Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Some ranchers in Texas don't like the law that says they can't shoot illegal immigrants on site. Apparently they should be able to ignore, without consequence, that law.

No they shouldn't.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

So TIm....let's say there is a different path to citizenship established by the gov't than the one we have now and we hit the reset button. Will you continue to support illegal immigrants who thumb their noses at the new process and do what they want?

That will depend on a lot of circumstances. We'll have to see.

 

[cstu]

So TIm....let's say there is a different path to citizenship established by the gov't than the one we have now and we hit the reset button. Will you continue to support illegal immigrants who thumb their noses at the new process and do what they want?

Do what they want how, cross the border?

That's why you build a wall - if it was so important and illegals such a dangerous threat then why didn't Republicans get it done in the 8 years W was in office?

 

[cstu]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

If someone wants to be an American bad enough to do what they need to do to get here then they are American in my book. They're a lot better in my book than the lazy entitled ####s who think because they were born here they are somehow superior.

 

[DocHolliday]

So TIm....let's say there is a different path to citizenship established by the gov't than the one we have now and we hit the reset button. Will you continue to support illegal immigrants who thumb their noses at the new process and do what they want?

Do what they want how, cross the border?

That's why you build a wall - if it was so important and illegals such a dangerous threat then why didn't Republicans get it done in the 8 years W was in office?

It is the famous "Blame Bush" excuse. At least now it is to help Hitlery instead of Obama.

 

[DocHolliday]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

So TIm....let's say there is a different path to citizenship established by the gov't than the one we have now and we hit the reset button. Will you continue to support illegal immigrants who thumb their noses at the new process and do what they want?

That will depend on a lot of circumstances. We'll have to see.

Too bad the Dems will do anything to garner more votes. Tim may have a different view if that was his mother or sister murdered on that pier in SF.

 

[DocHolliday]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

If someone wants to be an American bad enough to do what they need to do to get here then they are American in my book. They're a lot better in my book than the lazy entitled ####s who think because they were born here they are somehow superior.

So anyone in the world should be allowed to enter the US immediately without any background or medical checks?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Some ranchers in Texas don't like the law that says they can't shoot illegal immigrants on site. Apparently they should be able to ignore, without consequence, that law.

Everybody agrees that it ought to be against the law to shoot people just because.

A better avenue for bashing tim would be the Arizona law from a few years ago that was geared to identifying illegals and getting them deported. That got shot down by the courts on the grounds that states aren't allowed to make their own immigration policy. I agree with that principle, which is why I also have a problem with "sanctuary cities." I'm going to go out on the world's shortest limb and guess that tim is fine with state and municipal governments getting out of line in one case but not the other.

 

[Jack White]

Roger Stone – ‏@RogerJStoneJr

Good God. @HillaryClinton isn't even capable of sounding sincere..about anything #CNN #phony #inauthentic #grifter.

 

[Boston]

[No message]

 

[The Commish]

So TIm....let's say there is a different path to citizenship established by the gov't than the one we have now and we hit the reset button. Will you continue to support illegal immigrants who thumb their noses at the new process and do what they want?

Do what they want how, cross the border?

That's why you build a wall - if it was so important and illegals such a dangerous threat then why didn't Republicans get it done in the 8 years W was in office?

"do what they want" = ignoring the laws established by the land they want to live in. Reality is, we have a path to citizenship today. People don't like it, make excuses for those breaking the law. I'm trying to understand where that stops. I get the sense, it doesn't. People will always make excuses for them.

For me, it's a principle issue, not that I am afraid of anything. I see little difference between the "entitled" and those who don't respect a gov't enough to follow their rules or follow the gov't process to become a citizen. They are all the suck as far as I'm concerned

 

[RCon]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Some ranchers in Texas don't like the law that says they can't shoot illegal immigrants on site. Apparently they should be able to ignore, without consequence, that law.

No they shouldn't.

In other words, it's cool when you do it, but not cool when anyone does it. You're right, it's hypocritical. Ultimately, it's why your stance here can't be taken seriously.

 

[RCon]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

If someone wants to be an American bad enough to do what they need to do to get here then they are American in my book. They're a lot better in my book than the lazy entitled ####s who think because they were born here they are somehow superior.

You might be right, but that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here.

 

[RCon]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Some ranchers in Texas don't like the law that says they can't shoot illegal immigrants on site. Apparently they should be able to ignore, without consequence, that law.

Everybody agrees that it ought to be against the law to shoot people just because.

