Tough argument to make isn't it Tim...you need to add the qualifier "today" on the end of "Hillary takes the exact opposite view". Would be an interesting exercise to go through his positions and see when Hillary held the same (or very similar) position.Well, this is true, if you ignore the fact that on every major issue that has been stressed by Trump, Hillary takes the exact opposite view. But other than that...
That sign had a hashtag on it: #WhichHillary.Well, this is true, if you ignore the fact that on every major issue that has been stressed by Trump, Hillary takes the exact opposite view. But other than that...
No I don't. You said she was ideologically similar to Trump. Trump is anti-immigrant, anti-free trade, a nativist, an isolationist, doesn't believe in climate change, is in not interested in black issues, wants to cut corporate taxes, and will appoint only pro-life justices. So please explain how Hillary is similar to this, now or ever.Do you mean now that she moved a million miles left to snuff out Bernie or how she'll actually government as a centrist?
It depends on the year and election season. We could do a video/transcript mash-up of Hillary's positions and make it seems she agrees with 98% of what Trump says. Mash up another set of excerpts of hers--again, change the year, change the audience--and she could be made to look like she agrees with only 8% of what Trump has to say.Tough argument to make isn't it Tim...you need to add the qualifier "today" on the end of "Hillary takes the exact opposite view". Would be an interesting exercise to go through his positions and see when Hillary held the same (or very similar) position.
No you don't. Hillary in her entire career has never held most of the positions Trump stresses now, so this is simply wrong.Tough argument to make isn't it Tim...you need to add the qualifier "today" on the end of "Hillary takes the exact opposite view". Would be an interesting exercise to go through his positions and see when Hillary held the same (or very similar) position.
Again...depends on which point in time you are referring to Tim. I also think it's absolutely unfair to say Trump is "anti-immigrant". It's the illegal part he and a lot of people have issue with, but that's more difficult to get allNo I don't. You said she was ideologically similar to Trump. Trump is anti-immigrant, anti-free trade, a nativist, an isolationist, doesn't believe in climate change, is in not interested in black issues, wants to cut corporate taxes, and will appoint only pro-life justices. So please explain how Hillary is similar to this, now or ever.
over. I also don't know how one is an "isolationist" when it appears they want to rule the world. Seems like the exact opposite.Huh? Didn't Trump say he was in favor of the mandate? Wasn't that her thing for a while? They're both against the TPP, right? Hillary was in favor of the border fence in 2008 not to mention some of the offensive stuff she said about immigrants while running for NY Senate. It would make for an interesting comparison.No you don't. Hillary in her entire career has never held most of the positions Trump stresses now, so this is simply wrong.
Let's start with "build a wall" (or fence if you really want to go down that path). She ever support that?No you don't. Hillary in her entire career has never held most of the positions Trump stresses now, so this is simply wrong.
lolClimate Change:
Don't really know where she stands philosophically. It's a pretty vague subject for her.
This is today....which is the entire premise of my discussion with Tim
She's also for the continued drilling for oil off our shores, which seems to be in direct opposition to the climate change notion."She called our boys ‘super-predators’ in ’96, then she race-baited when running against Obama in ‘08, now she’s a lifelong civil rights activist. I just want to know which Hillary is running for President, the one from ’96, ’08, or the new Hillary?”
This sound bite from 1996 is going to sink her any day now. Right after the email indictments."She called our boys ‘super-predators’ in ’96, then she race-baited when running against Obama in ‘08, now she’s a lifelong civil rights activist. I just want to know which Hillary is running for President, the one from ’96, ’08, or the new Hillary?”
I actually never looked up her beliefs on fracking until right now. Surprised to see how much she is for it. I personally don't have a big problem with it, but it's been a huge hot-button issue in Western NY and the Southern Tier and has been for a number of years. I wonder what her commentary on fracking was while she was a NY senator....but I'm too lazy to look it up.Climate Change:
Don't really know where she stands philosophically. It's a pretty vague subject for her. What we do know is she supports Obama's power plant rules. She is a proponent of "fracking" stateside and abroad. She supports offshore drilling for oil. Her family foundation takes a lot of money from oil countries. Did she ever comment on Keystone? At one point she refused to comment for political reasons (which were fine by me). It's hard to say where she lands on this issue based on her actions.
It's another digit in the dam. Pretty soon she's going to run out of toes.This sound bite from 1996 is going to sink her any day now. Right after the email indictments.
To my knowledge, this is a representation of her actions thus far. She has a ton of promises on her website, we'll see how much of that she really tries to push.I actually never looked up her beliefs on fracking until right now. Surprised to see how much she is for it. I personally don't have a big problem with it, but it's been a huge hot-button issue in Western NY and the Southern Tier and has been for a number of years. I wonder what her commentary on fracking was while she was a NY senator....but I'm too lazy to look it up.Climate Change:
Don't really know where she stands philosophically. It's a pretty vague subject for her. What we do know is she supports Obama's power plant rules. She is a proponent of "fracking" stateside and abroad. She supports offshore drilling for oil. Her family foundation takes a lot of money from oil countries. Did she ever comment on Keystone? At one point she refused to comment for political reasons (which were fine by me). It's hard to say where she lands on this issue based on her actions.
