Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)

[IC FBGCav]

Stop it.  He has not faced anywhere near the scrutiny of Hillary over the last 20 years.  If he had, no way the scam artist is a candidate for President right now.

Excuse.  

 

[rodg12]

Excuse.  

Fact.

 

[dutch]

Difference between Trump's spotlight and Clinton's is Donald's was always celebrity driven which allowed him to be ridiculous without being taken to task while Hillary was always dragged under the kliegs in attempts to tamp her ambition and position.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Donald Trump.  Many more you just have to think "hard".   But keep the excuses coming. 

I meant as a political figure. I assumed that part was understood, since obviously plenty of actors and coaches and whatnot have been in the public eye for decades in their fields.  I guess next time I'll be sure to spell it out for you.

I also meant to say "without being president," not "without running for president."  Obviously she ran for president in 2008.  My bad on that.

 

[tommyboy]

I don't have to be anti Trump, we all know he is not a good candidate.   HRC is a horrible candidate but people constantly make excuses for her and try to pass her off as viable candidate which IMO she isn't.   I voted Obama twice and will never vote HRC because she simply isn't worthy, not only is she liar like Trump but she is a cheater too.

you left out incompetent

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes, I think the scrutiny and the impression that she's deceptive may well be a product of her lack of transparency. 

 

David Axelrod ‏@davidaxelrod Sep 12
Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?

 

[Sinn Fein]

My short list:

 Warren and Sanders aren't going to bat for her and getting nothing in return. 

my link

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Sure, let's give it a try.  Multiple posters have asked for it, let's see how it goes

Here's some reasons I support Clinton for president:

- She prioritizes the welfare of children and has done so her entire life, both in general and in specific policies like her push for paid family leave, raises for early childhood educators, and so on and so on.  I have three young children of my own and I appreciate that perspective.

- She has significant public service experience.  The job of president is in my opinion largely "chief administrator."  It's a day to day grind, not the grand gestures we see on movies and TV. She's better qualified for that job than any candidate in recent memory.

- She is likely to nominate a Supreme Court justice who shares my perspective on the Constitution.

- She is a pragmatist, one of the few to run for president recently. The truth of most issues is often somewhere in the middle and she and I agree on a number of issues in that respect.

-She'll push to keep the Clean Power Plan in effect.

-I agree with her positions on criminal justice reform

That's a start. I could go on for a while, but let's see how the new pro-Hillary message plays.

I agree with everything in this list.

I'll add that of the remaining candidates, Clinton's tax plan is the only one IMO rooted in any type of reality.  Johnson's consumption-based tax model is a very interesting one in theory that I think would be very difficult to phase in over a short period of time without a significant number of developed nations also shifting to it at the same time.  Trump's plan may as well give blank checks to the top 1%, with I suppose Mexico covering the difference. I am unbothered by increased tax burdens on the top earners and closing loopholes that only the wealthy can exercise.  

I think Clinton will be able to work well with others from inside the White House, partisan and bi-partisan.  Her rep with other politicians is very different than hers with the press or even the public.  People who have worked with her in government praise her thoughtfulness and ability to process and prioritize large amounts of information quickly.  IMO she has a big advantage over the other applicants for the job when it comes to consensus-building.  

 

[Slapdash]

My short list:

• I do think she'll try to follow through with the Wall Street regulations (I particularly like that she's for a tax on high-frequency trading).  Warren and Sanders aren't going to bat for her and getting nothing in return.  
  
• The Supreme Court
  
• Her tax plan
  
• Her infrastructure plan
  
• Paid family leave
  
• Wants to overturn Citizen's United.
  

I think financial transaction taxes are a bad idea as a whole, but Clinton's current proposals doesn't really target Wall St institutions at all.  It targets the smaller HFT firms competing with Wall St...

 

[MaxThreshold]

I suppose it hinges on the definition of reasonable. From your body of work it seems to me that yours is anything but

Yeah...a Hillary sycophant criticizing me on MY body of work.  That's comedy gold I tell ya'!

 

[MaxThreshold]

You're really bad at this...no offense.

I've never stepped foot in the Trump thread...I do all my bashing of both here.  And in here, I've said approximately 8 million times what kind of ###### I believe he is.  Sorry you missed them.  Morality isn't the strong suit of this thread...the bar has been set at "legal vs illegal".  You'll have to take that issue up with those setting that bar.