A better avenue for bashing tim would be the Arizona law from a few years ago that was geared to identifying illegals and getting them deported. That got shot down by the courts on the grounds that states aren't allowed to make their own immigration policy. I agree with that principle, which is why I also have a problem with "sanctuary cities." I'm going to go out on the world's shortest limb and guess that tim is fine with state and municipal governments getting out of line in one case but not the other.

It was the first thing I thought of, as well as the most absurd, which was what I going for. Your argument is more eloquent, though.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Some ranchers in Texas don't like the law that says they can't shoot illegal immigrants on site. Apparently they should be able to ignore, without consequence, that law.

No they shouldn't.

In other words, it's cool when you do it, but not cool when anyone does it. You're right, it's hypocritical. Ultimately, it's why your stance here can't be taken seriously.

Why not? Why must everything be a slippery slope with you? Why can't each issue stand or fall on it's own merits?

I believe that our deportation laws are dumb, unAmerican, not in our best interests, and ultimately unenforceable (in a macro sense.) Therefore I'm in favor of sanctuary cities and any other idea that might subvert those laws with the hope of their eventual reform. Why do I have to apply this to anything else?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I believe that our deportation laws are dumb, unAmerican, not in our best interests, and ultimately unenforceable (in a macro sense.) Therefore I'm in favor of sanctuary cities and any other idea that might subvert those laws with the hope of their eventual reform. Why do I have to apply this to anything else?

You honestly don't understand why people don't react favorably to your "I support municipal governments breaking the law because I think the law is dumb" argument?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Seriously, when some ####### in Louisiana refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, you have absolutely no grounds to criticize his decision other than you disagree with the policy outcome. That's about the most unprincipled position I can possibly imagine.

 

[timschochet]

I believe that our deportation laws are dumb, unAmerican, not in our best interests, and ultimately unenforceable (in a macro sense.) Therefore I'm in favor of sanctuary cities and any other idea that might subvert those laws with the hope of their eventual reform. Why do I have to apply this to anything else?

You honestly don't understand why people don't react favorably to your "I support municipal governments breaking the law because I think the law is dumb" argument?

I understand, I simply disagree in this instance.

 

[timschochet]

Seriously, when some ####### in Louisiana refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, you have absolutely no grounds to criticize his decision other than you disagree with the policy outcome. That's about the most unprincipled position I can possibly imagine.

NULLIFICATION!

No, I get the dilemma. And the contradiction. But I remain in favor of sanctuary cities.

 

[RCon]

Why not? Why must everything be a slippery slope with you? Why can't each issue stand or fall on it's own merits?I believe that our deportation laws are dumb, unAmerican, not in our best interests, and ultimately unenforceable (in a macro sense.) Therefore I'm in favor of sanctuary cities and any other idea that might subvert those laws with the hope of their eventual reform. Why do I have to apply this to anything else?

I'm not suggesting anything is a slippery slope. This has nothing to do with slippery slopes.

I'm not even, necessarily, disagreeing that our deportation laws are stupid (I'm not necessarily agreeing either; the stupidity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the point).

I'm suggesting that when you support sanctuary cities, you're supporting the idea that those cities should break laws because they don't like them. As a rule, it's generally bad policy to allow any group of people (or municipalities) to determine which laws they have to follow and which they don't.

Honestly, sometimes you fail to grasp basic logic, which makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion. I'm not arguing one policy versus another, I'm arguing basic logic. Another example would be your insistence that "one warrant that allows anything, anytime, anywhere" is somehow logically different than "warrants aren't required".

 

[RCon]

Seriously, when some ####### in Louisiana refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, you have absolutely no grounds to criticize his decision other than you disagree with the policy outcome. That's about the most unprincipled position I can possibly imagine.

NULLIFICATION!

No, I get the dilemma. And the contradiction. But I remain in favor of sanctuary cities.

Then you are, by definition, in favor of municipalities being allowed to break laws that they don't like.

 

[DocHolliday]

Rich is killing it in here. Of course, stating that everyone should following the law equally is a pretty solid.

If Tim had any brains, he would hide his tail between his legs and run home.

 

[dhockster]

I have come to the conclusion that arguing with Tim is only going to result in frustration. Because his arguments defy logic (and he's okay with that).

 

[timschochet]

OK look guys, I'm not crazy, I'm not a moron, and I'm not unprincipled.

I agree that logically, if I defend sanctuary cities, then I also have to defend anybody else who decides to break the law. I get it. So I guess I can't defend sanctuary cities. I concede, I lose the argument.

