Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (41 Viewers)

[BassNBrew]

In terms of the dangerousness of the accusation?

I don't know, let me think about that:

Mr. Ham: Hillary conspired to take out Foster in 1994 because he was scheduled before Congress and he was the only one who knew everything Hillary did. She certainly had a motive!

Mr. Schochet: There is a cabal of evil Republicans who have been controlling the media and manipulating the electorate so they can [fill in motive here - racial, economic, neocon imperialism] for over 25 years.

- Does this claim not breed distrust in government?

- Does this claim not corrode the functioning of our system?

- Does this claim not create mistrust between voters and make any rational discourse of what the Clintons really do and how they behave and what their true motives are almost impossible in many circumstances, because any time a legitimate concern is raised this evil plot is raised loyal forces must rally around Hillary like some threatened queen bee?

I don't know, which conspiracy theory is more dangerous, what do you think?

Interesting enough the DNC leaks proved the Dems were doing exactly this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary, who has the easiest job in the country, creates impossibly convoluted situation where she breaks decades of tradition and treats the WH like her own personal spoils system, cans longtime stalwarts in the WH executive office, installs her friends, gets caught, totally TRUMPS up false claims about the director when she's caught, his life is ruined but no matter, documents go missing, a memo is written but it goes missing, the one guy that knows about all of it, plus about another scandal, WHOOPS turns up dead in a park. And the problem is that people who think this person who created all this might not just be on the up and up because hey whaddyaknow the physical evidence at the scene of death is also out of whack. But it's their fault for raising this. The good news is he just killed himself from being in this vortex.

Meanwhile, the woman who caused all this trouble?

Let's make her president, the most powerful person in the world. Yeah, she's not the problem.at.all.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Johnson was a successful governor. Hillary was a miserable failure as SoS.

Even if Johnson loses, my vote for him will let me sleep at night knowing I didn't cast a vote to #### up this country. 

And when Trump is president, empowers these idiots, and ####s up the country domestically and around the world, then what?

 

[Politician Spock]

And when Trump is president, empowers these idiots, and ####s up the country domestically and around the world, then what?

I'll sleep at night knowing I didn't vote for him.

 

[urbanhack]

Maybe we can get the African American men in Chicago to apply, if they were working they would have less time to/ be to tired to kill each other. If illegal's can go out of their way to sneak here to work our construction jobs I'm sure these young men could, if they really wanted to.

All of them?  Even the ones that already have jobs?

 

[squistion]

Hillary, who has the easiest job in the country, creates impossibly convoluted situation where she breaks decades of tradition and treats the WH like her own personal spoils system, cans longtime stalwarts in the WH executive office, installs her friends, gets caught, totally TRUMPS up false claims about the director when she's caught, his life is ruined but no matter, documents go missing, a memo is written but it goes missing, the one guy that knows about all of it, plus about another scandal, WHOOPS turns up dead in a park. And the problem is that people who think this person who created all this might not just be on the up and up because hey whaddyaknow the physical evidence at the scene of death is also out of whack. But it's their fault for raising this. The good news is he just killed himself from being in this vortex.

Meanwhile, the woman who caused all this trouble?

Let's make her president, the most powerful person in the world. Yeah, she's not the problem.at.all.

You are no better than Mr. Ham and when I think about it you have never once criticized any of his crackpot and loony conspiracy theories about Hillary.

 

[Billy Bats]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hacking-hillary-complete-timeline-2016-coughing-fits/

woah

I can only imagine what Trump's reaction will be if this happens to her in a debate with him. 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Cognitive dissonance. 

 

[chauncey]

I can only imagine what Trump's reaction will be if this happens to her in a debate with him. 

Trump will offer her a cough drop. 

SJWs will accuse him of misogyny. 

Sane Americans will see that Hillary is knocking on death's door and Trump cares about all Americans, even ones guilty of perjury and treason. 

538

 

[Guest]

In terms of the dangerousness of the accusation?

I don't know, let me think about that:

Mr. Ham: Hillary conspired to take out Foster in 1994 because he was scheduled to testify before Congress and he was the only one who knew everything Hillary did from A to Z. She certainly had a motive and she has a lifetime of sneakiness.

Mr. Schochet: There is a cabal of evil Republicans who have been controlling the media and manipulating the electorate so they can [fill in motive here - racial, economic, neocon imperialism] for over 25 years and part of their strategy is to destroy the Clintons who stand in their way.

- Does this claim not breed distrust in government?

- Does this claim not corrode the functioning of our system?

- Does this claim not create mistrust between voters and make any rational discourse of what the Clintons really do and how they behave and what their true motives are almost impossible in many circumstances, because any time a legitimate concern is raised this evil plot is also raised so that loyal forces must rally around Hillary like some threatened queen bee?

I don't know, which conspiracy theory is more dangerous, what do you think?