That would be the HRC supporters.  According to them, only if an indictment is issued would that MAYBE be proof of wrongdoing.

Of course, if they are going to hold that bar for her, then they MUST hold it for The Donald.  So, once again, I guess that makes them equal.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I agree, they stay on point with 100% never wavering no matter what she does.   There is nothing in life I am that blind too.

And if you notice, once the HRC campaign and her surrogates come up with a new buzzword, they are ALL in here using it seconds after it's used:  False Equivalency, Deplorables, etc...

It's like they all go to the same website every day to get their marching orders.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Stop it.  He has not faced anywhere near the scrutiny of Hillary over the last 20 years.  If he had, no way the scam artist is a candidate for President right now.

She's faced scrutiny because of HER actions, not anyone else's.  I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.  She doesn't get a pass because you feel sorry for her.

And I don't believe she's faced more scrutiny than anyone else.  That's BS and weak-### excuse to cover for your poor voting choice.

 

[shadrap]

at least no one has stated that Hillary is a "brilliant attorney" for awhile.

still chuckle at that one.   Over & out.    have a nice cluster bonanza post party tonight.   Try being ----whatever.    look forward to reading tomorrow.

 

[rodg12]

She's faced scrutiny because of HER actions, not anyone else's.  I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.  She doesn't get a pass because you feel sorry for her.

And I don't believe she's faced more scrutiny than anyone else.  That's BS and weak-### excuse to cover for your poor voting choice.

Name me another former first lady who ran for President 20 years after being in office.  I'll hang up and listen...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Name me another former first lady who ran for President 20 years after being in office.  I'll hang up and listen...

Name another political spouse who has represented clients with business before the other spouse? Heck, try state or local. This family has two.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Name me another former first lady who ran for President 20 years after being in office.  I'll hang up and listen...

That's means nothing.  You've put so many qualifiers on it you've ruled out anyone but HRC.  

GWB was scrutinized and ridiculed mercilessly for his two terms MORE than HRC has ever been.

Sarah Palin received more scrutiny and ridicule for the year she was in the spotlight than HRC has her whole career.  HRC has been protected by the media and other corrupt players on the left.

Maybe the topic of discussion should be "Name another person who has more weak-###, pathetic excuses made for her behavior than Hillary Clinton".  Then you would be right that no one else comes close.

I'll hang up and wait for more qualifiers.

 

[rodg12]

Name another political spouse who has represented clients with business before the other spouse? Heck, try state or local. This family has two.

What do you mean by this?  Wording is unclear here.

 

[ffldrew]

That's means nothing.  You've put so many qualifiers on it you've ruled out anyone but HRC.  

GWB was scrutinized and ridiculed mercilessly for his two terms MORE than HRC has ever been.

Sarah Palin received more scrutiny and ridicule for the year she was in the spotlight than HRC has her whole career.  HRC has been protected by the media and other corrupt players on the left.

I'll hang up and wait for more qualifiers.

If GWB had been really scrutinized he'd be up on war crime charges - ridiculed I'll agree with.

Sarah Palin did not receive more scrutiny - she just crumbled under the slightest bit of scrutiny ever given a VP candidate - we knew she was a failure after about a week.Afterwards she was in such hot water in Alaska she just quit.

HRC's been under the gun since her days in Arkansas - Richard Scaife had her in the target sights from the get go and he owned media.

 

[timschochet]

Max, you wrote earlier that you don't believe that Donald Trump has behaved in a bigoted manner towards Muslim Americans. Care to defend this comment?

 

[cstu]

She's faced scrutiny because of HER actions, not anyone else's.  I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.  She doesn't get a pass because you feel sorry for her.

And I don't believe she's faced more scrutiny than anyone else.  That's BS and weak-### excuse to cover for your poor voting choice.

I can guarantee you that no one here is voting for her because they feel sorry for her.  What's impressive is how she has handled attack after attack over decades.  She will make a great President, guess I should thank you guys for making her battle-tested. 

 

[rodg12]

That's means nothing.  You've put so many qualifiers on it you've ruled out anyone but HRC.  

GWB was scrutinized and ridiculed mercilessly for his two terms MORE than HRC has ever been.

Sarah Palin received more scrutiny and ridicule for the year she was in the spotlight than HRC has her whole career.  HRC has been protected by the media and other corrupt players on the left.