But I still am sympathetic to sanctuary cities. What am I to do?

 

[dhockster]

OK look guys, I'm not crazy, I'm not a moron, and I'm not unprincipled.

I agree that logically, if I defend sanctuary cities, then I also have to defend anybody else who decides to break the law. I get it. So I guess I can't defend sanctuary cities. I concede, I lose the argument.

But I still am sympathetic to sanctuary cities. What am I to do?

Write your congressman to tell him that you think the deportation law should be changed? Just like any other law that you currently don't agree with.

 

[RCon]

OK look guys, I'm not crazy, I'm not a moron, and I'm not unprincipled.

I agree that logically, if I defend sanctuary cities, then I also have to defend anybody else who decides to break the law. I get it. So I guess I can't defend sanctuary cities. I concede, I lose the argument.

But I still am sympathetic to sanctuary cities. What am I to do?

Write your congressman to tell him that you think the deportation law should be changed? Just like any other law that you currently don't agree with.

That, and write the representatives of said cities, letting them know that while you're sympathetic to their view, that they should also work to change the laws they don't like rather than determining for themselves which laws they have to follow. You might even invoke Ivan's Arizona and Louisiana examples showing them why they're misguided.

 

[timschochet]

OK look guys, I'm not crazy, I'm not a moron, and I'm not unprincipled.

I agree that logically, if I defend sanctuary cities, then I also have to defend anybody else who decides to break the law. I get it. So I guess I can't defend sanctuary cities. I concede, I lose the argument.

But I still am sympathetic to sanctuary cities. What am I to do?

Write your congressman to tell him that you think the deportation law should be changed? Just like any other law that you currently don't agree with.

My Congressman is a conservative Orange County Republican allied with the Tea Party. I have a suspicion that his response will displease me...

 

[timschochet]

So let's get back to Hillary. Per this Time article, she may have been less than honest in her interview the other night:

ime.com/3951961/hillary-clintons-cnn-interview-trustworthy/

Example #1

“I’ve never had a subpoena,” Clinton said, even though she has been subpoenaed. Her allies tried to clean up the flub the next day by explaining that she seemed to be answering a narrower question than the one that was asked. “Obviously everyone—including Secretary Clinton—knows Chairman Gowdy issued a subpoena,” explained Maryland Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the ranking member of the committee that issued the subpoena. “It appears clear that Secretary Clinton was answering a question about whether she deleted emails ‘while facing a subpoena.’ ”

OK, I can accept this explanation. But example #2 is more problematic:

But Clinton’s interview betrayed a larger pattern of dissembling, based either on a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the rules and law. “When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system,” she said. “Now I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.”


This is not true. She was required by law and rule to turn over the official records that she stored on her private server. “At the time she left office, the existing rules that were in place said that she was under a duty to transfer to an official record keeping system any email records on a commercial account that pertained to official business,” says Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle, and former director of litigation at the National Archives.

Federal records are legally defined to include all recorded information made “in connection with the transaction of public business” that show “evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government.” As Clinton’s office has admitted, this would include emails she sent and received about government business that did not ever show up in official State Department email accounts.

Federal rules (36 CFR 1234.24) clearly require agencies to collect those records from “external electronic mail systems” so that they can be stored inside the government. There is also a federal law (44 USC 3106) that authorizes agencies to take legal action through the Attorney General “for the recovery of records” that are threatened by destruction, deletion or erasure. Willfully destroying a federal record is a crime, punishable by fine and prison.

How did Clinton get it all so wrong? Her campaign has not volunteered a response.

You know, I've tried to defend this woman. With Trey not around much, Squisition and I are really the only ones here trying to defend her. And I prefer Hillary over every other candidate. But she makes it really tough with all this nonsense. This whole email thing seems so unnecessary. Very frustrating.

 

[RCon]

That, and then the "oh goodness, I can't imagine why the public doesn't trust me" routine. Pretty tough to defend that, too.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So let's get back to Hillary. Per this Time article, she may have been less than honest in her interview the other night:

ime.com/3951961/hillary-clintons-cnn-interview-trustworthy/

Example #1

“I’ve never had a subpoena,” Clinton said, even though she has been subpoenaed. Her allies tried to clean up the flub the next day by explaining that she seemed to be answering a narrower question than the one that was asked. “Obviously everyone—including Secretary Clinton—knows Chairman Gowdy issued a subpoena,” explained Maryland Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the ranking member of the committee that issued the subpoena. “It appears clear that Secretary Clinton was answering a question about whether she deleted emails ‘while facing a subpoena.’ ”

OK, I can accept this explanation. But example #2 is more problematic:

But Clinton’s interview betrayed a larger pattern of dissembling, based either on a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the rules and law. “When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system,” she said. “Now I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.”


