Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)

[Trey]

Clinton camp on the prowl today. Finally hitting Bernie on how the hell are you paying for the unicorns and bounce house at the birthday party..

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-taxes-middle-class-bernie-sanders-215958

 

[jon_mx]

Larry Klayman is a kook, but opening up records for the public to see is good work and is one of the best uses of government spending. At this point there is nothing Hillary could do that Tim would not be defensive about. Really, complaining about transparency with government politicians? Bill and Hillary have enriched their personal finances with millions and millions of dollars with involvement with companies they had direct influence on through their government positions and authority. Only politicians can get away with that kind of unethical relationships. For millions of other government employees, that would be clearly illegal.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Updated 2016 Odds (Bovada)

Hillary -125

Rubio +400

Trump +600

Bernie +1200

Cruz/Carson/Bush +1800

Christie +3300

Kasich +5000

Fiorina +7500

Has she been favored vs the field for a while? I don't remember seeing it before, seems like last time I checked it was even money

It's fascinating to me that the people who make the betting lines see Rubio as such a favorite for the GOP nom. Feels like a hot sleeper draft pick that progressively goes in the higher rounds ADP because ... well... because.

The fact that oddsmakers have Rubio as by far the most likely Republican to win the Presidency does not necessarily mean he's by far the most likely to win the nomination.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Clinton camp on the prowl today. Finally hitting Bernie on how the hell are you paying for the unicorns and bounce house at the birthday party..

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-taxes-middle-class-bernie-sanders-215958

Typical Clinton scare tactics.

The reality is that the increase in taxes is more than offset by no insurance premiums - you are essentially using your tax money as insurance premiums.

One of the few economic projections of a single-payer plan, by the University of Massachusetts economist Gerald Friedman, estimated that the plan would cost about $1.5 trillion a year, but raise overall income for 95 percent of Americans, after accounting for tax changes and lower health costs.

To be fair to Clinton, Sanders has proposed a new tax of $1.38 per week on workers to pay for the 12 weeks of paid Family and Medical Care Leave.

Its nice to support someone who actually supports family values.

 

[timschochet]

I finally got to watch the debate from Saturday. When it comes to foreign policy and fighting terrorism and ISIS, Clinton is so much better than her Democratic rivals, and so infinitely better than the cartoon like approach of the Republican candidates, that it's not even close. Her ideas, knowledge and approach are all on a completely different level. She's playing in the NFL. Sanders is a good college football team and the Republican candidates are playing in high school (Trump, Carson and Cruz in JV).

 

[The Commish]

Clinton camp on the prowl today. Finally hitting Bernie on how the hell are you paying for the unicorns and bounce house at the birthday party..

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-taxes-middle-class-bernie-sanders-215958

She should listen to what he's saying instead of spewing the false narrative

 

[The Commish]

I finally got to watch the debate from Saturday. When it comes to foreign policy and fighting terrorism and ISIS, Clinton is so much better than her Democratic rivals, and so infinitely better than the cartoon like approach of the Republican candidates, that it's not even close. Her ideas, knowledge and approach are all on a completely different level. She's playing in the NFL. Sanders is a good college football team and the Republican candidates are playing in high school (Trump, Carson and Cruz in JV)

It's interesting you didn't comment on the domestic part of this whole thing.....well, not interesting but obvious.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Clinton charities refile 6 years of IRS returns. Appears Reuters found some errors Clinton's accountants missed.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/clinton-charities-refile-six-years-tax-returns-amend-030834783.html

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and an associated charity refiled tax returns for six years with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to amend their reporting of donations from foreign governments and other errors, the charities said on Monday.

The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year.

.

.

.

Among other amendments, the foundation now reports receiving nearly $20 million in funds from governments, mostly foreign governments, between 2010 and 2013. The foundation had previously neglected to separately state its government funding as required on its original returns, although it continued to acknowledge foreign governments' support throughout this period on its website and in its publications.

The charities pay no taxes on their donations, but are required to file annual returns with the IRS to maintain their tax-exempt status and to make them public to anyone who wants to see how they raise and spend money.

The amended forms also break out the charities' income derived from the Clintons' speeches to corporations, among other amendments.