I didn't claim Hillary murdered Foster.  Simply pointed out that the lead prosecutor quit citing evidence tampering and existence of a possible second gunshot wound blurred in photos.  These records recently went missing from the National Archives.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html

Also pointed out that Assange strongly implied Seth Rich was a source for DNC leaks.  Also, John Ashe was set to testify in a bribery case linking back to Clintons and he died in an unwitnessed weight lifting accident a couple months ago.  

I'm not saying Hillary had anything to do with these deaths, but it is certainly possible one or both were premeditated.

 

[Jrodicus]

Hillary vs Trump is NOT a larger scheme of things. It's two things. It's 1) Hillary; and 2) Trump. It's the smallest set that "things" can be. If it were less, it wouldn't be "things", it would be a "thing". The larger scheme of things is that democracy isn't binary. Making democracy binary makes it smaller, not larger. If you want to look at the larger scheme of things, you have to be willing to look beyond Hillary and Trump. You're not willing. You're being small minded. You, and your like, are THE problem with this country.

If you are going to say the bolded, make sure you get the underlined correct.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hillary, who has the easiest job in the country, creates impossibly convoluted situation where she breaks decades of tradition and treats the WH like her own personal spoils system, cans longtime stalwarts in the WH executive office, installs her friends, gets caught, totally TRUMPS up false claims about the director when she's caught, his life is ruined but no matter, documents go missing, a memo is written but it goes missing, the one guy that knows about all of it, plus about another scandal, WHOOPS turns up dead in a park. And the problem is that people who think this person who created all this might not just be on the up and up because hey whaddyaknow the physical evidence at the scene of death is also out of whack. But it's their fault for raising this. The good news is he just killed himself from being in this vortex.

Meanwhile, the woman who caused all this trouble?

Let's make her president, the most powerful person in the world. Yeah, she's not the problem.at.all.

This is ####ing disgusting.  It's exactly the same sort of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying ..." crap that has given rise to the Brietbarts, Drudges, Alex Joneses and yes Donald Trumps of the world. In addition, what you're doing by helping spread this crap is against the express wishes of Foster's family. 

This is to be expected from the Mr Hams and Trumpkins of the FFA, but you?  Bummer.  Maybe this election has just turned this place into a cesspool that's swallowing up pretty much everyone.  I can't wait for November 9.

 

[timschochet]

The fictionalized version of Hillary Clinton: 

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/06/press-lies-and-hillarys-campaign-years-of-smears-have-created-a-fictional-version-of-clinton-theyre-also-a-disservice-to-voters/

 

[pantagrapher]

 

[TobiasFunke]

The fictionalized version of Hillary Clinton: 

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/06/press-lies-and-hillarys-campaign-years-of-smears-have-created-a-fictional-version-of-clinton-theyre-also-a-disservice-to-voters/

I'm getting the sense that things are about to swing the other direction.  There's been a lot of chatter about the media double standard over the last few days, with the tone of  the Clinton Foundation non-stories frequently being contrasted with the lack of coverage of the actual story regarding the Trump/Bondi/Abbott stuff (and by extension Trump University). Plus I think the narrowing polls will alert some in the media to the possibility that the accusations might have some weight or that at least they should do something to remove that appearance.

I bet we get some birther stuff too. Trump has mostly gotten a free pass on that so far, but his African-American outreach efforts are gonna open him up to questions about it. If he doesn't eventually have to answer to birtherism then both the media and the Clinton campaign should be embarrassed.

There is some good news from the media, though. The Dallas Morning News has endorsed a Democratic candidate for president for the first time in over 75 years:


 

We recommend Hillary Clinton for president



There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.



Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest.  

In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers.

As President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, she helped make tough calls on the Middle East and the complex struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. It's no accident that hundreds of Republican foreign policy hands back Clinton. She also has the support of dozens of top advisers from previous Republican administrations, including Henry Paulson, John Negroponte, Richard Armitage and Brent Scowcroft. Also on this list is Jim Glassman, the founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.

Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches.

Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.

We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.

Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote.

I have a feeling many more editorials like this one will follow in the next few weeks.

Hope some of our frequent posters in this thread note the bolded in this editorial, by the way.  That's a respected right-leaning major American newspaper calling you "political hyenas" and accusing you of "engaging in the politics of personal destruction."  Well done.

 

[timschochet]

Hope you're right Tobias. This doesn't appear to be a time when people are influenced by editorials, but we'll see.

Speaking of Texas, latest poll has Hillary up by 1 point! That surely won't stand, but it's still pretty amazing.

 

[The Commish]

Wall Street firms do not support Gary Johnson for President at all, so far as I know. Wall Street firms enjoy being politically well connected. Their political connections took a lot of time and money to develop, and provide established firms great political power that they are loathe to give up. Wall Street firms and other powerful industry groups (Big Agra, Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Daddy Kane) like being able to influence lawmakers to win subsidies, bailouts, protection from liability, protection from upstart competition ... a swath of advantages often referred to as "crony capitalism" (which libertarians seem much less likely than Republicans or Democrats to confuse with actual capitalism). A government full of libertarians would strip Wall Street firms of all those advantages.