This is not true. She was required by law and rule to turn over the official records that she stored on her private server. “At the time she left office, the existing rules that were in place said that she was under a duty to transfer to an official record keeping system any email records on a commercial account that pertained to official business,” says Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle, and former director of litigation at the National Archives.

Federal records are legally defined to include all recorded information made “in connection with the transaction of public business” that show “evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government.” As Clinton’s office has admitted, this would include emails she sent and received about government business that did not ever show up in official State Department email accounts.

Federal rules (36 CFR 1234.24) clearly require agencies to collect those records from “external electronic mail systems” so that they can be stored inside the government. There is also a federal law (44 USC 3106) that authorizes agencies to take legal action through the Attorney General “for the recovery of records” that are threatened by destruction, deletion or erasure. Willfully destroying a federal record is a crime, punishable by fine and prison.

How did Clinton get it all so wrong? Her campaign has not volunteered a response.

You know, I've tried to defend this woman. With Trey not around much, Squisition and I are really the only ones here trying to defend her. And I prefer Hillary over every other candidate. But she makes it really tough with all this nonsense. This whole email thing seems so unnecessary. Very frustrating.

Jim Webb doesnt lie.

 

[Trey]

I've been a bystander for a while in this thread. Haven't had quite as much time as I did back in the 08 cycle. But the amazing thing when I read through the posts of the supporters and then the anti-Clinton crowd, I find myself nodding in agreement with both sides. I can see where everyone is coming from and it's hard to fault near any opinion on Clinton. My thoughts in no particular order are as follows:

1. The email situation is an unforced error and speaks horribly of her judgement. Commingling her state emails and her personal emails was an absolutely stupid move and I'm not talking just from a freedom of information act. If Clinton used her State email for most official official business then she could have used her .clintonemail address for any and all "borderline" activities she so chose. And therein lies the whole catch 22 with Hillary Clinton. I don't blame her for not handing the server over. She blurred the lines so much that it would be like asking Jeb Bush to hand over his gmail password. But that's what happens when you don't even have the appearance of delineation. So it's an absolute debacle that never needed to happen. I think she probably handed over most everything from State. I can't say for certain that it was everything. I also don't think that the public needs to be privy to all the goings on at the highest levels of government but that's another discussion. But without this email issue, she'd be at 65% in every D poll.

2. She's not a strong campaigner. That's just a fact. Yes her only loss was to Barack OBama who is one of the most gifted of all time but look at her wins. Not exactly mind blowing competition. Especially in Blue NY. Her biggest issue is that she really is able to better connect on a small scale but the Presidency is the grandest scale of them all. You can't just become buddies with the press corp at State because they are high minded and have intimate 1 on 1s with people. You need to rally and use your pulpit to impress the majority of Americans. I think Clinton could make an excellent President. I'm not sure the public would appreciate her Presidency because I'm not confident she could articulate her accomplishments.

3. She is still going to win the Primary unless she blows herself up in a debate against Sanders. And she'll win easily. But the fact that we are even discussing Sanders in the 20s/30s in Iowa and NH is an indictment of her campaign.

4. The Benghazi committee is an abomination and everything that is wrong with the U.S. Political system. Spending tax payer money interviewing Blumenthal for 9 hours and using approximately one of those hours to talk about Benghazi itself. And then "leaking" selective documents. It's a disgrace. What happened in Benghazi? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to protect 4 American lives who were killed in a terrorist act. There was no stand down order. There was no "cover up". There was political calculation to tread cautiously with the public narrative as I'm quite positive there is with nearly every major incident the world has ever seen. So I'm not sure why we are funding a committee whose sole purpose is to do opp research on a prospective presidential candidate. Nonsense.

5. I will never cast a ballot for Bernie Sanders. I'd sooner vote for Jeb Bush. And I guess that's the root cause of Hillary Clinton's current issues. pragmatism and bookishness isn't sexy. Promising free college and increased social security benefits is even when there is no possible way such a thing would happen.

I still support Clinton. But from a political standpoint it's been disheartening. From a human standpoint, I can see why some are totally turned off by her demeanor and approach. Thus if she's the D nominee as I expect her to be, buckle up. Because it's going to be a nasty year long slog to the general.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Hillary earns three Pinocchios for her lies during the CNN interview:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-everything-i-did-on-emails-was-permitted/

 

[Ghost Rider]

If Tim had any brains, he would hide his tail between his legs and run home.