 

[The Commish]

General query here....how long before the Clinton machine has Shultz fired? She's done the heavy lifting around the debates, now it seems every time she opens her mouth it hurts. She's done her job....is it time for her to get the boot?

 

[Sinn Fein]

General query here....how long before the Clinton machine has Shultz fired? She's done the heavy lifting around the debates, now it seems every time she opens her mouth it hurts. She's done her job....is it time for her to get the boot?

Clinton won't have Shultz fired - promises were made.

Shultz will step down after the election though...

 

[timschochet]

I finally got to watch the debate from Saturday. When it comes to foreign policy and fighting terrorism and ISIS, Clinton is so much better than her Democratic rivals, and so infinitely better than the cartoon like approach of the Republican candidates, that it's not even close. Her ideas, knowledge and approach are all on a completely different level. She's playing in the NFL. Sanders is a good college football team and the Republican candidates are playing in high school (Trump, Carson and Cruz in JV)

It's interesting you didn't comment on the domestic part of this whole thing.....well, not interesting but obvious.

If you're talking about the 9/11 comment I saw that clip earlier and commented on it already. I am disappointed by Hillary's move to the left on a few domestic issues (especially her rejection of TPP). But overall I can live with it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I finally got to watch the debate from Saturday. When it comes to foreign policy and fighting terrorism and ISIS, Clinton is so much better than her Democratic rivals, and so infinitely better than the cartoon like approach of the Republican candidates, that it's not even close. Her ideas, knowledge and approach are all on a completely different level. She's playing in the NFL. Sanders is a good college football team and the Republican candidates are playing in high school (Trump, Carson and Cruz in JV)

It's interesting you didn't comment on the domestic part of this whole thing.....well, not interesting but obvious.

If you're talking about the 9/11 comment I saw that clip earlier and commented on it already.I am disappointed by Hillary's move to the left on a few domestic issues (especially her rejection of TPP). But overall I can live with it.

Oh don't worry, she means none of it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I agree with Tim that Clinton sounds impressive when discussing foreign policy. For me a big moment of the debate was when she criticized Sanders for including Jordan in his "countries that should be doing more."

I do worry that Hillary would be much more hawkish than Sanders though. I think I prefer a less-knowledgeable President with dovish instincts to a more-knowledgeable President that is hawkish.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Clinton charities refile 6 years of IRS returns. Appears Reuters found some errors Clinton's accountants missed.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/clinton-charities-refile-six-years-tax-returns-amend-030834783.html

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and an associated charity refiled tax returns for six years with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to amend their reporting of donations from foreign governments and other errors, the charities said on Monday.

The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year.

.

.

.

Among other amendments, the foundation now reports receiving nearly $20 million in funds from governments, mostly foreign governments, between 2010 and 2013. The foundation had previously neglected to separately state its government funding as required on its original returns, although it continued to acknowledge foreign governments' support throughout this period on its website and in its publications.

The charities pay no taxes on their donations, but are required to file annual returns with the IRS to maintain their tax-exempt status and to make them public to anyone who wants to see how they raise and spend money.

The amended forms also break out the charities' income derived from the Clintons' speeches to corporations, among other amendments.

The actual headline: The Clinton Foundation hid $20 million in payments from foreign governments.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree with Tim that Clinton sounds impressive when discussing foreign policy. For me a big moment of the debate was when she criticized Sanders for including Jordan in his "countries that should be doing more."

I do worry that Hillary would be much more hawkish than Sanders though. I think I prefer a less-knowledgeable President with dovish instincts to a more-knowledgeable President that is hawkish.

I love Bernie and his supporters, one is a friend of mine, but I'm sorry pairing Hillary versus Bernie and O'Malley (!) on foreign policy is like watching a JAG backup guard in the NBA play a high school senior one on one. It's absurd to watch as a mismatch but it doesn't tell us anything. Hillary has confidence and speaks with authority (sometimes in her old lady shouty voice) but that is just an old lawyer trick, speak like you absolutely know what you're talking about and people will believe you. Reality is the hallmarks of her foreign policy have been her Iraq War speech and rallying support for the vote, the overthrow of Khaddafi and the arming of rebels there, and the TPP (which is indeed an accomplishment, regardless of how you view it, but she now disowns). Someone should point out that Obama put Biden in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan, that's how he viewed her.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with Tim that Clinton sounds impressive when discussing foreign policy. For me a big moment of the debate was when she criticized Sanders for including Jordan in his "countries that should be doing more."

