• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Damn Bill Clinton single-handedly destroyed the GOP argument in one speech

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Of what?

BTW: People so easily moved by slick talk should stay away from used car lots. I was an adult when BC was President. I remember him. And if you wanna do a "Monica Lewinski" on him, at least have the decency to do it in private.

Fern

WAHHH!!! WAHHHHH!!!! WAHHH!!!!!

If you don't like people praising Clinton, don't read the threads. It's that simple. The fact is even you, the guy who tries his hardest to hide his Republicanism, can't hide your butthurt right now.
 
Every Republican in this thread knows damn well what Bill Clinton just did to their party in one speech. He made the case for Obama's reelection right there and just won over pretty much every independent voter out there that was on the fence about Obama.

There is NO chance Romney can win this election. Once his tax returns are fully leaked his ship will be completely sunk. The major focus for the Democrats needs to be on riding a landslide of momentum to re-take the House and establish a greater majority in the Senate.

The GOP is a dead party. The difference between these two conventions has been astounding. The DNC is vibrant, enthusiastic, positive, and more representative of the America we live in today. The RNC felt like a funeral, flat and uninspiring...filled with a sea of old white people.

A) No, many independents have not and probably will not listen to Clinton's speechs for any of many reasons.

B) It has not locked the race up for him, most convention "uproar/whatever you want to call it: fades mostly within a month, election is farther away

C) I believe Obama will win yes, but I bet it will be a much closer race than democrats want to believe.
 
I didn't like it. I didn't like so much I watched the NFL game.

I've been lied to by Clinton before last night. He is the only President to be convicted of the crime of perjury while in office. He's no hero to anyone but liars.

I

I hear Jesus might have forgiven him. Of course He was a better manGod than you or me, eh? Of course, one could aspire......
 
The GOP is a dead party. The difference between these two conventions has been astounding. The DNC is vibrant, enthusiastic, positive, and more representative of the America we live in today. The RNC felt like a funeral, flat and uninspiring...filled with a sea of old white people.

The RNC may be as you say, but the DNC represents suckers. As a contrarian independent I say the Reps are a farce, and the Dems are con men. It isn't either party which is dead, that would be the brains of their ardent supporters and perhaps our future. Reality is far too complex for party flatworm minds.
 
The RNC may be as you say, but the DNC represents suckers. As a contrarian independent I say the Reps are a farce, and the Dems are con men. It isn't either party which is dead, that would be the brains of their ardent supporters and perhaps our future. Reality is far too complex for party flatworm minds.

QFT! :thumbsup:
 
Every Republican in this thread knows damn well what Bill Clinton just did to their party in one speech. He made the case for Obama's reelection right there and just won over pretty much every independent voter out there that was on the fence about Obama.

There is NO chance Romney can win this election. Once his tax returns are fully leaked his ship will be completely sunk. The major focus for the Democrats needs to be on riding a landslide of momentum to re-take the House and establish a greater majority in the Senate.

The GOP is a dead party. The difference between these two conventions has been astounding. The DNC is vibrant, enthusiastic, positive, and more representative of the America we live in today. The RNC felt like a funeral, flat and uninspiring...filled with a sea of old white people.

Be realistic - only partisans watch these conventions, and their votes have already been decided. That said, the Democrat campaign line is at this point established: They will be the party of policy and common sense solutions, while attempting to relegate the Republicans to "the party that has no ideas and at best will be a continuation of Bush's policies".
 
Be realistic - only partisans watch these conventions, and their votes have already been decided. That said, the Democrat campaign line is at this point established: They will be the party of policy and common sense solutions, while attempting to relegate the Republicans to "the party that has no ideas and at best will be a continuation of Bush's policies".

I am realistic. The narrative is now set, and if Obama's campaign has any brains they will stick to it until election day. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Romney has a chance.

It's not enough that the incumbent is bad. You have to provide a compelling alternative to actually win. Learned this the hard way with Kerry. He was a flat and uninspiring candidate and ultimately the American people stuck with the devil they knew.
 
If those are the only facts that were incorrect in his speech, then I'd say that speech was pretty damn accurate. Hell, the last "fact check" on that page is just "hey, this guy was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Remember that? Remember?" That's not fact-checking, it's trying to impeach the source through mud-slinging, and it's preposterous to include in a list of facts that Clinton misused or lied about. Seriously, that is some of the least convincing "fact checking" I've ever seen.
 
Clinton was forced to compromise by Newt Gingrich and a Republican Congress.

He may claim successes but the successes came from the Rs.

