Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

 Saying it was a mistake is an apology.

It's really not but aside from the basic tautological issue - Hillary says Iraq was a mistake (for her) the way she says the email server was a "mistake". She got caught. It was a mistake because people are angry at her, if she "apologized" (using that word) it's because it has caused so much trouble (and that's our fault)..

People don't realize that all this stuff, scandal, investigations, whatever, even if you take the alleged criminality out of it, and even if you take the really lousy judgement out of it, you have someone who as a matter of philosophy does things which she thinks she can get away with because she will not be caught and because there won't be repercussions because no one will know. Throw in her compulsiveness and Bill's impulsiveness and it's a bad mix.

 

[The Commish]

 Saying it was a mistake is an apology.

:I appreciate the double standard here Mr "If she didn't say these exact words.....er, CONTEXT!!!!!" guy....not lost on me...well done  

 

[cobalt_27]

It was interpreted by most news sources as an apology, which it was.  Sorry, but saying you made a mistake is considered an apology. And it is a matter of semantics contrary to your assertion otherwise.

Unequivocally, this is inaccurate.

 

[The Commish]

And she should. We must be prepared to use military force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, if it ever comes to that. Every US President, past and present, that has been faced with this as an issue has said the exact same thing. That is a far different issue from whether or not we should have overthrown Saddam Hussein in 2003. 

we have an agreement in place guy....no need for war here

 

[Sweet J]

I don't understand everyone's fascination with taking down the two party system in America.  Because the way American political system works, it will always end up with a two party system.  There really isn't a way to avoid it without changing the very structure of our representative democracy. 

Now, we certainly could get rid of one or both of the current political parties.  But then a new party would spring up in it's place (or possibly multiple parties could spring up, but they would always revert to an ultimate two party system).

 

[cobalt_27]

Do your on dirty work. Google it it is out there.

Google makes no reference to a Hillary apology.

 

[squistion]

Unequivocally, this is inaccurate.

Nope.

 

[IC FBGCav]

we have an agreement in place guy....no need for war here

The Hildos get aroused at the "hawkish" side of her.

 

[GroveDiesel]

 Saying it was a mistake is an apology.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "was" is I guess. 

 

[timschochet]

Cobalt: Mistake, apology, I really don't care. If you want to "gotcha" me by proving it wasn't an actually apology, have at it. Personally, I don't make that distinction. 

 

[Cjw_55106]

It was interpreted by most news sources as an apology, which it was.  Sorry, but saying you made a mistake is considered an apology. And it is a matter of semantics contrary to your assertion otherwise.

Maybe she should throw in a "my bad". 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Okay... instead of status "quo-ing", you're fear mongering. I despise that even worse. 

And I despise it when people insist on downplaying the massive dangers of having a misogynistic Islamophobic xenophobic conspiracy theorist with no foreign policy background and acute narcissistic personality disorder as president of the United States.  What a coincidence!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Cobalt: Mistake, apology, I really don't care. If you want to "gotcha" me by proving it wasn't an actually apology, have at it. Personally, I don't make that distinction. 

:stampsfeet:notlistening:stampstampstamp:

 

[bueno]

And she should. We must be prepared to use military force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, if it ever comes to that. Every US President, past and present, that has been faced with this as an issue has said the exact same thing. That is a far different issue from whether or not we should have overthrown Saddam Hussein in 2003. 

I'm thinking North Korea with nukes is worse than Iran with Nukes - not much worse but still worse. Bush wasn't off the mark with his axis of evil - the actions he took were.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't understand everyone's fascination with taking down the two party system in America.  Because the way American political system works, it will always end up with a two party system.  There really isn't a way to avoid it without changing the very structure of our representative democracy. 

Now, we certainly could get rid of one or both of the current political parties.  But then a new party would spring up in it's place (or possibly multiple parties could spring up, but they would always revert to an ultimate two party system).

Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton SOS/_(Clinton running for president)_/Clinton/Clinton

 

[cobalt_27]

Nope.