I do worry that Hillary would be much more hawkish than Sanders though. I think I prefer a less-knowledgeable President with dovish instincts to a more-knowledgeable President that is hawkish.

Hillary is more hawkish for sure, but she is also pragmatic and that is the key. My main issue with Sanders with regard to foreign policy is not his positions per se but that he is an ideologue; I believe that he will stick to his philosophy no matter what the facts on the ground are. That's why he voted against the Iraq invasion, which his supporters give him great credit for. They believe he voted against it because he had greater perception than Hillary and those who voted for it. But the real reason he voted against it, as he alluded to Saturday night, is that he associated it with our removal of Allende in Chile, our removal of Mossedegh in Iran etc. in other words he saw the removal of Saddam within the terms of a narrow leftist ideological prism in which the USA is the imperialistic villain. That's the wrong way to look at things IMO, and I fear that it would lead Sanders as President to make bad decisions (this is the same problem I have with him on economics as well FWIW- he refused to vote for TARP because it didn't fit his ideology- sometimes you have to say screw ideology, let's solve the problem. That's what Hillary is all about. )

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I agree with Tim that Clinton sounds impressive when discussing foreign policy. For me a big moment of the debate was when she criticized Sanders for including Jordan in his "countries that should be doing more."

I do worry that Hillary would be much more hawkish than Sanders though. I think I prefer a less-knowledgeable President with dovish instincts to a more-knowledgeable President that is hawkish.

Hillary is more hawkish for sure, but she is also pragmatic and that is the key. My main issue with Sanders with regard to foreign policy is not his positions per se but that he is an ideologue; I believe that he will stick to his philosophy no matter what the facts on the ground are. That's why he voted against the Iraq invasion, which his supporters give him great credit for. They believe he voted against it because he had greater perception than Hillary and those who voted for it. But the real reason he voted against it, as he alluded to Saturday night, is that he associated it with our removal of Allende in Chile, our removal of Mossedegh in Iran etc. in other words he saw the removal of Saddam within the terms of a narrow leftist ideological prism in which the USA is the imperialistic villain. That's the wrong way to look at things IMO, and I fear that it would lead Sanders as President to make bad decisions (this is the same problem I have with him on economics as well FWIW- he refused to vote for TARP because it didn't fit his ideology- sometimes you have to say screw ideology, let's solve the problem. That's what Hillary is all about. )

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an ideology that regime change often brings lots of negative unintended consequences.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with Tim that Clinton sounds impressive when discussing foreign policy. For me a big moment of the debate was when she criticized Sanders for including Jordan in his "countries that should be doing more."

I do worry that Hillary would be much more hawkish than Sanders though. I think I prefer a less-knowledgeable President with dovish instincts to a more-knowledgeable President that is hawkish.

I love Bernie and his supporters, one is a friend of mine, but I'm sorry pairing Hillary versus Bernie and O'Malley (!) on foreign policy is like watching a JAG backup guard in the NBA play a high school senior one on one. It's absurd to watch as a mismatch but it doesn't tell us anything. Hillary has confidence and speaks with authority (sometimes in her old lady shouty voice) but that is just an old lawyer trick, speak like you absolutely know what you're talking about and people will believe you. Reality is the hallmarks of her foreign policy have been her Iraq War speech and rallying support for the vote, the overthrow of Khaddafi and the arming of rebels there, and the TPP (which is indeed an accomplishment, regardless of how you view it, but she now disowns). Someone should point out that Obama put Biden in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan, that's how he viewed her.

This is a terrible misreading of Obama and Hillary. Someday you're going to have to accept the reality that Obama likes Hillary and considered her an outstanding and highly competent Secretary of State and relied on her as much as anyone in his administration.