Obama had an aggressive Democrat dominated Congress when he started his term and they did not compromise a bit with the Republicans. He basically let them do what they wanted, any way that they wanted.

2010 came and the R's took back the House. One half of one branch of government.

It was a complete shock and surprise to Obama and he has still not been able to pivot any more than in his first two years. Now the Dems cannot drive the entire agenda.

My guess is that if he is re-elected, he still will not come to compromise without having a fully R Congress with strong leadership staring him down.

If he had that environment in his first two years it is likely we would have seen more cooperation and less hubris. But that is just an idle conjecture.
 
I am realistic. The narrative is now set, and if Obama's campaign has any brains they will stick to it until election day. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Romney has a chance.

It's not enough that the incumbent is bad. You have to provide a compelling alternative to actually win. Learned this the hard way with Kerry. He was a flat and uninspiring candidate and ultimately the American people stuck with the devil they knew.

I agree that Obama will win, though with a smaller margin than his victory over McCain. People generally stick with the devil they know over the one that they don't when it comes to politics.

Hopefully the Democrats not only stick with this narrative for the campaign but throughout the next four years - realistic, reasonable policy backed by facts and science should be standing orders. Personally I think that any campaign that promises to enact all of the Simpson-Bowles findings should get an automatic win.
 
Killed it. Seriously, the man is one of the best orators alive. The Republican side has no one in the same ballpark. Not even in the same sport. Great speech, hands down.
 
"
I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty."

Soon as I saw the speech start with a big ass lie I lost interest. Its hard to take someone seriously after that.
 
Fact of the matter is everyone has had to lower their standards and make do with less in Obama's economy.


Even Clinton has had to lower his standards.

largei.jpg
 
This is what most people said about Bill Clinton's speach, "How 'bout some football!".

NBC NFL Football (8:30-11PM) - Live, age 18-49, rating share of 8.7/23 and 21.81 million viewers.

CBS Democratic National Convention - Live, age 18-49, rating share of 0.9/2 and 3.94 million viewers.

ABC Democratic National Convention - Live, age 18-49, rating share of 0.9/2 and 3.54 million viewers.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...-you-can-dance-fall-plus-dnc-coverage/147493/

Try harder.
 

Well, there are always others fact checking, aren't there?

Bill Clinton’s speech last night at the Democratic National Convention was a brilliant act performed by a master magician. It was also, like all magic, sleight-of-hand.

Actually, to be more blunt, it was a toxic, 50-minute bromide of lies, prevarications, and misdirections so fictional that it ought to be placed on the shelves alongside Fifty Shades of Gray (come to think of it, the speech was also sadomasochistic, if the reaction of the Clintonite media was any indicator).

There are dozens of problems in the Clinton speech. But let’s just start with the top ten:

“Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private- sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million. Democrats: forty-two.”

Technically, this is true. Just as technically, Barack Obama should run screaming with his hair on fire from this statistic. There’s a reason for that: Clinton is measuring presidential tenure purely from inauguration to inauguration. For example, he’s taking jobs numbers from January 1981 to January 1985 to measure Reagan’s first term. Only one problem with this: by this standard, Barack Obama is the second-worst private jobs creator of the last half-century (George W. Bush is first, but still created far more net jobs than Obama overall, putting Obama dead last if you include state and federal jobs in the statistic). Which is why our unemployment rate is terrible.

“Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats.”

This is crapola. Clinton frequently says or implies that Republicans are racists who want to toss grandma off a cliff. Here’s what Clinton said about the Tea Party’s view of Barack Obama just a couple years ago: “They want to turn him into a space alien. It helps that his skin color is different. But their motivation is what it always is: power and money.” And when he was president, Clinton was fond of using the FBI to investigate his political opponents. His political guru, Dick Morris, suggested that Clinton try a “ricochet strategy” to link Republicans with terrorists. Clinton is a hater. He always has been, as Barack Obama should know. He just hides it well because he’s a genius politician.

“We all know that [Obama] also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction, and new jobs.”

Really? Obamacare passed with precisely zero Republican votes, and only after the Democrats used legislative dirty tricks to pass it. On the debt reduction, Obama killed a deal with House Speaker John Boehner by trying to shoehorn massive tax increases into his final proposal. Republicans voted for Obama’s proposed – and sheepish – extension of the payroll tax rates. The Republican House has passed dozens of jobs bills. The Democratic Senate hasn’t even brought them to a vote. Obama’s budgets are so ridiculously non-moderate that they’ve received zero votes in the House and Senate – twice.