Gary Johnson, in fact, agreed with much of the Occupy Wall Street message:

“I just have to express my solidarity with everyone there that expresses the notion that we have a country that doles it out unfairly, and I believe that,” Johnson said. "We do dole it out unfairly…corporatism is alive and well in this country. We’ve bailed out individuals on Wall Street that made horrific decisions that should have been rewarded for those horrific decisions by having lost all their money. Of course that didn’t happen, and you and I bailed them out a cost of a trillion bucks, and they continue to award themselves bonuses at our expense. I’m outraged by that.”

Johnson said that during his time among the protesters Tuesday evening, he had “civil conversations” with people of all political persuasions, including communists and socialists and “free market anarchists.” He told them that it is important for people to understand the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism.

“Is the free market to blame (for the current economic troubles), or is it that fact that it’s not a free market and that it is crony capitalism?”

He said that no one could blame Wall Street for wanting to be bailed out for the awful decisions made there, but the way that the government gave in to their wishes was really unfair. “The root of the problem,” Johnson said, “is politicians getting paid off." He said the outrage of the Wall Street protesters is not misguided and should be “directed at a system that allows for undue influence of political leaders for the benefit of those who can afford them.”

Was looking for something else to ask a question about and ran across this post....deserves way more love than it got  

Now, back to what I was looking for  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hope you're right Tobias. This doesn't appear to be a time when people are influenced by editorials, but we'll see.

Speaking of Texas, latest poll has Hillary up by 1 point! That surely won't stand, but it's still pretty amazing.

I don't think many people will be influenced by a particular editorial, and Clinton's not going to win Texas anyway, but I also don't think we've seen anything like what we're about to see over the next six weeks- a clean sweep of endorsements + a rebuke of Trump's candidacy from even GOP-leaning papers like this one. There are a lot of undecided voters out there, something's gotta push them off the fence, this is as likely as anything else.  I would think the debates might do it too, but I suspect we'll see Clinton soundly win those but Trump graded on a severe curve resulting in not much movement.

 

[shadrap]

I have a hunch that some emails are going to come out that severely damage Hillary in the coming month.  Not wishful thinking, just think some deadly skeletons are going to be revealed.

I'm sure the Dem's are also saving some good smut on Trump.   This is going to be a bloodbath.  Looking forward to it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think many people will be influenced by a particular editorial, and Clinton's not going to win Texas anyway, but I also don't think we've seen anything like what we're about to see over the next six weeks- a clean sweep of endorsements + a rebuke of Trump's candidacy from even GOP-leaning papers like this one. There are a lot of undecided voters out there, something's gotta push them off the fence, this is as likely as anything else.  I would think the debates might do it too, but I suspect we'll see Clinton soundly win those but Trump graded on a severe curve resulting in not much movement.

I haven't watched a debate in quite some time (they're insipid).  But I think I'm going to have to watch at least the first of the Clinton-Trump debates just for the entertainment value.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Seriously, a Clinton-Trump debate might just be the most extreme example of hate-watching ever.  The only thing that could even come close would be if Notre Dame somehow played against the Patriots.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hope you're right Tobias. This doesn't appear to be a time when people are influenced by editorials, but we'll see.

Speaking of Texas, latest poll has Hillary up by 1 point! That surely won't stand, but it's still pretty amazing.

The editorial doesn't influence people, it reflects people who have already been influenced.

But again Hillary is a pretty conservative alternative, policy wise. I don't think it's a huge stretch for the DMN to endorse someone with the Clintons' background on wall street, deregulation, crime, foreign intervention, welfare, budget, etc.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wall Street firms do not support Gary Johnson for President at all, so far as I know. Wall Street firms enjoy being politically well connected. Their political connections took a lot of time and money to develop, and provide established firms great political power that they are loathe to give up. Wall Street firms and other powerful industry groups (Big Agra, Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Daddy Kane) like being able to influence lawmakers to win subsidies, bailouts, protection from liability, protection from upstart competition ... a swath of advantages often referred to as "crony capitalism" (which libertarians seem much less likely than Republicans or Democrats to confuse with actual capitalism). A government full of libertarians would strip Wall Street firms of all those advantages.

Gary Johnson, in fact, agreed with much of the Occupy Wall Street message:

“I just have to express my solidarity with everyone there that expresses the notion that we have a country that doles it out unfairly, and I believe that,” Johnson said. "We do dole it out unfairly…corporatism is alive and well in this country. We’ve bailed out individuals on Wall Street that made horrific decisions that should have been rewarded for those horrific decisions by having lost all their money. Of course that didn’t happen, and you and I bailed them out a cost of a trillion bucks, and they continue to award themselves bonuses at our expense. I’m outraged by that.”

Johnson said that during his time among the protesters Tuesday evening, he had “civil conversations” with people of all political persuasions, including communists and socialists and “free market anarchists.” He told them that it is important for people to understand the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism.