 

[dhockster]

Clinton charities refile 6 years of IRS returns. Appears Reuters found some errors Clinton's accountants missed.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/clinton-charities-refile-six-years-tax-returns-amend-030834783.html

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and an associated charity refiled tax returns for six years with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to amend their reporting of donations from foreign governments and other errors, the charities said on Monday.

The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year.

.

.

.

Among other amendments, the foundation now reports receiving nearly $20 million in funds from governments, mostly foreign governments, between 2010 and 2013. The foundation had previously neglected to separately state its government funding as required on its original returns, although it continued to acknowledge foreign governments' support throughout this period on its website and in its publications.

The charities pay no taxes on their donations, but are required to file annual returns with the IRS to maintain their tax-exempt status and to make them public to anyone who wants to see how they raise and spend money.

The amended forms also break out the charities' income derived from the Clintons' speeches to corporations, among other amendments.

The actual headline: The Clinton Foundation hid $20 million in payments from foreign governments.

So did the Foundation have an independent auditor issue an opinion on those financial statements in the years that the income was underreported? And if income was underreported, there had to have been expenses underreported or you would have had cash with no source. If so, where did the cash from the underreported income end up?

 

[Sinn Fein]

I agree with Tim that Clinton sounds impressive when discussing foreign policy. For me a big moment of the debate was when she criticized Sanders for including Jordan in his "countries that should be doing more."

I do worry that Hillary would be much more hawkish than Sanders though. I think I prefer a less-knowledgeable President with dovish instincts to a more-knowledgeable President that is hawkish.

She talks a good game - but when you look at her positions on Iraq, Syria, Libya, you just scratch your head, and wonder how did she reach those decisions. They were remarkably poor policy decisions.

Probably her best foreign policy moment was letting Russia have Ukraine without a fight.

Not really sure what that says about her judgment - given the wealth of "experience" she has.

I would not want her answering the call at 3:00 am...

 

[jon_mx]

I think Tim is right. Hillary is very pragmatic. Whatever puts the most money in her pocket.

 

[Slapdash]

I agree with Tim that Clinton sounds impressive when discussing foreign policy. For me a big moment of the debate was when she criticized Sanders for including Jordan in his "countries that should be doing more."

I do worry that Hillary would be much more hawkish than Sanders though. I think I prefer a less-knowledgeable President with dovish instincts to a more-knowledgeable President that is hawkish.

Hillary is more hawkish for sure, but she is also pragmatic and that is the key. My main issue with Sanders with regard to foreign policy is not his positions per se but that he is an ideologue; I believe that he will stick to his philosophy no matter what the facts on the ground are. That's why he voted against the Iraq invasion, which his supporters give him great credit for. They believe he voted against it because he had greater perception than Hillary and those who voted for it. But the real reason he voted against it, as he alluded to Saturday night, is that he associated it with our removal of Allende in Chile, our removal of Mossedegh in Iran etc. in other words he saw the removal of Saddam within the terms of a narrow leftist ideological prism in which the USA is the imperialistic villain. That's the wrong way to look at things IMO, and I fear that it would lead Sanders as President to make bad decisions (this is the same problem I have with him on economics as well FWIW- he refused to vote for TARP because it didn't fit his ideology- sometimes you have to say screw ideology, let's solve the problem. That's what Hillary is all about. )

It less about ideology and more about learning from our mistakes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Clinton charities refile 6 years of IRS returns. Appears Reuters found some errors Clinton's accountants missed.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/clinton-charities-refile-six-years-tax-returns-amend-030834783.html

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and an associated charity refiled tax returns for six years with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to amend their reporting of donations from foreign governments and other errors, the charities said on Monday.

The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year.

.

.

.

Among other amendments, the foundation now reports receiving nearly $20 million in funds from governments, mostly foreign governments, between 2010 and 2013. The foundation had previously neglected to separately state its government funding as required on its original returns, although it continued to acknowledge foreign governments' support throughout this period on its website and in its publications.

The charities pay no taxes on their donations, but are required to file annual returns with the IRS to maintain their tax-exempt status and to make them public to anyone who wants to see how they raise and spend money.

The amended forms also break out the charities' income derived from the Clintons' speeches to corporations, among other amendments.