I would say that I am stunned that anyone would try to engage him in a serious discussion about anything, but then I remember that many love a good clown show, and this is almost as good as any in the FFA right now.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I've been a bystander for a while in this thread. Haven't had quite as much time as I did back in the 08 cycle. But the amazing thing when I read through the posts of the supporters and then the anti-Clinton crowd, I find myself nodding in agreement with both sides. I can see where everyone is coming from and it's hard to fault near any opinion on Clinton. My thoughts in no particular order are as follows:

1. The email situation is an unforced error and speaks horribly of her judgement. Commingling her state emails and her personal emails was an absolutely stupid move and I'm not talking just from a freedom of information act. If Clinton used her State email for most official official business then she could have used her .clintonemail address for any and all "borderline" activities she so chose. And therein lies the whole catch 22 with Hillary Clinton. I don't blame her for not handing the server over. She blurred the lines so much that it would be like asking Jeb Bush to hand over his gmail password. But that's what happens when you don't even have the appearance of delineation. So it's an absolute debacle that never needed to happen. I think she probably handed over most everything from State. I can't say for certain that it was everything. I also don't think that the public needs to be privy to all the goings on at the highest levels of government but that's another discussion. But without this email issue, she'd be at 65% in every D poll.

2. She's not a strong campaigner. That's just a fact. Yes her only loss was to Barack OBama who is one of the most gifted of all time but look at her wins. Not exactly mind blowing competition. Especially in Blue NY. Her biggest issue is that she really is able to better connect on a small scale but the Presidency is the grandest scale of them all. You can't just become buddies with the press corp at State because they are high minded and have intimate 1 on 1s with people. You need to rally and use your pulpit to impress the majority of Americans. I think Clinton could make an excellent President. I'm not sure the public would appreciate her Presidency because I'm not confident she could articulate her accomplishments.

3. She is still going to win the Primary unless she blows herself up in a debate against Sanders. And she'll win easily. But the fact that we are even discussing Sanders in the 20s/30s in Iowa and NH is an indictment of her campaign.

4. The Benghazi committee is an abomination and everything that is wrong with the U.S. Political system. Spending tax payer money interviewing Blumenthal for 9 hours and using approximately one of those hours to talk about Benghazi itself. And then "leaking" selective documents. It's a disgrace. What happened in Benghazi? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to protect 4 American lives who were killed in a terrorist act. There was no stand down order. There was no "cover up". There was political calculation to tread cautiously with the public narrative as I'm quite positive there is with nearly every major incident the world has ever seen. So I'm not sure why we are funding a committee whose sole purpose is to do opp research on a prospective presidential candidate. Nonsense.

5. I will never cast a ballot for Bernie Sanders. I'd sooner vote for Jeb Bush. And I guess that's the root cause of Hillary Clinton's current issues. pragmatism and bookishness isn't sexy. Promising free college and increased social security benefits is even when there is no possible way such a thing would happen.

I still support Clinton. But from a political standpoint it's been disheartening. From a human standpoint, I can see why some are totally turned off by her demeanor and approach. Thus if she's the D nominee as I expect her to be, buckle up. Because it's going to be a nasty year long slog to the general.

Why do you support Clinton?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This whole email thing seems so unnecessary. Very frustrating.

It's unnecessary and frustrating if you start with the null hypothesis that she's a selfless public servant whose enemies are just out to get her.

If you start with the hypothesis that she's a crook, then it fits in perfectly.

Funny how this pattern keeps coming up with Clinton.

 

[DocHolliday]

I've been a bystander for a while in this thread. Haven't had quite as much time as I did back in the 08 cycle. But the amazing thing when I read through the posts of the supporters and then the anti-Clinton crowd, I find myself nodding in agreement with both sides. I can see where everyone is coming from and it's hard to fault near any opinion on Clinton. My thoughts in no particular order are as follows:

1. The email situation is an unforced error and speaks horribly of her judgement. Commingling her state emails and her personal emails was an absolutely stupid move and I'm not talking just from a freedom of information act. If Clinton used her State email for most official official business then she could have used her .clintonemail address for any and all "borderline" activities she so chose. And therein lies the whole catch 22 with Hillary Clinton. I don't blame her for not handing the server over. She blurred the lines so much that it would be like asking Jeb Bush to hand over his gmail password. But that's what happens when you don't even have the appearance of delineation. So it's an absolute debacle that never needed to happen. I think she probably handed over most everything from State. I can't say for certain that it was everything. I also don't think that the public needs to be privy to all the goings on at the highest levels of government but that's another discussion. But without this email issue, she'd be at 65% in every D poll.