Maybe the topic of discussion should be "Name another person who has more weak-###, pathetic excuses made for her behavior than Hillary Clinton".  Then you would be right that no one else comes close.

I'll hang up and wait for more qualifiers.

The italicized is the whole point.  It's the reason she's been the most scrutinized candidate ever.  DUH!  it's not 'putting qualifiers' on it.  It's laying out the evidence for why she's the most scrutinized ever.  I'll saying it bolder and slower so maybe you'll understand this time... IT'S BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN IN THE NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT FOR SO LONG.  It's not hard to figure out, even for a Republican like yourself that still backs a party that trotted out a racist, xenophobic, bigoted, narcissistic sociopath to run against Hillary.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Max, you wrote earlier that you don't believe that Donald Trump has behaved in a bigoted manner towards Muslim Americans. Care to defend this comment?

The reality is that "racist" is used so much by the American Left to describe opposing thought that it has lost all meaning.  You might as well be calling someone a "poopy-head" for all it means anymore.

I haven't heard or seen anything he's said that I would consider racist, but maybe I'm missing something  However, based upon the liberal posters in here you would think he was the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

 

[timschochet]

Nobody in American political history has ever received the amount of scrutiny as Hillary Clinton. Nobody.

I can say this with some assurance because, though some other politicians had as long a career as she has had in the public spotlight (FDR and Nixon come to mind) they were not subject to the 24 hour news cycle. The Presidents that have been subject to that news cycle, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, were only subjected to it during the time of their Presidencies. Clinton and Bush were largely left alone after they left office, as Obama will be. Hillary Clinton has never been President (yet) but she is as prominent as any American political figure and has been for 25 years. .

A big part of the scrutiny is because Hillary has been the subject of several scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, the White House Travel Office, the death of Vince Foster, the supposed seizure of FBI files, the Lewinsky scandal (here she wasn't the main subject but was directly involved), Pardongate, and much later Benghazi and the email scandal. She has also been accused of having her enemies murdered, drug smuggling in Mena, Arkansas, and a host of other crimes. The Clinton Foundation has been charged with corruption. Hillary has also been accused (as most politicians are) of lying on a regular basis. She appears to be secretive and refuses to answer personal questions until she has to. This last element of her personality has only served to make the media more inquisitive.

And yet there is a significant difference between all of these scandals and the lying and corruption that Trump is being accused of: with Trump, everything is very easy to prove. With Hillary, nothing has ever been proven; it's almost all conjecture.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What do you mean by this?  Wording is unclear here.

Hillary represented clients with regulatory business before her husband as governor in Arkansas. This included banking, retail and environmental. Bill deregulated environmental and banking especially, there was one bank failure at least from one of her clients and companies like Tyson and Georgia Pacific left an environmental mess.

As SOS Bill Clinton represented and consulted for companies with Teneo and WJC LLC with business before Hillary and needless to say the work for the Foundation often involved the same conflicts. Again critics raise issues where corporations got breaks and raise conflict of interest issues.

This is why Bill and Hillary are so often in conflict with the law and run into investigations. One person is getting paid (and that money goes into the same community bucket) by the same companies that their spouse is regulating.

You asked who has ever been treated this way. I asked who has ever put themselves in this situation politically, from any city, state or federal scenario. I'd like a comparable example.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nobody in American political history has ever received the amount of scrutiny as Hillary Clinton. Nobody.

Go sell a piece of real estate as agent and have your wife placed as the buying agent.

Do you think that transaction and you and your wife might receive some scrutiny?

That's the Clintons over and over again.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The italicized is the whole point.  It's the reason she's been the most scrutinized candidate ever.  DUH!  it's not 'putting qualifiers' on it.  It's laying out the evidence for why she's the most scrutinized ever.  I'll saying it bolder and slower so maybe you'll understand this time... IT'S BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN IN THE NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT FOR SO LONG.  It's not hard to figure out, even for a Republican like yourself that still backs a party that trotted out a racist, xenophobic, bigoted, narcissistic sociopath to run against Hillary.

All  , of course.  

And it turns out your party has a bunch of racists as well.  Might want to ease up on the finger pointing.

 

[timschochet]

The reality is that "racist" is used so much by the American Left to describe opposing thought that it has lost all meaning.  You might as well be calling someone a "poopy-head" for all it means anymore.