The actual headline: The Clinton Foundation hid $20 million in payments from foreign governments.

So did the Foundation have an independent auditor issue an opinion on those financial statements in the years that the income was underreported? And if income was underreported, there had to have been expenses underreported or you would have had cash with no source. If so, where did the cash from the underreported income end up?

I don't know the answers to the first two questions but they are good ones. IMO of course I think they should open their books now. This woman is likely our next president. Show the money.

On the last point, keep in mind that the Foundation made a massive accounting adjustment earlier this year in which they reassessed payments they had received and declared that payments they had received had been on behalf of Bill Clinton, so a good amount of money went through the Foundation to Bill and Hillary directly. That's typical two bit small time local non-profit illegality but writ large on a huge, multinational scale.

One other HUGE issue is that Hillary completely violated her contract with White House and Congress to report these incomes via her signed MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/memorandum_of_understanding_clinton.pdf

...these “donations” from foreign governments were required to be provided to and published and vetted by the State Department before the Clinton foundation cashed the check according to the agreement signed before she was appointed SOS. The State Department ethics group never saw a single one of them and Bill Clinton continued to solicit donations in violation of the contract they all had agreed to. And it appears he received some of these moneys personally and by consequence so did Hillary while she was SOS.

 

[pantagrapher]

SEIU endorses Clinton

 

[The Commish]

I finally got to watch the debate from Saturday. When it comes to foreign policy and fighting terrorism and ISIS, Clinton is so much better than her Democratic rivals, and so infinitely better than the cartoon like approach of the Republican candidates, that it's not even close. Her ideas, knowledge and approach are all on a completely different level. She's playing in the NFL. Sanders is a good college football team and the Republican candidates are playing in high school (Trump, Carson and Cruz in JV)

It's interesting you didn't comment on the domestic part of this whole thing.....well, not interesting but obvious.

If you're talking about the 9/11 comment I saw that clip earlier and commented on it already.I am disappointed by Hillary's move to the left on a few domestic issues (especially her rejection of TPP). But overall I can live with it.

I'm talking about most of her domestic policy where she's still willing to pick and choose who gets what Yes, the 9/11 comments were particularly embarrassing (especially in light of what's just happened in France) but that wasn't the worst part for me. It was the continuation of picking and choosing who's going to benefit that the Washington establishment is so enamored with.

ETA: And Tim, don't worry....by the time the general rolls around, she'll be saying what you want to hear. Just be patient. This is all part of the show.

 

[squistion]

SEIU endorses Clinton

Jonathan Martin ‏@jmartNYT ·

SEIU just endorsed Hillary, the latest sign of her tightened grip on the party. Recall: they backed Obama in '08. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/17/hillary-clinton-gets-important-labor-backing-from-s-e-i-u/

 

[RCon]

Her rant about September 11 seemed like she was confused, given that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Cbs poll shows Hillary won the second debate by 51 to 28, they must of missed this

Sorry, I'm not sure what one has to do with the other?

 

[MaxThreshold]

SEIU endorses Clinton

Rats, i was really counting on them endorsing Rubio. Well, maybe in 2020 they'll endorse him for his 2nd term.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SEIU endorses Clinton

Jonathan Martin ‏@jmartNYT ·

SEIU just endorsed Hillary, the latest sign of her tightened grip on the party. Recall: they backed Obama in '08. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/17/hillary-clinton-gets-important-labor-backing-from-s-e-i-u/

That's a nail in the coffin for Bernie, I think he had a straw of hope should he somehow win NH and/or Iowa that he could leapfrog to NV and win there with labor support, but he couldn't do it without SEIU. They're just getting on board with the winning horse at this point.

 

[MaxThreshold]

SEIU endorses Clinton

Jonathan Martin ‏@jmartNYT ·

SEIU just endorsed Hillary, the latest sign of her tightened grip on the party. Recall: they backed Obama in '08. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/17/hillary-clinton-gets-important-labor-backing-from-s-e-i-u/

That's a nail in the coffin for Bernie, I think he had a straw of hope should he somehow win NH and/or Iowa that he could leapfrog to NV and win there with labor support, but he couldn't do it without SEIU. They're just getting on board with the winning horse at this point.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that the SEIU endorses the corrupt, shady and untrustworthy candidate that Hillary is.