“Is the free market to blame (for the current economic troubles), or is it that fact that it’s not a free market and that it is crony capitalism?”

He said that no one could blame Wall Street for wanting to be bailed out for the awful decisions made there, but the way that the government gave in to their wishes was really unfair. “The root of the problem,” Johnson said, “is politicians getting paid off." He said the outrage of the Wall Street protesters is not misguided and should be “directed at a system that allows for undue influence of political leaders for the benefit of those who can afford them.”

The only reason they don't support his campaign is because he has no chance to win.  As for the rest of the rest of this post, it's high-minded but ultimately empty rhetoric.

Can you show me substantive positions of Johnson that you'd consider anti-big business?  Because I can't find them on his website.  To be honest there's not much of anything substantive on there. Here he is being totally anti-big business on energy and the environment:

• Man contributes to climate change, but no government fix. (Jan 2016)
  
  [*]Federal regulation makes fracking, coal mining, & nuclear OK. (Sep 2012)
  
  [*]Support renewables, but not with federal policy. (Sep 2012)
  
  [*]Cap-&-trade imposes costs with no environmental improvement. (Aug 2012)
  
  [*]Alternative energy good; ethanol subsidies bad. (Nov 2011)
  
  [*]Supports nuclear power. (Aug 2011)
  
  [*]Current policy prevents common-sense energy development. (Jul 2011)
  
  [*]No cap-and-trade; no taxing carbon emissions. (Jul 2011)
  
  [*]I accept global warming but not cap-and-trade. (Jun 2011)
  
  [*]Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically. (Aug 2000)
  
  [*]Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries. (Aug 2000)
  
  [*]Federal tax incentives for energy, with state decisions. (Aug 2001)

 Let's play a game.  Who said it, Gary Johnson or Exxon-Mobil?


[*]

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You are no better than Mr. Ham and when I think about it you have never once criticized any of his crackpot and loony conspiracy theories about Hillary.

This is ####ing disgusting.  It's exactly the same sort of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying ..." crap that has given rise to the Brietbarts, Drudges, Alex Joneses and yes Donald Trumps of the world. In addition, what you're doing by helping spread this crap is against the express wishes of Foster's family. 

This is to be expected from the Mr Hams and Trumpkins of the FFA, but you?  Bummer.  Maybe this election has just turned this place into a cesspool that's swallowing up pretty much everyone.  I can't wait for November 9.

The point folks is that people are castigated for accusing Hillary of things (right or wrong) when quite frankly Hillary herself caused the whole stinking mess(es) herself, all by herself. But it is the people who are attacked for asking these questions or believing certain things, while the woman who fired reliable people unfairly for her friends to take their jobs, and who represented a bank on an application for a bad loan before regulators her husband appointed, who secreted all her emails as a cabinet member on her own private server while also interacting with her private foundation, will be vaulted to president, and she is about to be. And when she is criticized? 'Cry Wolf'. 'VRWC'. To the battlements. Hillary is 100% responsible (with Bill) for every controversy she has gotten herself into. And this very discussion shows how incredibly corrosive it is and will be. You think she won't screw up again? Ok, great. History shows otherwise.

 

[The Commish]

TF are you making the argument that Johnson is "No True Libertarian" ?

MT points out the things that big business love.....the influence, the protection etc.  Policy positions come second to those things.  So when a libertarian philosophy is applied, yes, the government is far less involved in the regulation part, lets there be more of a free market etc, but it also removes all the back room benefits big business is really after.  These businesses no longer have that wink and a nod protection they had before when they go and break the rules.  You guys seem to be talking passed each other.  "Favor" isn't just found in the rules and regulations....that's a small part of it.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Hope you're right Tobias. This doesn't appear to be a time when people are influenced by editorials, but we'll see.

Speaking of Texas, latest poll has Hillary up by 1 point! That surely won't stand, but it's still pretty amazing.

Texas. Never going to happen. If it did somehow, it would be a watershed moment in modern American presidential politics. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The fictionalized version of Hillary Clinton: 

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/06/press-lies-and-hillarys-campaign-years-of-smears-have-created-a-fictional-version-of-clinton-theyre-also-a-disservice-to-voters/

Actually I read that article and it lead to my comments further up.

It's a conspiracy!: There is a cabal of evil Republicans who have been controlling the media and manipulating the electorate so they can [fill in motive here - racial, gender, orientation, economic, neocon imperialism] for over 25 years and part of their strategy is to destroy the Clintons who stand in their way. -> Conspiracy.

You are a conspiracy theory 'er and others who do it are of the same ilk.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I didn't claim Hillary murdered Foster.  Simply pointed out that the lead prosecutor quit citing evidence tampering and existence of a possible second gunshot wound blurred in photos.  These records recently went missing from the National Archives.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html

Also pointed out that Assange strongly implied Seth Rich was a source for DNC leaks.  Also, John Ashe was set to testify in a bribery case linking back to Clintons and he died in an unwitnessed weight lifting accident a couple months ago.  