I haven't heard or seen anything he's said that I would consider racist, but maybe I'm missing something  However, based upon the liberal posters in here you would think he was the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Well let's see.

For starters he stated that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the attacks on 9/11. He says he watched them on television and they were in New Jersey. This almost surely never happened. Next, in response to the San Bernardino shootings, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims coming to America.

Those are just two examples in a long list. Do you deny this represents bigotry?

 

[ffldrew]

Hillary represented clients with regulatory business before her husband as governor in Arkansas. This included banking, retail and environmental. Bill deregulated environmental and banking especially, there was one bank failure at least from one of her clients and companies like Tyson and Georgia Pacific left an environmental mess.

As SOS Bill Clinton represented and consulted for companies with Teneo and WJC LLC with business before Hillary and needless to say the work for the Foundation often involved the same conflicts. Again critics raise issues where corporations got breaks and raise conflict of interest issues.

This is why Bill and Hillary are so often in conflict with the law and run into investigations. One person is getting paid (and that money goes into the same community bucket) by the same companies that their spouse is regulating.

You asked who has ever been treated this way. I asked who has ever put themselves in this situation politically, from any city, state or federal scenario. I'd like a comparable example.

Elaine Cho and Mitch McConnell

 

[ffldrew]

Hillary represented clients with regulatory business before her husband as governor in Arkansas. This included banking, retail and environmental. Bill deregulated environmental and banking especially, there was one bank failure at least from one of her clients and companies like Tyson and Georgia Pacific left an environmental mess.

As SOS Bill Clinton represented and consulted for companies with Teneo and WJC LLC with business before Hillary and needless to say the work for the Foundation often involved the same conflicts. Again critics raise issues where corporations got breaks and raise conflict of interest issues.

This is why Bill and Hillary are so often in conflict with the law and run into investigations. One person is getting paid (and that money goes into the same community bucket) by the same companies that their spouse is regulating.

You asked who has ever been treated this way. I asked who has ever put themselves in this situation politically, from any city, state or federal scenario. I'd like a comparable example.

Wendy Gramm and Phil Gramm

 

[rodg12]

Hillary represented clients with regulatory business before her husband as governor in Arkansas. This included banking, retail and environmental. Bill deregulated environmental and banking especially, there was one bank failure at least from one of her clients and companies like Tyson and Georgia Pacific left an environmental mess.

As SOS Bill Clinton represented and consulted for companies with Teneo and WJC LLC with business before Hillary and needless to say the work for the Foundation often involved the same conflicts. Again critics raise issues where corporations got breaks and raise conflict of interest issues.

This is why Bill and Hillary are so often in conflict with the law and run into investigations. One person is getting paid (and that money goes into the same community bucket) by the same companies that their spouse is regulating.

You asked who has ever been treated this way. I asked who has ever put themselves in this situation politically, from any city, state or federal scenario. I'd like a comparable example.

Ah, OK.  I mean, I don't have one.  I don't really need to have one to say that Hillary has been the most scrutinized candidate ever, though, right?  That's my theory.  I don't need another example to somehow disprove that.  Has Hillary brought some of this on herself?? ABSOLUTELY.  I'm totally fine admitting this.  All of it?  No freaking way.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Well let's see.

For starters he stated that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the attacks on 9/11. He says he watched them on television and they were in New Jersey. This almost surely never happened. Next, in response to the San Bernardino shootings, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims coming to America.

Those are just two examples in a long list. Do you deny this represents bigotry?

I do.  Simply stating he saw Muslims celebrating the attacks is not racist or bigoted.  I remember Muslims celebrating in Lebanon when 9/11 happened.  In fact, I believe Arafat had to send out his troops to clear the streets it looked so bad.

The donald called for a ban on immigration coming from countries compromised by terrorism and until the US can get some control over what's going on.  I'd say that's good policy, not racist or bigoted.

 

[rodg12]

All  , of course.  

And it turns out your party has a bunch of racists as well.  Might want to ease up on the finger pointing.

Nah, I'll point all the fingers I want at Donald Trump.  He's a scam artist that deserves every ounce of ridicule a person can levy on him.  It's a joke that the Republican party nominated him for President.  Worst candidate of my lifetime (easily).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ah, OK.  I mean, I don't have one.  I don't really need to have one to say that Hillary has been the most scrutinized candidate ever, though, right?  That's my theory.  I don't need another example to somehow disprove that.  Has Hillary brought some of this on herself?? ABSOLUTELY.  I'm totally fine admitting this.  All of it?  No freaking way.