2. She's not a strong campaigner. That's just a fact. Yes her only loss was to Barack OBama who is one of the most gifted of all time but look at her wins. Not exactly mind blowing competition. Especially in Blue NY. Her biggest issue is that she really is able to better connect on a small scale but the Presidency is the grandest scale of them all. You can't just become buddies with the press corp at State because they are high minded and have intimate 1 on 1s with people. You need to rally and use your pulpit to impress the majority of Americans. I think Clinton could make an excellent President. I'm not sure the public would appreciate her Presidency because I'm not confident she could articulate her accomplishments.

3. She is still going to win the Primary unless she blows herself up in a debate against Sanders. And she'll win easily. But the fact that we are even discussing Sanders in the 20s/30s in Iowa and NH is an indictment of her campaign.

4. The Benghazi committee is an abomination and everything that is wrong with the U.S. Political system. Spending tax payer money interviewing Blumenthal for 9 hours and using approximately one of those hours to talk about Benghazi itself. And then "leaking" selective documents. It's a disgrace. What happened in Benghazi? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to protect 4 American lives who were killed in a terrorist act. There was no stand down order. There was no "cover up". There was political calculation to tread cautiously with the public narrative as I'm quite positive there is with nearly every major incident the world has ever seen. So I'm not sure why we are funding a committee whose sole purpose is to do opp research on a prospective presidential candidate. Nonsense.

5. I will never cast a ballot for Bernie Sanders. I'd sooner vote for Jeb Bush. And I guess that's the root cause of Hillary Clinton's current issues. pragmatism and bookishness isn't sexy. Promising free college and increased social security benefits is even when there is no possible way such a thing would happen.

I still support Clinton. But from a political standpoint it's been disheartening. From a human standpoint, I can see why some are totally turned off by her demeanor and approach. Thus if she's the D nominee as I expect her to be, buckle up. Because it's going to be a nasty year long slog to the general.

Sure seems like there was a cover-up. Didnt Obama and Clinton blame the terrorist attack on a video for a week or so after everyone knew the cause was simply a terrorist attack?

 

[timschochet]

This whole email thing seems so unnecessary. Very frustrating.

It's unnecessary and frustrating if you start with the null hypothesis that she's a selfless public servant whose enemies are just out to get her.

If you start with the hypothesis that she's a crook, then it fits in perfectly.

Funny how this pattern keeps coming up with Clinton.

Well there you go. I think that at times in her career Hillary has played on the edge of the rules, and sometimes breaks the rules, but I don't believe she's a crook.

 

[dhockster]

I don't think she has to be a crook for her emails to be damaging which is causing her to turn them over the way she has. Let's say she is a total Bee-yotch to those who work for her, that she is continuously condescending to them and demeaning them. Kind of like how she comes off to the press at times. She has been around political advisors long enough to know that this is a weakness of hers and she is smart enough to know she has to hide that side of her as much as possible. So she comes up the idea that as SOS she will limit the possible exposure of Bee-yotch Hillary by doing all her emails on a private email account where she maintains the server. Therefore, any nasty things she emails to underlings on her side are under her control. As for the recipient side, if they are underlings they probably know to never cross Hillary or their political career will end. She hopes her secret email account is never uncovered, but if it is, she can control what information is turned over. To me this is one scenario that fits with the way she is acting.

The other scenario is you think she is honest and nice but very stupid. If she was honest and nice and did keep a private email for convenience (which she has said), why is she handling the turning over of emails the way she has? all the little lies she has told just make her look guilty. That is a stupid way to handle it if you have nothing to hide. And no one defending Hillary think of her as stupid.

A third possibility is there is crooked stuff in her emails, which would also fit with how she is acting.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I don't think she has to be a crook for her emails to be damaging which is causing her to turn them over the way she has. Let's say she is a total Bee-yotch to those who work for her, that she is continuously condescending to them and demeaning them. Kind of like how she comes off to the press at times. She has been around political advisors long enough to know that this is a weakness of hers and she is smart enough to know she has to hide that side of her as much as possible. So she comes up the idea that as SOS she will limit the possible exposure of Bee-yotch Hillary by doing all her emails on a private email account where she maintains the server. Therefore, any nasty things she emails to underlings on her side are under her control. As for the recipient side, if they are underlings they probably know to never cross Hillary or their political career will end. She hopes her secret email account is never uncovered, but if it is, she can control what information is turned over. To me this is one scenario that fits with the way she is acting.