I'm not saying Hillary had anything to do with these deaths, but it is certainly possible one or both were premeditated.

I don't think you did either. I was mimicking Tim's take on things.

And I know the Clintons did not kill Foster. The truth is far sadder IMO. The man was stuck between Congress and a hard place.

The embarrassment was even greater when seven employees of the White House travel office were summarily fired amid hints of financial shenanigans, because it turned out the investigation had been slapdash, the firings hasty, and the odor of cronyism hung over the whole affair. The "Travelgate" fallout singed Foster and burned his friend and protege, William Kennedy, also of the counsel's office. Kennedy drew an official reprimand.

Foster's colleagues at the White House advised him to shake off the episode, but for him Travelgate apparently became an obsession. He felt guilty because he had assigned Kennedy to the travel office investigation. He begged his boss, then-White House counsel Bernard W. Nussbaum, to let him take the heat and the reprimand in Kennedy's place.

When Nussbaum refused, Foster began shouting. And he never shouted.

During the last six to eight weeks of his life, the Fiske report said, Foster was "increasingly obsessed" with Travelgate and the possibility of a congressional hearing. Though he was confident he and the White House had done nothing wrong, he told his friend Webster L. Hubbell that "in Washington you are assumed to have done something wrong even if you have not... . He thought the matter would never end."

Foster considered resigning but could not face the "personal humiliation he would have felt" returning to Arkansas in defeat, Fiske found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940701.htm

That to me is a horrible, sad story.

 

[dutch]

Actually I read that article and it lead to my comments further up.

It's a conspiracy!: There is a cabal of evil Republicans who have been controlling the media and manipulating the electorate so they can [fill in motive here - racial, economic, neocon imperialism] for over 25 years and part of their strategy is to destroy the Clintons who stand in their way. -> Conspiracy.

My take on the VRWC angle is that the Republican's so despise the Clinton's that they have taken every opportunity to fling poo no matter how small the piece of scat even when walking around the pile while holding their noses could be more effective than calling for the political animals to be euthanized.  The VRWC guys have generated sympathy by their inability to let the Clinton's bury themselves in sheet.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The editorial doesn't influence people, it reflects people who have already been influenced.

But again Hillary is a pretty conservative alternative, policy wise. I don't think it's a huge stretch for the DMN to endorse someone with the Clintons' background on wall street, deregulation, crime, foreign intervention, welfare, budget, etc.

She's a bit to the right of Obama, who may talk to the left, but mostly governs down the middle. She'll be the "reasonable" alternative in a cycle without a true leadership choice.

 

[The Commish]

My take on the VRWC angle is that the Republican's so despise the Clinton's that they have taken every opportunity to fling poo no matter how small the piece of scat even when walking around the pile while holding their noses could be more effective than calling for the political animals to be euthanized.  The VRWC guys have generated sympathy by their inability to let the Clinton's bury themselves in sheet.

Which begs the question....what is it about the Clintons that make them so "hated"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My take on the VRWC angle is that the Republican's so despise the Clinton's that they have taken every opportunity to fling poo no matter how small the piece of scat even when walking around the pile while holding their noses could be more effective than calling for the political animals to be euthanized.  The VRWC guys have generated sympathy by their inability to let the Clinton's bury themselves in sheet.

True. There is zero doubt the Republicans have typically helped the Clintons by overreaching, however the "VRWC" is something else. It's an actual plot.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I have a hunch that some emails are going to come out that severely damage Hillary in the coming month.  Not wishful thinking, just think some deadly skeletons are going to be revealed.

I'm sure the Dem's are also saving some good smut on Trump.   This is going to be a bloodbath.  Looking forward to it.

In a vacuum I guess I could look forward to the next month as I agree it will be a bloodbath but ultimately one of these two is going to be our President. While I have strong negative feelings about both of them, I hope I'm wrong about whichever one wins.  However, seeing how both now have favorables in the high 30s and I suspect the barrage of negativity between now and the election will only drive those numbers down, it is going to be an awful uphill fight for them to govern.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

The point folks is that people are castigated for accusing Hillary of things (right or wrong) when quite frankly Hillary herself caused the whole stinking mess(es) herself, all by herself. But it is the people who are attacked for asking these questions or believing certain things, while the woman who fired reliable people unfairly for her friends to take their jobs, and who represented a bank on an application for a bad loan before regulators her husband appointed, who secreted all her emails as a cabinet member on her own private server while also interacting with her private foundation, will be vaulted to president, and she is about to be. And when she is criticized? 'Cry Wolf'. 'VRWC'. To the battlements. Hillary is 100% responsible (with Bill) for every controversy she has gotten herself into. And this very discussion shows how incredibly corrosive it is and will be. You think she won't screw up again? Ok, great. History shows otherwise.

Nope, still disgusting. She didn't "cause this whole stinking mess all by herself," and she didn't give anyone reason to suspect her or spout the "I'm not saying she did it, I'm just asking questions!" crap you spewed, from the disgraceful Foster stuff you've regurgitated to the less disgraceful but still totally baseless suggestion that she did something wrong w/r/t the Clinton Foundation.