As a Clinton fanboy, I understand you would be a champion of contorting words into meaning things they don't connote (such as the meaning of what the word 'is' is, for example).  Admitting a mistake may be a component of an apology, but it is not an apology.  "I made a mistake on my taxes," for example, is not an apology.  But, saying "I made a mistake on the Iraq vote, and I am sorry" would be an apology.  Hillary left out the essential part of one...she left out the apology.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And I despise it when people insist on downplaying the massive dangers of having a misogynistic Islamophobic xenophobic conspiracy theorist with no foreign policy background and acute narcissistic personality disorder as president of the United States.  What a coincidence!

Seriously. If a Presidential candidate that likes the ideas of nuclear proliferation and defaulting on the national debt doesn't scare the piss out of you, then there's really nowhere to go with the conversation.

 

[squistion]

Cobalt: Mistake, apology, I really don't care. If you want to "gotcha" me by proving it wasn't an actually apology, have at it. Personally, I don't make that distinction. 

A distinction without a difference as far as most people are concerned. It is laughable that unless she utters the exact words "I apologize" she is not making an apology.

mis·take

məˈstāk/  

noun
noun: mistake; plural noun: mistakes

1. 
   
   1.
   
   
   an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.
   "coming here was a mistake"
   
   synonyms:
   
   
   error, fault, inaccuracy, omission, slip, blunder, miscalculation, misunderstanding, oversight, misinterpretation, gaffe, faux pas, solecism; More
   
   
   
   slip of the tongue, eggcorn;
   informalslip-up, boo-boo, blooper, boner, goof, flub
   
   "I assumed it had been a mistake"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   go wrong, err, make an error, blunder, miscalculate;
   informalslip up, make a boo-boo, drop the ball, goof (up)
   
   "he admits he's made a mistake"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   • 
     
     
     
     something, especially a word, figure, or fact, that is not correct; an inaccuracy.
     "a couple of spelling mistakes"
     
     
     
   
   
   
   
   

verb
verb: mistake; 3rd person present: mistakes; past tense: mistook; gerund or present participle: mistaking; past participle: mistaken

1. 
   
   1.
   
   
   be wrong about.
   "because I was inexperienced, I mistook the nature of our relationship"
   
   synonyms:
   
   
   misunderstand, misinterpret, get wrong, misconstrue, misread More
   
   
   
   
   "did I mistake your meaning?"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   be wrong, be in error, be under a misapprehension, be misinformed, be misguided;
   informalbe barking up the wrong tree
   
   "I'm afraid you are mistaken—I've never been here before"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   • 
     
     
     
     wrongly identify someone or something as.
     
     
     
   
   
   
   
   

 

[TobiasFunke]

I guess I'm responsible for this mistake/apology nonsense since I was the one who said she apologized while Cheney, Bush and Rove had not.  That was wrong of me to say, she never apologized.  She said she made a mistake, which considering it was just a yes/no vote and not a massive undertaking of warfare was plenty for me. 

BTW to my knowledge Cheney, Bush and Rove also have not admitted they made a mistake (or I guess in their case thousands of them), so my argument that they should not be grouped together. still stands.  Everyone happy?

 

[Politician Spock]

And I despise it when people insist on downplaying the massive dangers of having a misogynistic Islamophobic xenophobic conspiracy theorist with no foreign policy background and acute narcissistic personality disorder as president of the United States.  What a coincidence!

I've never downplayed it all. I only fail to see Hillary as an improvement. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Cobalt: Mistake, apology, I really don't care. If you want to "gotcha" me by proving it wasn't an actually apology, have at it. Personally, I don't make that distinction. 

It's not a gotchya moment, I just want you to be accurate in describing Hillary's record.

 

[GroveDiesel]

And I despise it when people insist on downplaying the massive dangers of having a misogynistic Islamophobic xenophobic conspiracy theorist with no foreign policy background and acute narcissistic personality disorder as president of the United States.  What a coincidence!

Yeah, I agree that they both suck. It's why I'm going to choose to punish both parties by picking a third party candidate that I don't think is an incompetent egotistical jackass.

But my guess is that you'll reward one of the parties for nominating a scumbag and vote for that party's scumbag because you're afraid. And many more people will do that on both sides. Enough probably that they will be complicit in electing a dangerous individual to lead our country despite alternatives existing.