Yeah, I'm fine too, I'm just pointing out this 'most scrutinized politician in history' thing has a reason for that. It's because she and Bill have constantly put themselves in a position of potential conflict of interest. Every single time they have represented or taken money (or raised) from someone with business before their spouse that is an opportunity for the criticism to arise. Scrutiny then follows.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Ah, OK.  I mean, I don't have one.  I don't really need to have one to say that Hillary has been the most scrutinized candidate ever, though, right?  That's my theory.  I don't need another example to somehow disprove that.  Has Hillary brought some of this on herself?? ABSOLUTELY.  I'm totally fine admitting this.  All of it?  No freaking way.

Nope, pretty much all of it.  Her career has been littered with lies, corruption, failures and poor choices.  As she continues to make one mistake after another, the scrutiny becomes greater because of her history.  The problem is the left keeps giving this donkey positions of power, allowing her to make even more mistakes, advance more lies and continue the corruption.

I think the left keeps giving her positions because of Bill, as if they think it will bring his magic back.  I knew Bill Clinton - and she's no Bill Clinton.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Nah, I'll point all the fingers I want at Donald Trump.  He's a scam artist that deserves every ounce of ridicule a person can levy on him.  It's a joke that the Republican party nominated him for President.  Worst candidate of my lifetime (easily).

I'll concede that he's a terrible candidate, but interchangeable at #1 and #2 with Hillary.  You can make a case for either being the worst POS ever.

And I'll expect finger pointing at your own party, unless you like to be called "hypocrite".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Elaine Cho and Mitch McConnell

Ok, thanks. So what client did she represent which had business before her husband?

The problem with Hillary in Whitewater is she represented a bank in going before a board of regulators which had been appointed by her husband. It was for a bad loan, the application was granted, the bank failed, people got hurt. Hillary and Bill also went into business on the side with the owners of the bank. Do Cho and McConnell have anything like that on their record?

I'm just examining the difference in scrutiny here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wendy Gramm and Phil Gramm

Ok, short list, isn't it?

In a lawsuit in 1989, some residents contended that the company was responsible for a pattern of pollution around the state, abetted by a state government that refused to do anything about it.

"The various regulatory authorities legally charged with protecting the water, land and people of Arkansas from this well-known pollution have failed to take any meaningful enforcement action," the Green Forest residents said in their lawsuit. The lawsuit produced evidence that Mr. Clinton was personally briefed on the pollution problems at Green Forest, and it contended that his administration had failed to take significant action. State officials and the company denied any wrongdoing.

- NYTimes, speaking of Tyson foods there.

Ok we know that Phill Gramm (and Bill Clinton) famously deregulated Wall Street.

Now is there a situation where Wendy Gramm luckily received a fortunate futures tip worth $100,000 from someone on Wall Street?

I think you see the problem here at this point, right?

 

[timschochet]

I do.  Simply stating he saw Muslims celebrating the attacks is not racist or bigoted.  I remember Muslims celebrating in Lebanon when 9/11 happened.  In fact, I believe Arafat had to send out his troops to clear the streets it looked so bad.

The donald called for a ban on immigration coming from countries compromised by terrorism and until the US can get some control over what's going on.  I'd say that's good policy, not racist or bigoted.

Wow. First Trump didn't say he saw Muslims in Lebanon celebrating. He saw American Muslims in New Jersey. And that did not happen. To make that accusation is absolutely a bigoted comment.

Second, Trump did not originally call for a ban from countries; that came later. He originally called for a ban on ALL MUSLIMS. I'm not sure if you're just being willfully ignorant here, though I don't see how you could have been unaware of this.

 

[ffldrew]

Ok, short list, isn't it?

- NYTimes, speaking of Tyson foods there.



Ok we know that Phill Gramm (and Bill Clinton) famously deregulated Wall Street.

Now is there a situation where Wendy Gramm luckily received a fortunate futures tip worth $100,000 from someone on Wall Street?

I think you see the problem here at this point, right?

