despite overwhelming public support, Clinton is to blame as an ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for voting for the war? Not just that, but that she secretly knew the claims of Iraqi WMD's were false, and voted in favor of it to somehow benefit her party which was split on the decision? Do you even realize how insane that sounds? If she was really playing the long con and knew the WMD claim was bullshit, she would have voted against it so when she was running as Bush's successor she could claim she knew Bush was wrong, and Obama couldn't hit her for the vote.
Also, don't confuse my supporting Hillary Clinton this election for me loving her--I was a Sanders supporter--but once it became clear he wasn't an option I decided to stick with someone who won't fill the Supreme Court with a bunch of lunatics.
Poltergust
Member
Considering that the same people who lied to the American public also lied to the politicians, I'm not sure how you can fault Hillary (or anyone, really) for voting for the war.
Was it ultimately a bad decision? Of course it was, but hindsight is 20/20.
Wow. Just wow.
Monocle
Member
It's not actually possible to prove this claim, but please try.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I can easily imagine more progressive taxation, wall street regulation, drug classification, foreign policy, energy policy... it's not that hard.
Again, candidates are either encouraged into having acceptable positions or propped up by donors.
Again, if specific quid pro quo examples are needed, then you don't see anything wrong with citizens United.
It's just not how it works. That's like saying that systematic racism doesn't exist if you can't demostrate that a specific hiring decision, arrest, or court ruling was clearly because of race. Again, not how it works. You have to look at things in aggregate. When legislation is considered in aggregate, it has no correlation with constituent opinion but positive correlation with donor opinion.
Now. Maybe your stance is that Hillary Clinton is just magically immune from this and every stance she holds is what she would hold despite the inference that the need for fundraising has on her or her fellow Democrats. I dont buy it. Not for a second. Not for Republicans. Not for Democrats. Not for Obama. Not for Hillary. Not for anyone.
There were plenty of people and politicians that looked at the exact same information and were against the war. I can Fucking fault all of them for voting for the Fucking unilateral invasion of another country. The standard for that decision should be extremely high. Not remotely met for iraq even with faulty intel.
Unions hate all free trade agreements because they're generally jobs that suffer as a result. Also given they've attacked NAFTA when it was a net benefit for the US on patently false grounds it's hard for me to take them seriously
I just looked it up and apparently these haven't been released for the TPP, I just saw a partial leak from another agreement. My bad.
It really wasn't. It was primarily written by government officials on behalf of the countries in it. If you believe it's primarily written by corporations can you point to sections that you believe negatively impact citizens of the US?
Not a single word of this post actually has anything to do with the post you quoted, in which the poster specifically refutes your initial claim with evidence.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong at all, but this was a masterful sidestep.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I think the parts that most citizens rights groups don't like about tpp are the parts that would allow corporations to bring lawsuits to sovereign governments for lost profits arising from environmental regulation or increased wages.
In an era when corporations have so much sway over our political process already I am not a fan.
Also some issues regarding patents and copyrights.
Most of the benefit going to the rich. Sound familiar? Consistent with Obamas legacy.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4479420
Starting point.
Also. Secret negotiations and fast track through congress makes it shady as fuck.
I can imagine a lot of stuff, but that doesn't mean it is immediately cause for accusation.
Your racial analogy is a good one. No one can deny that systematic and insitutionalized racism exist, because their have been studies that prove it. On average, businesses view black people as less qualified. However, if I were to go to a random business establishment and accuse the business owner of being a racist by the sheer fact that he is a business owner or even by the fact that he has fewer black people than white people just because I could "imagine" more black people working there, they would rightfully consider me a loon. You need specific evidence to accuse specific people.
Your abstract argument of getting money out of politics is a good one, but it in turn only works to accuse the abstract system. Your imagination is not sufficient evidence in specific cases, and you sure as shit need more than that. Not specific Quid Pro Quo, but atleast something as specific as the NRA paying X politician in Y donations and them voting against specific Z gun control bill despite that 90% of consituents want some measure of gun control. That's no Quid Pro Quo, but I can fill in these blanks with a specific name, number, and bill, and put it in a context where it should not happen when the constituents want something else, and that's more than I've seen you do.
Right now, you're just yelling at the empty sky about money in politics and how things would just be better if it wasn't there without the 'how' that would tie it all together. You need to connect these things for your argument to have weight. You can't delegitimize particular business owners with a blanket accusation of racism. You can't accuse a random person of sexism on the street even though studies have shown that most people have some latent sexist tendencies. Why should your criticism of HC be considered valid if you can't even name a particular donor, how much they swayed, on what issue, and in a context that HC would have otherwise liked to do the opposite?
What? We're talking about a specific person here. You definitely can look at an individual and see if things they've done are racist or effected by donations.
If we're looking at things in aggregate, then you're essentially saying "If any racist things happen, then entire police force is at fault" or "If any corruption happens, then entire government is corrupt." Maybe you're saying you can only exempt are ones standing in the corners refusing to do anything screaming "You're all corrupt! (and by corrupt I mean you're passing this legislation that you think will help businesses)"?
I... think that's probably a great way to kick a lot of good people, the people who do a lot of the current good work, out of Washington.