 

[Rove!]

This weekend several Republicans predictably attacked Obama and Hillary as weak against ISIS and called for a ground war. So that is a clear alternative we face between the two parties at this point.

I'm not sure Hillary is on the correct side of this equation Tim. Of all the people labeled "Democrat", I think the GOP has to be pretty happy with Hillary for this particular issue if her words are what she's really about. She seems to be McCain 2.0 on this particular issue.ETA: Nevermind....SID covered it

Definitely worth reiteration.

As I pointed out Hillary is the sort of leader who doesn't dismiss ANY ideas based on ideology- she may reach the conclusion that more ground troops are needed. But as of now she is willing to pursue Obama's strategies and I think that's wise. I also think she learned from the mistake of invading Iraq. It's rare to have a leader who can learn from previous error- another one of the many reasons why Hillary is by far the best candidate to be our next President.

I agree with Commish's point above, but I want to point something out about Hillary and Iraq.

This is kind of like Office Space where the Bobs 'fix the glitch' but Melvin remains in his cubicle in the basement. Hillary fixed the glitch by saying she was fooled or tricked by the bad intel coming out of the WH (arguably if you believe her she got fooled again in Benghazi but anyway...). Hillary did not say that if there were WMD in Iraq as suggested that she would have acted differently. The same way she is making the same noise with regard to Iran, nothing has changed, we know they have had a WMD program, presumably nothing would change with regard to the situation where they restarted it, it would be just like Iraq. And we know Syria has had chemical weapons and, like Afghanistan and AQ which she has never gone back on, they host ISIS. Hillary's policy on Iraq has never changed.

A lot of that same Intel came out of her husbands Wh too...

 

[squistion]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gop-refugees_564b754ee4b08cda348afa5b

Hillary Clinton: Turning Away Refugees Is 'New Low' For GOP

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton condemned Republicans for vowing to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States, calling the controversy a "new low" for the GOP.

Hillary Clinton ‎@HillaryClinton

We've seen a lot of hateful rhetoric from the GOP. But the idea that we'd turn away refugees because of religion is a new low. -H

In the wake of Friday's attacks in Paris, more than half of U.S. governors have promised to prevent Syrian refugees from entering their states, citing concerns over terrorism. All the governors who have spoken out against refugees are Republican, except for New Hampshire's Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan.

Republican presidential candidates have also joined the anti-refugee pile-on. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said allowing Muslim refugees in the U.S. would be "lunacy," while retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said going forward with President Barack Obama's plan to welcome 10,000 Syrians would require a "suspension of intellect."

Obama, meanwhile, has stood by his plan, insisting screenings would be "rigorous."

Clinton's rivals in the Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, have also stood by the president's plan.

"We will not be terrorized or live in fear. During these difficult times, we will not succumb to Islamophobia," Sanders said Monday. "We will not turn our backs on the refugees who are fleeing Syria and Afghanistan. We will do what we do best and that is be Americans fighting racism, fighting xenophobia, fighting fear."

O'Malley said Monday the U.S. should accept 65,000 Syrian refugees.

"There are women, there are children dying," he said. "They are fleeing the same sort of carnage that was unleashed on the people of France. ... I don't think it's too much to ask of us that we do our part here."

 

[The Commish]

That our politicians are using this crisis in politics at all is pretty pathetic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gop-refugees_564b754ee4b08cda348afa5b

Hillary Clinton: Turning Away Refugees Is 'New Low' For GOP

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton condemned Republicans for vowing to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States, calling the controversy a "new low" for the GOP.

Hillary Clinton ‎@HillaryClinton

We've seen a lot of hateful rhetoric from the GOP. But the idea that we'd turn away refugees because of religion is a new low. -H

...

Speaking on ABC's This Week shortly after September 11, 2001, Hillary Clinton refused to rule out profiling as a security-enhancing measure to stop terrorism.
"Let's talk about American life now, though," said ABC host Sam Donaldson. "What happens in the future from the standpoint of the question of security versus relaxation or giving up some of the freedoms that we've enjoyed in this country? How far do we go, for instance, on airline security?"