 Previously, Gramm held several positions in the Reagan Administration, including heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1988 to 1993. After a lobbying campaign from Enron, the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy derivatives. Subsequently, Gramm resigned from the CFTC and took a seat on the Enron Board of Directors and served on its Audit Committee. While on the board of directors she received donations from Enron to support the Mercatus Center.

After the Enron scandal, Gramm and the other directors of the energy company were named in several investor lawsuits, many of which have been settled. In particular, Gramm and other Enron directors agreed to a 168 million dollar settlement in a suit led by the University of California. As part of that settlement, the directors agreed to collectively pay $13 million to settle claims of insider trading. The remainder of the settlement was to be paid by insurance.

 

[ffldrew]

Ok, thanks. So what client did she represent which had business before her husband?

The problem with Hillary in Whitewater is she represented a bank in going befroe a board of regulators which had been appointed by her husband. It was for a bad loan, the application was granted, the bank failed, people got hurt. Do Cho and McConnell have anything like that on their record?

I'm just examining the difference in scrutiny here.

For Chao at Labor

Chao's tenure as Labor Secretary saw two mine disasters for which she was criticized. Twelve miners were killed in the Sago Mine disaster on January 2, 2006, and three rescue workers died in the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster on August 6, 2007. Before the mines collapsed, Chao had cut more than a hundred coal mine safety inspections.[26] According to the Christian Science Monitor, "Nearly half of the 208 safety citations levied in 2005 against the Sago coal mine where 12 men died this week were 'serious and substantial.'"[27] 

Mitch McConnell Senator from the State of Kentucky wouldn't by chance have any interest in this? Seems as damning as the body count attributed to Hillary

ETA - She is also on the board at Wells Fargo

Another Elaine Chao conflict issue

In 2002, a major west coast ports dispute costing the U.S. economy nearly $1 billion daily was resolved when the Bush administration obtained a national emergency injunction against both the employers and the union under the Taft–Hartley Act for the first time since 1971.[21] In 2003, for the first time in more than 40 years, the Department updated the labor union financial disclosure regulations under the Landrum–Griffin Act of 1959 to provide union members with more information on union finances. In 2004, the Department issued significant revisions of the white-collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[22]

hmmmm....

Her father, James S.C. Chao, is a shipping magnate who founded the Foremost Group. In April 2008, Chao's father gave Chao and McConnell between $5 million and $25 million, which "boosted McConnell's personal worth from a minimum of $3 million in 2007 to more than $7 million"[56] and "helped the McConnells after their stock portfolio dipped in the wake of the financial crisis that year."[57

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wow. First Trump didn't say he saw Muslims in Lebanon celebrating. He saw American Muslims in New Jersey. And that did not happen. To make that accusation is absolutely a bigoted comment.

Second, Trump did not originally call for a ban from countries; that came later. He originally called for a ban on ALL MUSLIMS. I'm not sure if you're just being willfully ignorant here, though I don't see how you could have been unaware of this.

Saying you saw Muslims celebrating 9/11 is NOT a bigoted OR racist.  His statement is either a fact OR it's a lie but it's not bigoted.  But you gloss over the fact Muslims were dancing and celebrating in the streets - doesn't matter if it was the US or wherever.  It's a simple fact.

If Trump clarified his comments later on, does it matter?  He clarified them.  I would expect since you give HRC the benefit of the doubt on pretty much everything, I would expect you to apply that to Trump as well.

 

[timschochet]

Saying you saw Muslims celebrating 9/11 is NOT a bigoted OR racist.  His statement is either a fact OR it's a lie but it's not bigoted.  But you gloss over the fact Muslims were dancing and celebrating in the streets - doesn't matter if it was the US or wherever.  It's a simple fact.

If Trump clarified his comments later on, does it matter?  He clarified them.  I would expect since you give HRC the benefit of the doubt on pretty much everything, I would expect you to apply that to Trump as well.

I really...don't know how to respond to this. No offense, but it's like you're living in a different reality.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 Previously, Gramm held several positions in the Reagan Administration, including heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1988 to 1993. After a lobbying campaign from Enron, the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy derivatives. Subsequently, Gramm resigned from the CFTC and took a seat on the Enron Board of Directors and served on its Audit Committee. While on the board of directors she received donations from Enron to support the Mercatus Center.