All FTA's are negotiated in secret. All are fast tracked. All have ISDS proceedings. The US is in dozens with the exact specifications you just railed against.
Also I'd hardly claim the median earner is 'the rich'.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
It amazes me that whenever people ask for evidence of Hillary's awfulness, the email scandal is all they can come up with.
Honestly, as far as political scandals go, this is borderline trivial, on the level of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Not even a blip on the radar. I can't even bring myself to be outraged or offended (in fact, neither can Bernie Sanders, who said months ago how sick he is of hearing about her damn emails). I find it more annoying, or offensive, that she'd make a claim like this one because it's actually an important metric that affects a lot of people's lives.
Or this claim, which suggests she is misinformed (or lying) about the real progress of clean energy. That's more worrying than the lie about the email, because I'd rather the president be truthful about the state of things that impact climate change (which affects the entire world) than classified emails that barely affect anyone.
See, you can criticize Clinton for her actual failings. You just gotta use facts instead of empty rhetoric and Republican propaganda talking points.
Really now?
The evidence shows she is no more a liar than any other American politician. If anything, she seems to lie a little less than the average...
Agree with you here. Anyone saying otherwise is painfully naive.
There is no need for a quid quo pro smoking gun.
Corruption is not limited to a shady person in a hat handing you a brown envelope of money to change one specific vote.
That's not happening. It really isn't.
The international arbitration thing is only when A foreign corporation is being treated unfairly compared to a local corporation, in practice.
The major case used as "Canada got fined for environmental regulations" - Sure, because those prevented USA companies from handling certain material, but allowed Canadian companies to. ( S.D. Myers v. Canada, export issue)
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I never denied that businesses have enormous influence over the legislative and regulatory process. In fact, I said that they probably did. But the ideological makeup of Congress still determines what gets through. Many issues which businesses support, like immigration reform, don't end up passing, even with the initial backing of pro-business Republicans, while the Dodd-Frank Act, which Wall Street vociferously opposed, did end up passing. There's also broad consensus (or at least what passes for consensus in this hyper polarized environment) that the corporate tax code should be simplified, while lowering the tax rate on businesses. The reason the tax code remains a byzantine mess isn't just because of lobbying, but because the two parties can't agree on the ultimate goal of tax reform. One party wants to use that revenue to fund other programs, whereas the other party wants to lower the overall tax burden on businesses. As you said, lobbyists do have a lot of influence over specific provisions, but the truth is usually a lot more nuanced and even sometimes mundane than many people suppose. There's certainly this tendency on the left to believe that political money is the one thing preventing the implementation of a strong progressive agenda. I don't think that's true.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
When you guys go on about political maneuvering and being secretive like they're bad things, it makes me think you think being president is some popularity contest with purity tests rather than being the fucking president.
But lobbies aren't limited to big companies looking to screw the little guy either. There are a range of issues, good and not-so-good, being lobbied in Congress.
brainchild
Banned
neurosisxeno
Member
But reading is hard...
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Btw, let me know when those "left-wing" rags repeatedly use fake news as a source...
benjipwns
Banned
Spoiled Milk
Banned
This post never existed.
eBay Huckster
Member
hillgaf just got DESTROYED
we counting usuncut as a left-wing rag, or just a rag?
we counting usuncut as a left-wing rag, or just a rag?
User 85168
Banned
we should probably wrap it up and seal the echo chamber until 2020
we're done
we're done
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
It seems pointless to even respond to Kristoffer's post, but this is a good opportunity to post this excellent article about the 1993 health reform bill, as told by someone who was actually involved in the process. This is the major take away:
Hillary did not ultimately decide the direction of health reform. This was determined before she became involved.
She was chosen because "she had the personal tact and ease in communicating with the public that would make her an ideal ambassador for the initiative, while he had organizational skills, command of detail, and imaginative boldness necessary for mastering an ambitious and complex reform."
The plan was already a compromise "between market and regulatory approaches that could attract support from conservatives and liberals and thereby overcome the divisions that stood in the way of change."
The plan failed partly because of the Clinton's own miscalculations, but mostly because of Republican intransigence - "if it succeeded, it might renew New Deal beliefs in the efficacy of government, whereas a defeat of the health plan could set liberalism back for years" - and the Democrat's own ambivalence.
The article makes a few more points:
Hillary did not ultimately decide the direction of health reform. This was determined before she became involved.
She was chosen because "she had the personal tact and ease in communicating with the public that would make her an ideal ambassador for the initiative, while he had organizational skills, command of detail, and imaginative boldness necessary for mastering an ambitious and complex reform."
The plan was already a compromise "between market and regulatory approaches that could attract support from conservatives and liberals and thereby overcome the divisions that stood in the way of change."
The plan failed partly because of the Clinton's own miscalculations, but mostly because of Republican intransigence - "if it succeeded, it might renew New Deal beliefs in the efficacy of government, whereas a defeat of the health plan could set liberalism back for years" - and the Democrat's own ambivalence.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
So I'm not supposed to inappropriately mischaracterize Bill's failures as hers? That makes the task even harder.
neurosisxeno
Member
Aren't they literally the same human being?
- Status