"Well, I think everyone recognizes we have to tighten security. We have to do whatever it takes to keep our people safe," Hillary Clinton replied.

Donaldson said, "Including profiling, senator?"

"I think we have to do whatever it takes, Sam. And I believe that, you know, Tuesday changed everything. Tuesday was a day that America has never, ever had to experience. And I hope to heaven that we never have to again. But we are in a war situation, and we're going to have to do things people do in times of war. I just heard your interview with the mayor, and I think he's right to look at examples in history like the Battle of Britain. Many of us have been studying what others did to carry on. And we know that we have to make tradeoffs in convenience, in our freedom of movement, without undercutting or losing our way of life and our values, which I really want to make America special and great. And we can't ever let anyone undermine that."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-911-hillary-didn-t-rule-out-profiling-security-enhancing-measure_1064918.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob3j3JQyeoE

That's our girl, whatever it takes.

 

[Trey]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gop-refugees_564b754ee4b08cda348afa5b

Hillary Clinton: Turning Away Refugees Is 'New Low' For GOP

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton condemned Republicans for vowing to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States, calling the controversy a "new low" for the GOP.

Hillary Clinton ‎@HillaryClinton

We've seen a lot of hateful rhetoric from the GOP. But the idea that we'd turn away refugees because of religion is a new low. -H

...

Speaking on ABC's This Week shortly after September 11, 2001, Hillary Clinton refused to rule out profiling as a security-enhancing measure to stop terrorism.

"Let's talk about American life now, though," said ABC host Sam Donaldson. "What happens in the future from the standpoint of the question of security versus relaxation or giving up some of the freedoms that we've enjoyed in this country? How far do we go, for instance, on airline security?"

"Well, I think everyone recognizes we have to tighten security. We have to do whatever it takes to keep our people safe," Hillary Clinton replied.

Donaldson said, "Including profiling, senator?"

"I think we have to do whatever it takes, Sam. And I believe that, you know, Tuesday changed everything. Tuesday was a day that America has never, ever had to experience. And I hope to heaven that we never have to again. But we are in a war situation, and we're going to have to do things people do in times of war. I just heard your interview with the mayor, and I think he's right to look at examples in history like the Battle of Britain. Many of us have been studying what others did to carry on. And we know that we have to make tradeoffs in convenience, in our freedom of movement, without undercutting or losing our way of life and our values, which I really want to make America special and great. And we can't ever let anyone undermine that."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-911-hillary-didn-t-rule-out-profiling-security-enhancing-measure_1064918.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob3j3JQyeoE

That's our girl, whatever it takes.

Slightly different scenarios no?

 

[The Commish]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gop-refugees_564b754ee4b08cda348afa5b

Hillary Clinton: Turning Away Refugees Is 'New Low' For GOP

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton condemned Republicans for vowing to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States, calling the controversy a "new low" for the GOP.

Hillary Clinton ‎@HillaryClinton

We've seen a lot of hateful rhetoric from the GOP. But the idea that we'd turn away refugees because of religion is a new low. -H

...

Speaking on ABC's This Week shortly after September 11, 2001, Hillary Clinton refused to rule out profiling as a security-enhancing measure to stop terrorism.

"Let's talk about American life now, though," said ABC host Sam Donaldson. "What happens in the future from the standpoint of the question of security versus relaxation or giving up some of the freedoms that we've enjoyed in this country? How far do we go, for instance, on airline security?"

"Well, I think everyone recognizes we have to tighten security. We have to do whatever it takes to keep our people safe," Hillary Clinton replied.

Donaldson said, "Including profiling, senator?"

"I think we have to do whatever it takes, Sam. And I believe that, you know, Tuesday changed everything. Tuesday was a day that America has never, ever had to experience. And I hope to heaven that we never have to again. But we are in a war situation, and we're going to have to do things people do in times of war. I just heard your interview with the mayor, and I think he's right to look at examples in history like the Battle of Britain. Many of us have been studying what others did to carry on. And we know that we have to make tradeoffs in convenience, in our freedom of movement, without undercutting or losing our way of life and our values, which I really want to make America special and great. And we can't ever let anyone undermine that."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-911-hillary-didn-t-rule-out-profiling-security-enhancing-measure_1064918.html

Not different enough to warrant pointing out the distinction.