The other scenario is you think she is honest and nice but very stupid. If she was honest and nice and did keep a private email for convenience (which she has said), why is she handling the turning over of emails the way she has? all the little lies she has told just make her look guilty. That is a stupid way to handle it if you have nothing to hide. And no one defending Hillary think of her as stupid.

A third possibility is there is crooked stuff in her emails, which would also fit with how she is acting.

She is either a b-itch, stupid or a crook...perhaps some combination of all three. I buy that.

 

[RCon]

This whole email thing seems so unnecessary. Very frustrating.

It's unnecessary and frustrating if you start with the null hypothesis that she's a selfless public servant whose enemies are just out to get her.

If you start with the hypothesis that she's a crook, then it fits in perfectly.

Funny how this pattern keeps coming up with Clinton.

Well there you go. I think that at times in her career Hillary has played on the edge of the rules, and sometimes breaks the rules, but I don't believe she's a crook.

Pretty sure that the bolded necessitates the underlined, in a "If P, then Q" way, no?

 

[squistion]

This whole email thing seems so unnecessary. Very frustrating.

It's unnecessary and frustrating if you start with the null hypothesis that she's a selfless public servant whose enemies are just out to get her.

If you start with the hypothesis that she's a crook, then it fits in perfectly.

Funny how this pattern keeps coming up with Clinton.

And if you view everything she does starting with that premise, you probably will always be able to find it (aka confirmation bias).

 

[Boston]

I admit I detest Hillary...always have and always will...I feel she is 100% out for her own good, has an incredible sense of entitlement, is beyond disingenuous and hypocritical and is as dirty as they come...let's put that aside for a second...what I don't get is what people like about her...there have been other pols I don't like but I can understand their draw due to their charisma, public-speaking skills or their overall record of achievement at their job (even if I disagree with their policies)...with Hillary I see nothing...she is an underwhelming public speaker, has a temper, has limited achievements and is one of the more divisive figures in the past thirty years...she is an empty pantsuit who has rode the coat-tails of her husband...seriously, take away Bill and what do you have...every time I see/hear one of her supporters talk about her I scratch my head because their support simply seems to revolve around the fact that she's HILLARY and she has a D next to her name...

 

[cstu]

This whole email thing seems so unnecessary. Very frustrating.

It's unnecessary and frustrating if you start with the null hypothesis that she's a selfless public servant whose enemies are just out to get her.

If you start with the hypothesis that she's a crook, then it fits in perfectly.

Funny how this pattern keeps coming up with Clinton.

What if I start with the hypothesis that she's a politician?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I admit I detest Hillary...always have and always will...I feel she is 100% out for her own good, has an incredible sense of entitlement, is beyond disingenuous and hypocritical and is as dirty as they come...let's put that aside for a second...what I don't get is what people like about her...there have been other pols I don't like but I can understand their draw due to their charisma, public-speaking skills or their overall record of achievement at their job (even if I disagree with their policies)...with Hillary I see nothing...she is an underwhelming public speaker, has a temper, has limited achievements and is one of the more divisive figures in the past thirty years...she is an empty pantsuit who has rode the coat-tails of her husband...seriously, take away Bill and what do you have...every time I see/hear one of her supporters talk about her I scratch my head because their support simply seems to revolve around the fact that she's HILLARY and she has a D next to her name...

Agree with most of this. Not a fan. Looking for better options. Just like '08, IMO.

 

[cstu]

I admit I detest Hillary...always have and always will...I feel she is 100% out for her own good, has an incredible sense of entitlement, is beyond disingenuous and hypocritical and is as dirty as they come...let's put that aside for a second...what I don't get is what people like about her...there have been other pols I don't like but I can understand their draw due to their charisma, public-speaking skills or their overall record of achievement at their job (even if I disagree with their policies)...with Hillary I see nothing...she is an underwhelming public speaker, has a temper, has limited achievements and is one of the more divisive figures in the past thirty years...she is an empty pantsuit who has rode the coat-tails of her husband...seriously, take away Bill and what do you have...every time I see/hear one of her supporters talk about her I scratch my head because their support simply seems to revolve around the fact that she's HILLARY and she has a D next to her name...

Her biggest supporters are women and they are going to vote for her because they want a woman President.

For me, she has a D after her name (will get to nominate SC Justices) and I doubt she's going to #### things up much in office. She's a cold, hard ##### and has more balls than Obama.