After the Enron scandal, Gramm and the other directors of the energy company were named in several investor lawsuits, many of which have been settled. In particular, Gramm and other Enron directors agreed to a 168 million dollar settlement in a suit led by the University of California. As part of that settlement, the directors agreed to collectively pay $13 million to settle claims of insider trading. The remainder of the settlement was to be paid by insurance.

Phil Gramm left Congress in 2001, which was either when Enron hit or just before IIRC. I'm guessing that timing was not unrelated. Ok, now imagine Phill Gramm ran for president, or that Wendy Gramm did.

Would scrutiny be justified, or not? It seems to me scrutiny would have been fairly justified when Gramm was Senator and running for Senator. If either had run for president they definitely would have been scrutinized.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For Chao at Labor

Chao's tenure as Labor Secretary saw two mine disasters for which she was criticized. Twelve miners were killed in the Sago Mine disaster on January 2, 2006, and three rescue workers died in the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster on August 6, 2007. Before the mines collapsed, Chao had cut more than a hundred coal mine safety inspections.[26] According to the Christian Science Monitor, "Nearly half of the 208 safety citations levied in 2005 against the Sago coal mine where 12 men died this week were 'serious and substantial.'"[27] 

Mitch McConnell Senator from the State of Kentucky wouldn't by chance have any interest in this? Seems as damning as the body count attributed to Hillary

ETA - She is also on the board at Wells Fargo

I just want to say these are good responses and I appreciate them.

This one seems a little different, because I do not see where McConnell would have had either influence or received benefit from the mine company.

But this is the point - the occurrence of these spouse as lobbyist/lawyer/director and the other spouse as official with regulatory control over the other spouse's clients is very rare. And are we going to say the spouses receiving money had no conceivable influence over what the official spouse did, or in their being hired or paid in the first place? And the Clintons have run for president now four times. This is why they get the scrutiny.

 

[cstu]

I'll concede that he's a terrible candidate, but interchangeable at #1 and #2 with Hillary.  You can make a case for either being the worst POS ever.

And I'll expect finger pointing at your own party, unless you like to be called "hypocrite".

No:

 


Link

There are many accusations thrown about in regard to Donald Trump—and they are not without foundation.

Racist, misogynist, homophobe etc etc—he's earned these titles many times over, and even though all these qualities may be beneficial to the President of the United States (!), they are all sides of the same coin.

Clearly The Donald exhibits signs of a serious personality disorder—but which one? (Actually, crediting him with a personality is a little generous—let's just say he has a 'condition'.)

Is he just a narcisssist (think Gwyneth Paltrow), which, whilst not particularly endearing in a world leader, is not as scary as say a full blown sociopath (think Hannibal Lecter) or even worse, a psychopath (think Hitler).

So allow us to break it down for you—we'll examine the different traits of each condition and try to work out once and for all;


Just what the #### is Donald Trump's problem?


There are a number of classic traits that each disorder shares;

• Liar — Trump is a pathalogical liar. According to the Daily Wire, Politico attempted to measure how many lies Trump told over the course of 4.6 hours of speeches, and they found that he had lied on average, once every five minutes. Huffington Post catalogued his lies over the course of one town hall event and came up with a staggering 71 lies.
  

• Lack of empathy — Just look at his treatment of Mr & Mrs Khan . No empathy whatsoever.
  

• No accountability — Have you seen his tax records?
  

• Inflated view of their own self importance—It's difficult to pin down a speech, interview or event where Donald Trump doesn't scream his inflated view of himself. His excellent relationship with Putin, his "best-selling business book of all time", his "biggest real estate company in the world". We could go on and on and on, but I think that even staunch Trump supporters would agree that Trump has an ego the size of Texas.
  

• Sense of entitlement—Summed up by this quote;
  

"I wish I'd had a great marriage. See my father was alwas very proud of me, but one thing he got right was that he had a great marriage. He was married for 64 years. Once of my ex-wives once said to me, 'You have to work at a marriage.' And I said, 'That's the most ridiculous thing.'"

• Never wrong—Jimmy Fallon interviewed Trump last December and asked him "Have you ever apologized, ever, in your lifetime?" Trump said no, because he's never wrong.
  

• No conscience—Donald Trump, hopes to be President of the entire country, yet refused to condemn the anti-semitic abuse of a reporter who dared to write a critical profile of his wife Melania.
  

• Incapable of self-reflection—Trump himself has said that he doesn't like to reflect on himself, beause he's afraid of what he'll realize.
  