 

[timschochet]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

 

[The Commish]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

Because it's what people want to hear. It's not that complicated.

 

[timschochet]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

Because it's what people want to hear. It's not that complicated.

What people?

 

[The Commish]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

Because it's what people want to hear. It's not that complicated.

What people?

The people voting for her

 

[RCon]

Assad = Syria = bad = appear tough = pander for votes. Pretty simple, really.

 

[timschochet]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

Because it's what people want to hear. It's not that complicated.

What people?

The people voting for her

In the primary? I doubt it.. Not sure the American public as a whole is really convinced about the wisdom of removing Assad either.

No, I don't think this is a case of trying to win votes. She and Obama both believe this is an important goal for the USA. I don't understand why that is, and I would like to.

 

[timschochet]

Assad = Syria = bad = appear tough = pander for votes. Pretty simple, really.

I'm not really seeing this. I don't think the American public gives a crap about Assad. They care about ISIS.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gop-refugees_564b754ee4b08cda348afa5b

Hillary Clinton: Turning Away Refugees Is 'New Low' For GOP

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton condemned Republicans for vowing to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States, calling the controversy a "new low" for the GOP.

Hillary Clinton ‎@HillaryClinton

We've seen a lot of hateful rhetoric from the GOP. But the idea that we'd turn away refugees because of religion is a new low. -H

...

Speaking on ABC's This Week shortly after September 11, 2001, Hillary Clinton refused to rule out profiling as a security-enhancing measure to stop terrorism.

"Let's talk about American life now, though," said ABC host Sam Donaldson. "What happens in the future from the standpoint of the question of security versus relaxation or giving up some of the freedoms that we've enjoyed in this country? How far do we go, for instance, on airline security?"

"Well, I think everyone recognizes we have to tighten security. We have to do whatever it takes to keep our people safe," Hillary Clinton replied.

Donaldson said, "Including profiling, senator?"

"I think we have to do whatever it takes, Sam. And I believe that, you know, Tuesday changed everything. Tuesday was a day that America has never, ever had to experience. And I hope to heaven that we never have to again. But we are in a war situation, and we're going to have to do things people do in times of war. I just heard your interview with the mayor, and I think he's right to look at examples in history like the Battle of Britain. Many of us have been studying what others did to carry on. And we know that we have to make tradeoffs in convenience, in our freedom of movement, without undercutting or losing our way of life and our values, which I really want to make America special and great. And we can't ever let anyone undermine that."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-911-hillary-didn-t-rule-out-profiling-security-enhancing-measure_1064918.html

Different scenarios (aren't they always?), same principle.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

This is where Democrats who stand against interventionist policies yet nonetheless voting for Hillary need to hear that Hillary is [blahblahblah] advocating [not hearing youuu] overthrowing [stamping feet loudly] another [earmuffs activated] dictator [she apologized for Iraq already].

 

[timschochet]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

This is where Democrats who stand against interventionist policies yet nonetheless voting for Hillary need to hear that Hillary is [blahblahblah] advocating [not hearing youuu] overthrowing [stamping feet loudly] another [earmuffs activated] dictator [she apologized for Iraq already].

I can't speak for other people. Personally, I am not at all opposed to interventionism and never have been. I just want to know why THIS particular interventionism makes sense.

 

[RCon]

Assad = Syria = bad = appear tough = pander for votes. Pretty simple, really.

I'm not really seeing this. I don't think the American public gives a crap about Assad. They care about ISIS.

I don't think the American public knows the difference between Assad, Syria, ISIS, Iraq, Yemen, or probably even Nigeria.

 

[timschochet]

Assad = Syria = bad = appear tough = pander for votes. Pretty simple, really.

I'm not really seeing this. I don't think the American public gives a crap about Assad. They care about ISIS.

I don't think the American public knows the difference between Assad, Syria, ISIS, Iraq, Yemen, or probably even Nigeria.

I agree, but they've heard of ISIS by now.

 

[timschochet]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Link?