“They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit federal bailouts.”

Ah, the irony. Obama’s Dodd-Frank regulations enshrine bailouts into law. And as for those “pesky financial regulations,” Clinton’s administration is responsible for doing away with the Glass-Steagall Act, the left’s favorite bugaboo on this score. The fact is that Democrats are the largest proponents of bailouts – hell, Clinton was championing Obama’s GM bailouts a few minutes after this point in the speech. And they’re the ones who designed the regulatory regime that created the subprime mortgage crisis.

“I had this same thing happen in 1994 and early '95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing, but most people didn't feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States.”

Clinton’s policies were not working early in his tenure. The fabled Clinton recovery started under President George H.W. Bush; from January 1992 to January 1993, the H.W. Bush economy created 1.46 million jobs. Clinton’s job creation numbers only jumped after he admitted that he had raised taxes too much, proceeded to cut capital gains taxes in a major way, signed free trade acts, increased the death tax exemption, and worked with a Republican Congress to pass fiscally responsible budgets. The idea that Clinton just kept applying the same leftism in 1995 that he did in 1993 is a lie.

“President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me now. No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.”

False. The economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states. And let's not even discuss how Warren G. Harding's administration dealt with the crippled economy left by Woodrow Wilson.

“The Recovery Act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes -- let me say this again -- cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people.”

Saved or created means nothing. Millions means nothing. This is pure hokum. According to certain analysis of CBO data, the Recovery Act – the stimulus – cost taxpayers over $4 million per job created. And as for cutting taxes for 95% of the American people, nearly half of all Americans don’t pay federal income taxes. So how can you give them a federal tax cut? You can’t. These are redistribution checks.

“And in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs. We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president's job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another job score. President Obama: plus 4.5 million. Congressional Republicans: zero.”

Love this magical thinking. If President Obama created 4.5 million jobs over the last 29 months, and if we’re supposed to date responsibility for job creation from the day people take office, then Congressional Republicans, who entered office in January 2011, are responsible for the creation of 2.9 million jobs, and Democrats in Congress are responsible for a massive net loss in jobs. And once again, every time Congressional Republicans attempt to pass jobs measures, President Obama stymies them with the help of his Senate Democratic majority.

“During this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.”

Picking and choosing periods again. Over the course of Obama’s tenure, approximately 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost on net.

“He has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with $2.5 trillion coming from -- for every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission.”

This one’s so bad that even the Washington Post, Obama’s favorite news outlet, debunked it. The fact remains that both Simpson and Bowles are fans of Paul Ryan, the Republican VP nominee. And Obama rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan outright. As the Post puts it, “virtually no serious budget analyst agrees with this accounting.”

This doesn’t even get to Clinton’s take on how many kids have been given healthcare they wouldn't otherwise have under Obamacare (false), his explanation of why health care costs haven’t risen as fast (bull), his take on Obama gutting welfare work requirements (absolute bunk), his description of Paul Ryan’s budget (garbage), his line about oil and gas exploration under Obama (nope), his narrative about student loans (a major stretch), his scare statements about Republicans poisoning air and water (nonsense), and his lionization of the GM bailout (horsepucky).

In short, this was a Clinton classic: lies, lies, and more lies. It was lies posing as “arithmetic,” as Clinton put it. He says where he comes from, 2 + 2 = 4. Unfortunately, where he comes from, that may be the only math problem he can get right.
 
[ ... ]
I've been lied to by Clinton before last night. He is the only President to be convicted of the crime of perjury while in office. ...
Once again, you're making a habit out of being factually wrong. Clinton was not convicted of perjury, not by the Senate, not by a federal court.
 
Well, there are always others fact checking, aren't there?

Yeah, because that seems objective. I'm guessing there's a reason you didn't link to where that came from.

Lemme guess. Breitbart? Fuck what idiot would refer to them as fact checkers?
 
Last edited:
Telling lies well is still telling lies.

Don't forget that liars can also tell the truth. Nobody is perfect at telling the difference. Every word of Clinton's speech might have been true. Nobody was asking him about whom he might be having sex with. All we know is that he will lie about that.
 
"
I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty."

Soon as I saw the speech start with a big ass lie I lost interest. Its hard to take someone seriously after that.

Are you claiming that Obama has not had to face his fair share of adversity or uncertainty in his life? Notice how the wording is not that Obama defied insurmountable odds or that Obama rose from abject poverty to riches or that he even had it worse than most. You basically heard what you wanted to hear.
 
Back
Top