• Can be convincing in mimicking the required social emotions—Researchers at Ohio State University found that voters enjoy emotionally charged language in times of trouble. Trump certainly fits that criteria, he is able to give emotional messages in speeches and convince those who interpret that as being presidential and authoritative that he is speaking from the heart.
  

• High need for power and control—Trump's megalomania knows no bounds. As noted by The Washington Post, he will; destroy the Islamic State, scrap bad trade deals, build the wall, stop the gangs and the violence, stop drugs from pouring into "our communities", suspend immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant and may well even defy treaty obligations and decline to aid NATO allies.
  

• Will throw others under the bus to further their own agenda—There are no limits as to just who Trump will disavow to save his own skin. Before the RNC he claimed;
  

"One of the best produced, including the incredible stage & set, in the history of conventions. Great unity! Big TV ratings!


Fast forward a week later, when asked about the differences between the RNC and the DNC;


"I didn't produce our show—I just showed up for the final speech on Thursday."

• No boundaries or social awareness—Every time he uses a tragedy for self promotion he demonstrates (as well as his lack of empathy) that he literally has no consideration for social boundaries . His response to the Orlando shooting; the worst mas shooting in US history, was self promotion;
  
• Sounds like Donald so far huh?
  

 
There are many shared attributes of the three conditions, and you can't be a sociopath or a psychopath without being a narcissist too—the difference lies in attitudes and this is where the disorders diverge.
 
There are a number of subtle differences in the traits that separate them. Check out the individual characteristics of each and vote in our poll as to which one you think applies to the Republican Presidential candidate—Mr Donald Trump.

Narcissist;

1. Likeable
   
2. Self-interested—conversation is focused on themselves.
   
3. Takes credit for anything positive.
   
4. Brags about their achievements.
   
5. Isn't interested in others.
   
6. Strong personality—it's all about them
   
7. Doesn't necessarily require constant stimulation
   
8. Not necessarily threatening to society.
   

Sociopath;

1. Will deliver an apology if it fits their agenda.
   
2. Intuitive—skilled at observing and reading people
   
3. Will use social media to intentionally cyber-abuse, or emotionally unsettle.
   
4. Slightly more humble.
   
5. Will ask lots of questions.
   
6. No real personality- will change identity to fit in, in order to manipulate others.
   
7. Nervous high energy, can get frantic.
   
8. Prone to boredom, needs constant stimulation.
   
9. Will instantly abandon their subject if their motives are uncovered.
   
10. Usually not well educated or gainfully employed.
    
11. Viewed as outside society
    

Psychopath;

1. Charming
   
2. Cannot form emotional bonds, but is good at faking it.
   
3. Calculating—will form complicated plans
   
4. Skilled at behaving the way they should—can have a family and friends, but they are fake.
   
5. Intelligent, will have a good education and hold down a good job.
   
6. Fearless.
   
7. Dangerous to society.
   

 

[BassNBrew]

Funny how the racist Republicans haven't scrutinized Obama a 1/10th as much as Hillary.  I wonder why?

 

[ffldrew]

Phil Gramm left Congress in 2001, which was either when Enron hit or just before IIRC. Ok, now imagine Phill Gramm ran for president, or that Wendy Gramm did.

Would scrutiny be justified, or not? It seems to me scrutiny would have been fairly justified when Gramm was Senator and running for Senator. If either had run for president they definitely would have been scrutinized.

Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.[14] One provision of the bill is often referred to as the "Enron loophole" because some critics blame the provision for permitting the Enron scandal to occur.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.[14] One provision of the bill is often referred to as the "Enron loophole" because some critics blame the provision for permitting the Enron scandal to occur.

And so would you not say that suggesting he was influenced by his wife's being paid (and therefor his being paid) would be fair?

 

[Rove!]

Well let's see.

For starters he stated that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the attacks on 9/11. He says he watched them on television and they were in New Jersey. This almost surely never happened. Next, in response to the San Bernardino shootings, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims coming to America.

Those are just two examples in a long list. Do you deny this represents bigotry?

Your second example refers to Muslims from other specific countries and not Muslim Americans.

your first example, I believe he conflated video of crowds of people celebrating in Muslim countries with news reports that some folks in Jersey City ( where the Blind Sheik and been located) were celebrating on a rooftop.  perhaps it was the fog of war...