And your nonsense defending people for "just asking questions" is either woefully ignorant of the harm one can cause by "just asking questions" is a bunch of crap. Come on. This is exactly what the Glenn Becks and the Alex Jones of the world do, and it's sleazy as can be. Most people seem to understand this principle- that's where the whole "many people are saying" meme came from. It's unfortunate that it's escaped you, but it appears it has.

You want to keep being, in the wise words of the Dallas Morning News, a "political hyena"? Go for it.  I'm done fighting it.  Every time you seem reasonable for a couple days you suddenly seem unable to resist the urge to sink even lower. I have enough faith in this country to reject both the ignorance and bigotry of Trumpism and the sleazy "I'm just asking questions!" crap spewed by anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists. If I'm wrong, so be it. At least one of us will know he didn't deliberately disregard the wishes of the family of a man who tragically committed suicide regarding discussion of his death.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She didn't "cause this whole stinking mess all by herself,"

 


Memo Places Hillary Clinton At Core of Travel Office Case

By DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: January 5, 1996

In the memorandum, apparently intended for Thomas F. McLarty, who was the White House chief of staff, Mr. Watkins wrote that "we both know that there would be hell to pay" if "we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes."

Yeah.

The point being, people are more pissed off at others who raise this stuff than the person described in this story.


 

 

[timschochet]

Which begs the question....what is it about the Clintons that make them so "hated"?

They were the first couple from the 60s generation to reach political power in this country, and to understand the hatred you've got to back to that era and take into account  conservative resentment against liberal youth who, in the eyes of conservatives, were given every benefit in life and didn't appreciate what they had. 

Bill avoided the draft and tried pot. Hillary was the poster girl for feminism, and appeared to have disdain for women who stayed home and baked cookies. From the first traditional conservatives couldn't stand them. 

The hatred has always been very real, your use of quotation marks notwithstanding. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

TF are you making the argument that Johnson is "No True Libertarian" ?

MT points out the things that big business love.....the influence, the protection etc.  Policy positions come second to those things.  So when a libertarian philosophy is applied, yes, the government is far less involved in the regulation part, lets there be more of a free market etc, but it also removes all the back room benefits big business is really after.  These businesses no longer have that wink and a nod protection they had before when they go and break the rules.  You guys seem to be talking passed each other.  "Favor" isn't just found in the rules and regulations....that's a small part of it.

I'm saying that (1) MT's arguments only acknowledge the latter, and that (2) the latter isn't nearly as prominent as people think it is, at least not in terms of "true benefits."  I can point to actual, concrete ways a Libertarian would favor big business and vice versa (rolling back the Clean Power Plan, for instance), whereas Johnson and his supporters here can only offer vague anti-business statements without substance.

I think the problem is that most of you all call "back room benefits" are really just regulatory exemptions. While those suck, they're certainly much better than rolling back regulations across the board. To use a prominent example- in 2005 Congress passed and Bush signed the so-called "Halliburton exemption" which essentially removed most fracking from the purview of Safe Drinking Water Act laws and regulations. Some people might say that's a back room benefit for big business ... but how is that worse for the environment than rolling back ALL Safe Drinking Water Act enforcement, either by amending the regulations or by slashing the enforcement budget?  If Johnson is a true libertarian and abides by what he says about "the environment" on his website and in speeches that's exactly what he'd do.

There are some exceptions to this, most notably government contracting, but for the most part the stuff you guys call "back room benefits" is really just this.  Same goes for "government subsidies," which are often just specially tailored tax breaks that industry likes ... but certainly they'd prefer the sort of broad tax cuts Johnson and Libertarians favor a whole lot more.

 

[Sammy3469]

WHITEWATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm saying that (1) MT's arguments only acknowledge the latter, and that (2) the latter isn't nearly as prominent as people think it is, at least not in terms of "true benefits."  I can point to actual, concrete ways a Libertarian would favor big business and vice versa (rolling back the Clean Power Plan, for instance), whereas Johnson and his supporters here can only offer vague anti-business statements without substance.

I think the problem is that most of you all call "back room benefits" are really just regulatory exemptions. While those suck, they're certainly much better than rolling back regulations across the board. To use a prominent example- in 2005 Congress passed and Bush signed the so-called "Halliburton exemption" which essentially removed most fracking from the purview of Safe Drinking Water Act laws and regulations. Some people might say that's a back room benefit for big business ... but how is that worse for the environment than rolling back ALL Safe Drinking Water Act enforcement, either by amending the regulations or by slashing the enforcement budget?  If Johnson is a true libertarian and abides by what he says about "the environment" on his website and in speeches that's exactly what he'd do.

There are some exceptions to this, most notably government contracting, but for the most part the stuff you guys call "back room benefits" is really just this.  Same goes for "government subsidies," which are often just specially tailored tax breaks that industry likes ... but certainly they'd prefer the sort of broad tax cuts Johnson and Libertarians favor a whole lot more.