 

[cobalt_27]

I guess I'm responsible for this mistake/apology nonsense since I was the one who said she apologized while Cheney, Bush and Rove had not.  That was wrong of me to say, she never apologized.  She said she made a mistake, which considering it was just a yes/no vote and not a massive undertaking of warfare was plenty for me. 

BTW to my knowledge Cheney, Bush and Rove also have not admitted they made a mistake (or I guess in their case thousands of them), so my argument that they should not be grouped together. still stands.  Everyone happy?

I'm all behind this.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've never downplayed it all. I only fail to see Hillary as an improvement. 

Interesting.

Which of the listed traits (misogyny, Islamophobia, xenophobia, conspiracy theorist, no foreign policy background, narcissistic personality disorder and I'll add a lack of understanding of the basics of separation of power under our Constitution) do you think is applicable to Clinton?

What negative traits of Clinton do you think Trump does not share?

 

[Cjw_55106]

I guess I'm responsible for this mistake/apology nonsense since I was the one who said she apologized while Cheney, Bush and Rove had not.  That was wrong of me to say, she never apologized.  She said she made a mistake, which considering it was just a yes/no vote and not a massive undertaking of warfare was plenty for me. 

BTW to my knowledge Cheney, Bush and Rove also have not admitted they made a mistake (or I guess in their case thousands of them), so my argument that they should not be grouped together. still stands.  Everyone happy?

I'll keep this in mind when Cheney, Bush or Rove run for office. 

 

[bueno]

Yeah, it's obvious that he wants us to assume the worst for Clinton, but the best for Trump in this hypothetical game.  

It is a hypothetical, to be certain. Trump is too volatile top be President, Hillary is too sloppy. Both should be disqualified. I reject the mentality that "Trump is so bad that I have to vote for Hillary." They are both really, really, bad!

 

[The Commish]

Cobalt: Mistake, apology, I really don't care. If you want to "gotcha" me by proving it wasn't an actually apology, have at it. Personally, I don't make that distinction. 

Which is funny in light of the distinctions you DO make....see "security review" vs "criminal investigation" or "the server is being reviewed, not Hillary" (though not sure that was you....that one was one of the best)

 

[timschochet]

Well we can be sure if presented with the same WMD situation in Iran, Bush, Cheney, Rove and Hillary would do the same thing. Because Hillary has never said her policy was wrong and neither have they.

You keep repeating this. It's not the same situation. If Iran has nukes, whatever you think should be done about it, that's a VERY different issue than Iraq in 2003. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'll keep this in mind when Cheney, Bush or Rove run for office. 

I wasn't discussing them as candidates, I was responding directly to a post that said she's just as hawkish as them.  It wasn't my comparison.

 

[Politician Spock]

Interesting.

Which of the listed traits (misogyny, Islamophobia, xenophobia, conspiracy theorist, no foreign policy background, narcissistic personality disorder and I'll add a lack of understanding of the basics of separation of power under our Constitution) do you think is applicable to Clinton?

What negative traits of Clinton do you think Trump does not share?

I think terrorists would exploit the crap out of her. But to be honest, I have no desire to get brought down to a debate of whose #### stinks more. They both stink, and in a country of 300+ million people, the belief that we have to chose one of those two is a serious flaw in how people in this country think. It is a decision that appears logical, but is inherently illogical as it starts with the premise that people are stupid.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You keep repeating this. It's not the same situation. If Iran has nukes, whatever you think should be done about it, that's a VERY different issue than Iraq in 2003. 

Why? The allegation - the factual claim - was that Iraq had WMD. If true Hillary would have done nothing different. In fact Hillary further went on the Senate floor to vouch for the actions and findings of her husband's administration to further bolster the factual claims. Meanwhile she did not even bother to check out the briefing. Hillary would do nothing different today.

 

[timschochet]

I'm honestly flabbergasted that anybody could suggest, objectively, that a Hillary Clinton presidency and a Donald Trump presidency would be "equally as bad", or that Hillary would be worse. All I can surmise is that either you're not really paying attention to Donald Trump, or you simply don't believe most of what he says (if the latter is the case, you'd still have to explain why a lying Donald Trump would be superior to a lying Hillary Clinton.) 

