The latest Hillary Clinton shenanigans

[unokitty]

This. The GOP is the party that cries wolf. They've shamelessly lied for so long in so many ways that even if they do happen to tell the truth now, no rational people are listening.

Its not just Republicans that don't view Hillary as honest or trustworthy...

Uno

 

[Hugo Drax]

Clinton comes off as someone paranoid and untrustworthy. She reminds me of Nixon. It is sad that she is going to be nominated for the Democrat party.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Ugh. Look, I'll be the first to admit that Hillary Clinton's shit stinks just like everyone else's, but at a certain point enough is enough. From "Hillarycare" to Whitewater, to Lewinsky, to quips about Bill for first lady, to Behngazi, to the email scandal - I've spent my entire adult life and a significant part of my childhood watching the right throw accusation after accusation against her, without regard to real-world legitimacy, just to see if anything sticks. At some point, even legitimate accusations seem to not matter anymore. Its all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

For once, just once, can we discuss her on the merits of her policies?

Her DINO policies?

 

[MovingTarget]

Her DINO policies?

Thats in the eye of the beholder, Hugo, so you are going to have to be more specific than that. But yes, ANY policies or positions she holds are fair game.

However, this thread is more about the "shenanigans" or "scandals" instead of actual substance. A discussion on her positions properly belongs in its own thread.

 

[Hugo Drax]

More shenanigans. She had to be trained to appear more human and likable, she got pissed and knocked over a camera in the process.

She comes across as a real diva according to the reports.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-camera-anger-endless-coaching-sessions.html

 

[nageov3t]

Step 1: investigate the Clintons constantly, digging around for any possible dirt even if no evidence of wrong-doing or malfeasance is found.

Step 2: "how can you vote for these people? they're constantly under investigation!"

 

[nickqt]

Don't forget that she was too involved with Mr. Clintons Presidency according to mid 90s Conservatives now they claim she has no experience. One has to be wrong either she was deeply involved with an administration that eliminated the national debt, left with a surplus and made major reforms to social welfare or the guys in the mid 90s were just throwing dirt. Which was it?

Listen. Modern US conservatism is built upon the twin pillars of cognitive dissonance and projection.

Obama is a communist socialist on even days.
Obama is a Wall St. shill on odd days.

So, one day you say one thing, and then the next day, the total opposite. And if you're a member of the tribe, both things are true on whatever day they are said. Because freedom. And Benghazi.

Step 1: investigate the Clintons constantly, digging around for any possible dirt even if no evidence of wrong-doing or malfeasance is found.

Step 2: "how can you vote for these people? they're constantly under investigation!"

Exactly.

This email "scandal" is Whitewater II. Nothing more.

Notice how the aren't going after Powell's private email server that he used as SOS. Mostly because freedom, but also somewhat because...you guessed it:

Benghazi.

 

[werepossum]

Don't forget that she was too involved with Mr. Clintons Presidency according to mid 90s Conservatives now they claim she has no experience. One has to be wrong either she was deeply involved with an administration that eliminated the national debt, left with a surplus and made major reforms to social welfare or the guys in the mid 90s were just throwing dirt. Which was it?

Now I'm wondering on which planet you spent the 90s. The Pubbies took Congress hard in '94 and instituted fiscal restraint, slowing the growth of government to balance the budget (if one ignores the off-budget items and loans from Social Security anyway.) Prior to that, Clinton's budgets showed deficits to the limits of the projection, initially smaller due to the retroactive tax increase and then growing larger. Look up Clinton's spending vetoes; they were to demand more spending only.

Thats in the eye of the beholder, Hugo, so you are going to have to be more specific than that. But yes, ANY policies or positions she holds are fair game.

However, this thread is more about the "shenanigans" or "scandals" instead of actual substance. A discussion on her positions properly belongs in its own thread.

What value can there be to discussing policies of a politician who is widely recognized as being dishonest even by the rather lax standards of national politicians? That's like arguing that we debate the merits of Bernie Madoff's investment strategies.

Step 1: investigate the Clintons constantly, digging around for any possible dirt even if no evidence of wrong-doing or malfeasance is found.

Step 2: "how can you vote for these people? they're constantly under investigation!"

So you're okay with having a staffer triple-dip? How about lying about one's role in that? How about making oneself the sole arbiter of what official governance is subject to oversight and FOIA requests?

 

[nageov3t]

So you're okay with having a staffer triple-dip?

has any wrong-doing or malfeasance been shown?

if she was doing both jobs to the satisfactions of her superiors, and there was no conflict of interest (ie: she wasn't using her role at State to push policies that benefited the consulting firm), I don't really see anything wrong with it.

 

[nageov3t]

in related news...

Hillary personally signed off on top aide Huma Abedin change of job status allowing her to begin working for a private consulting firm while remaining at the State Department.