The guy who deregulated oversight of Big AG & banking in Arkansas, the same guy who signed the law putting the third star in the AR flag recognizing the confederacy, who as president deregulated finance, repealed Glass Steagall, instituted anticrime legislation against super predator youth, ended welfare 'as we know it', bombed Iraq, bombed Serbia, who likes to chase the chicks around the table like a Mad Men episide, whose wife spoke on the Senate floor as a Dem leader in favor of the Iraq War.... that's the scion of the new generation that conservatives fear? Ok.

Is there a reasonably electable Dem that cons would rather have as president?

 

[dutch]

Is there a reasonably electable Dem that cons would rather have as president?

I don't think so.

 

[badmojo1006]

New trove of Clinton Benghazi emails proves thin. State Department says set of about 30 Benghazi-related messages discovered by FBI contains only one that's all-new.

However, in a court filing early Wednesday morning, government lawyers said a closer review of the records the FBI located revealed only one of the messages was entirely absent from those produced by previous State Department searches: a flattering note sent by a veteran U.S. diplomat following her testimony on Benghazi before a Senate panel in January 2013.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The guy who deregulated oversight of Big AG & banking in Arkansas, the same guy who signed the law putting the third star in the AR flag recognizing the confederacy, who as president deregulated finance, repealed Glass Steagall, instituted anticrime legislation against super predator youth, ended welfare 'as we know it', bombed Iraq, bombed Serbia, who likes to chase the chicks around the table like a Mad Men episide, whose wife spoke on the Senate floor as a Dem leader in favor of the Iraq War.... that's the scion of the new generation that conservatives fear? Ok.

Is there a reasonably electable Dem that cons would rather have as president?

Than Bill Clinton?  I don't know. He's not allowed to run, though.  If he was then Obama would be leading Trump by 10+ points and none of this would be an issue.

BTW, not that I care all that much about left or right or liberal or democrat in an election that should be about only one thing, but the whole "Hillary Clinton is a centrist" thing is a bit of a myth. But hey, if that myth helps win over moderate Republicans in order to beat Trump, please spread it far and wide.

 

[The Commish]

I'm saying that (1) MT's arguments only acknowledge the latter, and that (2) the latter isn't nearly as prominent as people think it is, at least not in terms of "true benefits."  I can point to actual, concrete ways a Libertarian would favor big business and vice versa (rolling back the Clean Power Plan, for instance), whereas Johnson and his supporters here can only offer vague anti-business statements without substance.

I think the problem is that most of you all call "back room benefits" are really just regulatory exemptions. While those suck, they're certainly much better than rolling back regulations across the board. To use a prominent example- in 2005 Congress passed and Bush signed the so-called "Halliburton exemption" which essentially removed most fracking from the purview of Safe Drinking Water Act laws and regulations. Some people might say that's a back room benefit for big business ... but how is that worse for the environment than rolling back ALL Safe Drinking Water Act enforcement, either by amending the regulations or by slashing the enforcement budget?  If Johnson is a true libertarian and abides by what he says about "the environment" on his website and in speeches that's exactly what he'd do.

There are some exceptions to this, most notably government contracting, but for the most part the stuff you guys call "back room benefits" is really just this.  Same goes for "government subsidies," which are often just specially tailored tax breaks that industry likes ... but certainly they'd prefer the sort of broad tax cuts Johnson and Libertarians favor a whole lot more.

This is something I don't pretend to know one way or the other.  All I can do is put on my "big business crony" hat and try and place myself in the position of those businesses.  I think I'd rather have government officials in my back pocket under the most stringent of regulations than have the most lenient of regulations and no government sticking up for me, allowing the justice system to settle punitive damage (I think that's the term....not a lawyer, take it easy on me) cases when a person or group of people are severely impacted by irresponsible business practices.  In the former, I can push the envelope of what I can get away with knowing the government has some influence via their rules and regulations and they can be wordsmithed over time to mean virtually nothing in terms of what the individual is entitled to thus limiting the "damage" done to my company.  That's a completely calculated risk.  As a business, I am ok with calculated risk.  In the latter, I am rolling the dice on what an individual judge or jury may say once said suit is brought before them.  That's far less calculable/predictable.  Not sure I want to go that path.

Of course, I am just spit balling here....It's tough to put myself in that sort of mindset where I put a company over an individual.

 

[The Commish]

Which begs the question....what is it about the Clintons that make them so "hated"?

They were the first couple from the 60s generation to reach political power in this country, and to understand the hatred you've got to back to that era and take into account  conservative resentment against liberal youth who, in the eyes of conservatives, were given every benefit in life and didn't appreciate what they had. 

Bill avoided the draft and tried pot. Hillary was the poster girl for feminism, and appeared to have disdain for women who stayed home and baked cookies. From the first traditional conservatives couldn't stand them. 

The hatred has always been very real, your use of quotation marks notwithstanding. 