 

[Jayrok]

And she should. We must be prepared to use military force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, if it ever comes to that. Every US President, past and present, that has been faced with this as an issue has said the exact same thing. That is a far different issue from whether or not we should have overthrown Saddam Hussein in 2003. 

Hey, there is something that we can agree on.  Good posting. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm honestly flabbergasted that anybody could suggest, objectively, that a Hillary Clinton presidency and a Donald Trump presidency would be "equally as bad", or that Hillary would be worse. All I can surmise is that either you're not really paying attention to Donald Trump, or you simply don't believe most of what he says (if the latter is the case, you'd still have to explain why a lying Donald Trump would be superior to a lying Hillary Clinton.) 

Why? This would only be necessary for someone planning on voting for Trump.

Neither one is worthy of my vote, so putting them on a scale of who is better/worse is a waste of time. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

When posters point out the obvious lunatic Trump is, the response is "they both suck". Why is "they both suck" a nullification argument against Hillary, but not Trump? Choosing the least worst option in life is "grown-up" reality sometimes. The "system" arguments are so tiring already. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, I agree that they both suck. It's why I'm going to choose to punish both parties by picking a third party candidate that I don't think is an incompetent egotistical jackass.

But my guess is that you'll reward one of the parties for nominating a scumbag and vote for that party's scumbag because you're afraid. And many more people will do that on both sides. Enough probably that they will be complicit in electing a dangerous individual to lead our country despite alternatives existing.

I'm going to use my vote in the way that I think is best for me, my family, my friends and my country.  I think the best way to do that is to rebuke Trumpism and everything that it stands for in favor of a candidate who shares my opinions on a wide variety of issues.  Fear has nothing to do with it ... although it is a remarkable coincidence that most of the people downplaying the dangers of a Trump presidency don't belong to any of the minority groups he and/or large numbers of his supporters have targeted and don't live in any of the places most likely to be targeted by the increased terrorist activity his candidacy and presidency is likely to produce.

And I disagree that Clinton is a "dangerous individual."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If your governor will start doing his job instead of following Donald Trump around, holding his coat, maybe we could really get New Jersey's economy moving again.

- HDR22

(I confess I like this).

 

[timschochet]

Why? The allegation - the factual claim - was that Iraq had WMD. If true Hillary would have done nothing different. In fact Hillary further went on the Senate floor to vouch for the actions and findings of her husband's administration to further bolster the factual claims. Meanwhile she did not even bother to check out the briefing.

First off when Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion she assumed, wrongly, that President Bush had a reasonable plan for the governance of the country after the overthrow of Saddam. If she had been in charge I believe there would have been such a plan in place (and before you bring up Libya, remember that those weren't our forces overthrowing Libya, so again that situation was different and much more difficult.) 

Second, Iraq was relatively easy to invade- its military forces could not stand up to ours. Iran is a whole different ball of wax. I'm not sure at all that Russia wouldn't get involved, and we might be looking at World War III. My point is that while it's extremely important for us to say that we are prepared to use military force to prevent a nuclear Iran, I believe Hillary in the actuality would be quite cautious- yet another reason I prefer her to Trump, whom I don't believe would be cautious at all. 

 

[Slapdash]

Well we can be sure if presented with the same WMD situation in Iran, Bush, Cheney, Rove and Hillary would do the same thing. Because Hillary has never said her policy was wrong and neither have they.

You keep repeating this. It's not the same situation. If Iran has nukes, whatever you think should be done about it, that's a VERY different issue than Iraq in 2003. 

What if we just think they have nukes like the Bush crowd asserted in 01-03?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why? This would only be necessary for someone planning on voting for Trump.

Neither one is worthy of my vote, so putting them on a scale of who is better/worse is a waste of time. 

To be fair you're getting these questions because you said you "fail to see Hillary as an improvement," which obviously suggests they're both equally bad.  It's those words you are being asked to defend, not your decision to vote third party.