Additionally, it would really piss off Republicans so she's got that going for her.

 

[Boston]

I admit I detest Hillary...always have and always will...I feel she is 100% out for her own good, has an incredible sense of entitlement, is beyond disingenuous and hypocritical and is as dirty as they come...let's put that aside for a second...what I don't get is what people like about her...there have been other pols I don't like but I can understand their draw due to their charisma, public-speaking skills or their overall record of achievement at their job (even if I disagree with their policies)...with Hillary I see nothing...she is an underwhelming public speaker, has a temper, has limited achievements and is one of the more divisive figures in the past thirty years...she is an empty pantsuit who has rode the coat-tails of her husband...seriously, take away Bill and what do you have...every time I see/hear one of her supporters talk about her I scratch my head because their support simply seems to revolve around the fact that she's HILLARY and she has a D next to her name...

Her biggest supporters are women and they are going to vote for her because they want a woman President.

For me, she has a D after her name (will get to nominate SC Justices) and I doubt she's going to #### things up much in office. She's a cold, hard ##### and has more balls than Obama.

Additionally, it would really piss off Republicans so she's got that going for her.

I really believe a lot of women will turn on her...at least enough to hurt her...she is very condescending and I have no doubt she will be good for a few "Tammy Wynette" comments...I just don't see the middle-of-the-road women voters warming to her after a long campaign...she is severely lacking in the charm department...gotta believe the GOP will be running a women VP to offset some of this...hopefully someone with a little more weight than the last one they ran...

 

[Trey]

Yeah my reasons for voting for Clinton are:

A. I think she's the most electable Democratic candidate.

B. I'm much more of a Clinton Democrat than I am a pet of the liberal wing, especially when it comes to economic issues.

C. For social issues of the day, it is vitally important to at least maintain the current SCOTUS makeup. (This gets me into a huge tangent on the how certain justices should have retired while Obama had the White House but I digress) And since she is most electable, she presents the best chance for quality appointments.

D. I honestly think she's incredibly intelligent, tough as nails, and at least clear the minimum threshold of "not ####### things up". It is sad that this is the bar but hey look at our current crop of politicians.

I'm not as wildly excited about Clinton '16 as I was for Clinton '08. I guess I've "evolved" to the view that for the most part, my life won't be all that different if we are discussing President Jeb or President Hillary in November 2016.

So I give extra weight to her ability to fundraise, her ability to win, and yes even the fact that she is a woman.

So.. We shall see. I did get my bumper sticker in the mail last week. It just hasn't been affixed to my vehicle yet lol.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah my reasons for voting for Clinton are:

A. I think she's the most electable Democratic candidate.

B. I'm much more of a Clinton Democrat than I am a pet of the liberal wing, especially when it comes to economic issues.

C. For social issues of the day, it is vitally important to at least maintain the current SCOTUS makeup. (This gets me into a huge tangent on the how certain justices should have retired while Obama had the White House but I digress) And since she is most electable, she presents the best chance for quality appointments.

D. I honestly think she's incredibly intelligent, tough as nails, and at least clear the minimum threshold of "not ####### things up". It is sad that this is the bar but hey look at our current crop of politicians.

I'm not as wildly excited about Clinton '16 as I was for Clinton '08. I guess I've "evolved" to the view that for the most part, my life won't be all that different if we are discussing President Jeb or President Hillary in November 2016.

So I give extra weight to her ability to fundraise, her ability to win, and yes even the fact that she is a woman.

So.. We shall see. I did get my bumper sticker in the mail last week. It just hasn't been affixed to my vehicle yet lol.

I think I never question people's value judgements, but I get hung up on facts and details. So on that point:

- Is she "incredibly intelligent"? Is there a basis for this? This is not a knock, I'm not claiming she's stupid, but what are you looking to on that?

- About "not ####### things up" - consider the healthcare task force which she handled for her husband, the travel office fiasco, and her whole Libya policy. Obama also apparently put Biden in charge of Iraq, not her, he must have had a reason for that considering she was SOS and that should have been her area. The email thing (ethics, duties aside) seems like horrible judgement at a minimum. Her 2008 campaign was horribly run. Her constant mishandling of her Iraq war vote explanation. The "reset" button disaster with Lavrov and Russian relations. Etc.

 

[RCon]

C. For social issues of the day, it is vitally important to at least maintain the current SCOTUS makeup. (This gets me into a huge tangent on the how certain justices should have retired while Obama had the White House but I digress)

He's still got a bit more than 18 months left. They could retire after this session.