They were "liberal youth"??  I didn't think the word liberal started losing it's meaning until just recently   Hillary was "proud of her conservative roots" and was a "proud to be a Goldwater girl".  Of course, I don't profess to be a political junkie.  The actual politics are pretty boring to me.  I hang around for the mental gymnastics while eating my cake and pie.  Yes, I have a political philosophy and standard I think these people should meet, but there isn't an ounce of me that feels it necessary to defend any of them.

By the way, I used quotes around hatred because the tone towards Hillary is pretty much identical to the tone used towards Trump and many people around here (yourself included) have said you don't hate Trump.  I don't know if any of you really hate Trump or not...doesn't really matter to me just as I don't know if people really hate Hillary.  If I have to go by tone alone, it seems like all of you "hate" the opposition.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Than Bill Clinton?  I don't know. He's not allowed to run, though.  If he was then Obama would be leading Trump by 10+ points and none of this would be an issue.

BTW, not that I care all that much about left or right or liberal or democrat in an election that should be about only one thing, but the whole "Hillary Clinton is a centrist" thing is a bit of a myth. But hey, if that myth helps win over moderate Republicans in order to beat Trump, please spread it far and wide.

We were talking antipathy dating back to the 90s, the origination of the VRWC myth.

As for Hillary, I think we all know a lot of candidates would be doing better than Hillary right now, including her VP. It's been one of my arguments against her that her candidacy has itself been unnecessary risk taking though in the end I know it will work out more than all right electorally.

Chris Matthews described her as a Rockefeller Republican, Scoop Jackson Democrat. She agreed with that. And I think that's perfect.

 

[Rove!]

Wikileaks hasn't even released their trove of emails yet and this is truly the most corrupt politician to run for any kind of office in this country's history.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

New trove of Clinton Benghazi emails proves thin. State Department says set of about 30 Benghazi-related messages discovered by FBI contains only one that's all-new.

However, in a court filing early Wednesday morning, government lawyers said a closer review of the records the FBI located revealed only one of the messages was entirely absent from those produced by previous State Department searches: a flattering note sent by a veteran U.S. diplomat following her testimony on Benghazi before a Senate panel in January 2013.

Good sign for Hillary. 17,000 more to go.

Just some thoughts:

- Some of Hillary's emails were previously recovered from Blumenthal, Abedin and others, so it's still notable if Hillary deleted them but they were only recovered through other sources, this is something we already knew.

- I think the best thing for her is that there are no new third party communications outside USGov, that's the kind of thing which would have been excluded from her emails due to her method. I don't think Hillary would ever write or receive anything too alarming on this subject to her own department. The worst stuff to come out was to her daughter (under a pseudonym) and from Blumenthal.

- One other thought - the fact that an email from ambassador was deleted is not actually good news. That's the sort of thing that should have been retained. The fact that it was deleted probably is not going to have good results when topics which have not been so well covered as Benghazi are addressed.

 

[timschochet]

Wikileaks hasn't even released their trove of emails yet and this is truly the most corrupt politician to run for any kind of office in this country's history.  

I agree Trump is pretty corrupt, but he's not the most corrupt ever  run for any kind of office. 

 

[squistion]

The guy who deregulated oversight of Big AG & banking in Arkansas, the same guy who signed the law putting the third star in the AR flag recognizing the confederacy, who as president deregulated finance, repealed Glass Steagall, instituted anticrime legislation against super predator youth, ended welfare 'as we know it', bombed Iraq, bombed Serbia, who likes to chase the chicks around the table like a Mad Men episide, whose wife spoke on the Senate floor as a Dem leader in favor of the Iraq War.... that's the scion of the new generation that conservatives fear? Ok.

Is there a reasonably electable Dem that cons would rather have as president?

 

He signed a bill the AR legislature had passed putting the 25th star on the AR flag? Horrors! He might has well signed a bill asking AR to secede from the Union.

JFC. Who the hell cares about one white star out of 25 on the AR flag? I doubt most residents of AR even know what any of the stars represent, let alone the third one ("Oh, look, Nadine, see that third star? That represents the confederacy!")

He signed a bill the legislature passed. Yes, he could have vetoed it, but that veto would have been overridden, so what would have been point? If you want to make the argument that this means Bill Clinton gave a full throated endorsement of the confederacy and probably approves of the confederate flag being flown, go ahead, but it will be as silly as most of your other criticisms.

 

[Guest]

They were the first couple from the 60s generation to reach political power in this country, and to understand the hatred you've got to back to that era and take into account  conservative resentment against liberal youth who, in the eyes of conservatives, were given every benefit in life and didn't appreciate what they had. 

Bill avoided the draft and tried pot. Hillary was the poster girl for feminism, and appeared to have disdain for women who stayed home and baked cookies. From the first traditional conservatives couldn't stand them. 

The hatred has always been very real, your use of quotation marks notwithstanding. 

Simpler.  They put their own wants, desires and wallets first.   And they cover it up with a veil of righteousness.