This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Pretty sure even the most ardent Hillary supports acknowledge she has flaws. That's far different than the evil narrative you and many others have been constructing and pushing for the past year.
Look I've come to enjoy Pant's acerbic one-liners, I tried it and I got 3
's. I was kidding, yes I was handed the memo she is winning. On a serious note I guess I'd like to draw out from Hillary's supporters what Hillary has done wrong here. Really I had come to believe that Sanders was willing to accept he would never win and that he was trying to make change primarily. That was before last night's events. Does anyone in her camp see where these flaws have had an effect here? Which flaws?
In this light I can see Squiz's point about qualified/disqualified a little better. Of course Hillary is qualified. I think Hillary's campaign has lost track of the distinction themselves though. Who there thought saying they would disqualify Sanders was a good idea? Because they've now introduced this topic. And how does someone like Hillary not understand that refusing to concede Sanders is his himself qualified not going to have repercussions? I think she and her campaign have done this because they think the whole thing will put Sanders in a negative light. It might be a severe misjudgment. If they have this moment one on one in a debate it could end really badly for Hillary.
So I was sidetracked by work most of the day yesterday and didn't get time to read the interview. Honestly, I don't get it. In a vacuum, if you turn your head the right way, his words can be twisted a bit. If you step back and look at the big picture with these words in the context of everything else, I don't see the big deal
You're good with doing this to Trump supporters and can't see what BnB is doing here? Really?
I never called any Trump supporter a moron. I wrote that they were either bigots, stupid, or uninformed, and that the vast majority were uninformed.
Sure, hereyago, just from yesterday's interview in which Hillary said some really not at all flawed things.
And you see this as a significant distinction? "moron" is a degree of "uninformed" and "stupid" if not two common characteristics of moron.
You really can't see that these are the same? Or does this basically come down to "it's OK when I do it because I'm right"?
There's a big difference between "people who do X are morons" and "you are a moron." One is a condemnation of X, the other condemns the person and is IMO meaner and more juvenile.
The "big difference" here amounts to being direct or passive aggressive.There's a big difference between "people who do X are morons" and "you are a moron." One is a condemnation of X, the other condemns the person and is IMO meaner and more juvenile.
Like for example I might say that Lakers fans are spoiled bandwagoning Kobe stans, but I would never describe my good friends Tim, Tommygunz and Groovus that way
Well, I happen to think that most Ohio State fans are morons but I would never say that to any specific fan-he or she might be that rare exception.
That's because they may not actually be morons. - falcon fans and Aggies are morons, there I said it. Can't come back from that, I don't want to.
No, they're both direct, they're just totally different things.
To each his own I suppose....when I read this, I find it very similar to "if you do X you're a moron". Leaving just enough room for ambiguity in both cases. Not a big deal either way. It seemed clear to me what BnB was doing, but perhaps I was wrong. We can move on.
http://www.mediaite.com/print/diane-feinstein-has-to-use-google-when-asked-hillary-clintons-accomplishments/
http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Feinstein-Clinton-wasn-t-in-Senate-long-enough-7216431.php
It is a silly question IMO. They're both exceptionally qualified. Sanders more so than Clinton when it comes to the nuances of the Hill and the legislative process, Clinton more so than Sanders when it comes to diplomacy, and on and on.
One luxury we have as voters is the ability to make personal judgements about candidates based on alignment with what we care about. While I agree with your desire to see a more straight-forward honest approach from Hillary, my sense is that it's asking a leopard to change its spots.
Yes, because the NSA should have been doing their jobs and not allowed it to happen.
If she took positions, owned them, explained them, and used the facts we all know she knows by heart to back them up and tell everyone what the express motivations are behind her decisions and just let the voters decide based on her actual work, there's a chance Sanders would have only won Vermont.
I can't imagine that's ever caused any problems in the White House before. I'm combing through presidential history - all the way through to 1968 so far. I'll let you know if I find anything.
Like her positions on child healthcare and education. Those are the positions she has taken, owned and stuck with her entire career and it shows. How people don't see the difference between her approach to these topics and just about everything else is beyond me.
http://m.jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation#showInfo=http://m.wap.jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation?fmt=www
Judgment also matters.
This is Bernie's line, and I find it to be very short-sided, though not because I am a Clinton supporter. If Bernie had voted for the war, and Hillary against, and Hillary made this same argument I would defend Bernie.
I don't believe that's true. You just don't think this single political vote should be representative of overall judgment, period. I guarantee you there are things that, if voted for, you would consider to be disqualifying based on overall judgment. My line is just not as far out as yours on the disqualification issue.
Good, I figured you'd come up with something like that.
If someone - in today's society, in the United States, in 2016 - voted for a version of the Reich Citizenship Law of 1935 in the U.S. and you wouldn't disqualify that person from the office of President for the judgment rendered in that decision, you're a very dangerous kind of voter. I implore you to think about this issue. In depth. And all of the judgment calls that go with that decision, including whether the law would be Constitutional, the path it would send our country down, and related issues.
I think I made my statement quite clearly in that post. I don't feel the need to clarify it further.
Lots of things have changed in the meantime. For example, the Iraq war enjoyed quite a bit of popular support when Hillary voted for it. But it was very unpopular when she turned against it.
I don't know if it's lack of judgement but her actual policy and ideology. Ok, perhaps the policy has been a bad and misjudged one, sure, call it that.