 

[timschochet]

Why? This would only be necessary for someone planning on voting for Trump.

Neither one is worthy of my vote, so putting them on a scale of who is better/worse is a waste of time. 

"Neither one is worthy of my vote" is a separate argument than "they are both equally bad." Forget your vote. One of these two people is going to be our next President. Do you honestly believe that it doesn't matter which one, that they will both be equally bad"? Because that's the part I just don't get. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

First off when Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion she assumed, wrongly, that President Bush had a reasonable plan for the governance of the country after the overthrow of Saddam. If she had been in charge I believe there would have been such a plan in place (and before you bring up Libya, remember that those weren't our forces overthrowing Libya, so again that situation was different and much more difficult.) 

Second, Iraq was relatively easy to invade- its military forces could not stand up to ours. Iran is a whole different ball of wax. I'm not sure at all that Russia wouldn't get involved, and we might be looking at World War III. My point is that while it's extremely important for us to say that we are prepared to use military force to prevent a nuclear Iran, I believe Hillary in the actuality would be quite cautious- yet another reason I prefer her to Trump, whom I don't believe would be cautious at all. 

Like Bush she thought the intel too good to check. Like Bush she did not think the war would go longer than a month. Like Bush she thought the war would be popular. Like Bush she did not think of the long term ramifications in the mideast, which we still feel today.

The whole policy was wrong and she has not changed it, admitted that it (the policy) was a mistake or apologized for the effects of her vote on it (and that is not to say her vote or role was as great as Bush's but it was an important vote and and it was a role).

We have a 25 year long mideast policy which is frankly a disaster. We are at air or ground war in what 7 countries (Afg, Pak, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, HOA)? We have terrorist attacks as a serious threat (and repeated occurrence) in our own nation. The effects have even extended to Europe and NATO. Nothing on this seems to have registered with her. Her policy is the same.

eta - I admit to not knowing what the right policy is. I'm confounded, but what I want right now is someone I trust to lead us. This is where all the "lying" comes in. It's important.

 

[Politician Spock]

To be fair you're getting these questions because you said you "fail to see Hillary as an improvement," not because people are trying to convince you not to vote third party.  It's those words you are being asked to defend, not your decision to vote third party.

I fail to see her as an improvement because I have zero trust in either of them. Zero isn't a matter of degrees. 

 

[Politician Spock]

"Neither one is worthy of my vote" is a separate argument than "they are both equally bad." Forget your vote. One of these two people is going to be our next President. Do you honestly believe that it doesn't matter which one, that they will both be equally bad"? Because that's the part I just don't get. 

I have not conceded to the bolded. The fact that many Americans do IS THE PROBLEM!!!

 

[timschochet]

I have not conceded to the bolded. The fact that many Americans do IS THE PROBLEM!!!

Ah.

Well, for the sake of this discussion, if you DID concede that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be our next President, are they both equally bad to you? Or is one worse than the other? 

 

[Politician Spock]

Ah.

Well, for the sake of this discussion, if you DID concede that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be our next President, are they both equally bad to you? Or is one worse than the other? 

I'd be more likely to discuss which of two turds stinks more... and that is to say your question is a complete waste of my time. 

 

[timschochet]

I'd be more likely to discuss which of two turds stinks more... and that is to say your question is a complete waste of my time. 

And again, I'm flabbergasted by this response. 

 

[badmojo1006]

I have not conceded to the bolded. The fact that many Americans do IS THE PROBLEM!!!

You didn't answer my question. Who then? Otherwise, you a pipe-dream that somebody is going to magically pop up and save the USA.

 

[Politician Spock]

You didn't answer my question. Who then? Otherwise, you a pipe-dream that somebody is going to magically pop up and save the USA.

Neither. 

And pipe dreams have made this country what it is. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I fail to see her as an improvement because I have zero trust in either of them. Zero isn't a matter of degrees. 

This is some pretty weird thinking.

"Honey, we need a babysitter tonight. How about John Wayne Gacy?"

"No way."

"OK, well how about Lance Armstrong?"

"Don't trust him at all, so I fail to see that as an improvement."