You have to admit, though, Hillary navigated that pretty clumsily. As she does pretty much everything that isn't scripted and mapped out. Trump is going to absolutely evicerate her.This sound bite from 1996 is going to sink her any day now. Right after the email indictments.
He's got a point. She wears these weird monochromatic outfits that make her look like a piece of fruit: orange outfit = pumpkin, green outfit = watermelon, red outfit = apple. I'm waiting for the Fruit of the Loom guys to show up at one of her campaign appearances.Pantsuit observations. Time is a flat circle.
This is a critique that I actually agree with.Who the hell is in charge of picking Hillarys clothes? The giant collar look she keeps using looks ridiculous . Seriously . Just dress her as a business woman.
The seeds were planted years ago.He's got a point. She wears these weird monochromatic outfits that make her look like a piece of fruit: orange outfit = pumpkin, green outfit = watermelon, red outfit = apple. I'm waiting for the Fruit of Loom guys to show up at one of her campaign appearances.
She talks about "tweaks" to ACA, but I haven't heard any sort of specifics come out of her mouth. Perhaps they are on the webpage?Has Hillary proposed negotiating with pharma to lower the cost spent by the Feds in drug reimbursements?
Because Trump has done that too, only he promises a stupidly high, impossible or ridiculous number in savings.
I don't know how anyone promises this though seeing as how Obama waived that right away in his Pharma deal.
Maybe Naomi Wolf is back in the inner circle.Who the hell is in charge of picking Hillarys clothes? The giant collar look she keeps using looks ridiculous . Seriously . Just dress her as a business woman.
My predication is that it's over on Super Tuesday. I don't consider this to be going out on a limb, but I hope to be proven wrong.Prediction: will Hillary be pretty much locked in as the nominee after Super Tuesday, or will it be competitive for at least another month?
You said no more predictions... Live up to it.Prediction: will Hillary be pretty much locked in as the nominee after Super Tuesday, or will it be competitive for at least another month?
In this case I'm asking for other people to predict.You said no more predictions... Own up to it.
We like him making predictions. They are usually wrong.You said no more predictions... Live up to it.
Rubio got a few days of attention about his boots.I agree that Hillary's stylist is weird. But nobody ever comments about the fact that Trump is a billionaire who can't buy a suit that fits. For that matter nobody cares that Bernie wears a suit like a 13 year old who just had his Dad show him how to tie a tie. For Bernie, that's considered part of the charm.
People, this is easy:I agree that Hillary's stylist is weird. But nobody ever comments about the fact that Trump is a billionaire who can't buy a suit that fits. For that matter nobody cares that Bernie wears a suit like a 13 year old who just had his Dad show him how to tie a tie. For Bernie, that's considered part of the charm.
I'm with Marco. Those were some sweet kicks.Rubio got a few days of attention about his boots.
That's been very true.We like him making predictions. They are usually wrong.
No, it doesn't exclude Hillary, but the presence of such an investigation into the State Department's culture is not evidence that the hammer is about to fall on Hillary. In fact, like most of the "smoking guns" thrown out to laugh at those of us with our "heads in the sand" who are "blind to how big of deal this is" it suggests just the opposite.Good post, but again, that doesn't exclude Hillary, does it? It actually suggests a wider scope. That could even go past her aides. One of the news reports indicated as many as 30 or so accounts could have had spillage. And who did they spill to? It also obviously does not have to include her or her aides. I think we all know that someone else could be offered up to help move past thing, fairly or not.
There is no question given the sole private ownership of where this classified information was stored who was definitely among those doing the handling.
The server is an actual smoking gun though. If a friend of yours is shot dead and the police show up at your door and seize a gun you own that's not a good sign for you.No, it doesn't exclude Hillary, but the presence of such an investigation into the State Department's culture is not evidence that the hammer is about to fall on Hillary. In fact, like most of the "smoking guns" thrown out to laugh at those of us with our "heads in the sand" who are "blind to how big of deal this is" it suggests just the opposite.
It depends on the media narrative. I really think Bernie's make-or-break is March 15.Prediction: will Hillary be pretty much locked in as the nominee after Super Tuesday, or will it be competitive for at least another month?
There's only one possible narrative the media will come up with on their own. Let's not fool ourselves. Bernie could dominate all those states and the reaction would be "can he really win?" or "I'm still skeptical, let's see what happens next week" etc.It depends on the media narrative. I really think Bernie's make-or-break is March 15.