A Clinton aide on Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the signature was that of Ms. Mills, and said that it was within Ms. Mills’ duties to sign such documents on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

 

[werepossum]

has any wrong-doing or malfeasance been shown?

if she was doing both jobs to the satisfactions of her superiors, and there was no conflict of interest (ie: she wasn't using her role at State to push policies that benefited the consulting firm), I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Then looks like you'd found your Presidential selection. You may now try to avoid the advert war.

 

[Jhhnn]

Now I'm wondering on which planet you spent the 90s. The Pubbies took Congress hard in '94 and instituted fiscal restraint, slowing the growth of government to balance the budget (if one ignores the off-budget items and loans from Social Security anyway.) Prior to that, Clinton's budgets showed deficits to the limits of the projection, initially smaller due to the retroactive tax increase and then growing larger. Look up Clinton's spending vetoes; they were to demand more spending only.

Funny how that works. RR & GHWB more than quadrupled the national debt, but when Clinton was in the White House Repubs claimed to want a balanced budget. When GWB sat in the same spot, the national debt was doubled again, even with a Repub congress. With Obama in the White House, they're back to bullshit claims of wanting a balanced budget.

What value can there be to discussing policies of a politician who is widely recognized as being dishonest even by the rather lax standards of national politicians? That's like arguing that we debate the merits of Bernie Madoff's investment strategies.

Yeh, disregard policy, concentrate on heaping more slander on one of the most slandered people in politics. Always employ the bullshit asymmetry principle to its fullest extent.

So you're okay with having a staffer triple-dip? How about lying about one's role in that? How about making oneself the sole arbiter of what official governance is subject to oversight and FOIA requests?

More BAP.

 

[werepossum]

Funny how that works. RR & GHWB more than quadrupled the national debt, but when Clinton was in the White House Repubs claimed to want a balanced budget. When GWB sat in the same spot, the national debt was doubled again, even with a Repub congress. With Obama in the White House, they're back to bullshit claims of wanting a balanced budget.

Yeh, disregard policy, concentrate on heaping more slander on one of the most slandered people in politics. Always employ the bullshit asymmetry principle to its fullest extent.

More BAP.

I'm not seeing the humor here. And it's even worse than "even with a Repub congress", it was largely the SAME Republican Congress. Forcing fiscal restraint on Clinton, happily shaming drunken sailors with Bush. Part of that is acclimatization - even the most honest, responsible fiscal conservative seldom lasts more than six years in the D.C. culture without coming to believe that government really is the answer to every problem. But even more, it's the team sport mentality. Republican lawmakers conveniently believe that deficit spending is bad under Democrat Presidents, but literally everything is okay under Republican Presidents. Even though 95% of it is the exact same spending.

I would say the only way we aren't screwed is with a Democrat President and a Republican Congress, but in reality the '94 Republican Congress was an extreme outlier. Today's Republican lawmakers are little if any more fiscally responsible than are Democrat lawmakers - which is to say, not at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not seeing the humor here. And it's even worse than "even with a Repub congress", it was largely the SAME Republican Congress. Forcing fiscal restraint on Clinton, happily shaming drunken sailors with Bush. Part of that is acclimatization - even the most honest, responsible fiscal conservative seldom lasts more than six years in the D.C. culture without coming to believe that government really is the answer to every problem. But even more, it's the team sport mentality. Republican lawmakers conveniently believe that deficit spending is bad under Democrat Presidents, but literally everything is okay under Republican Presidents. Even though 95% of it is the exact same spending.

I would say the only way we aren't screwed is with a Democrat President and a Republican Congress, but in reality the '94 Republican Congress was an extreme outlier. Today's Republican lawmakers are little if any more fiscally responsible than are Democrat lawmakers - which is to say, not at all.

Please. That doesn't explain the RR/GHWB era at all. Nor does it explain Repubs squeezing a tax cut out of Clinton in 1997. Given a choice between better budget balance and top end tax cuts, they've taken the latter every time.

It doesn't explain Repubs voting to go to war & cut taxes at the same time with GWB in the oval office.

I think that here are some Repubs who actually believe in the folly of a balanced budget but it's mostly a false flag operation intended to discredit Democrats. Given the opportunity to actually reduce deficits they've declined every chance they got.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Personally I find it disgusting that the state department doesn't have proper IT funding to back up all their shit regularly for a reasonable amount of time. Imagine if BMW gets a bunch of email requested by congress and BMW's response was well we don't have enough resources to back them all up, we do back most of them up and store them for a couple of months provided we can manage to do that occasionally.
Nobody seems to want to talk about it though.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hillary lying again? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

A tiger does not change its stripes, hildabeast just can't help lying.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are bashing Hillary too early. Timing is everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDVuQi4gdtk
The GOP is missing the discipline to wait until Hillary is locked in as the Democrat nominee before bringing her down.

 

[Bowfinger]

Personally I find it disgusting that the state department doesn't have proper IT funding to back up all their shit regularly for a reasonable amount of time. ...

Perhaps I missed something. Why do you think they didn't have backups?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Perhaps I missed something. Why do you think they didn't have backups?

They do but its a very, very meager back up its due to funding.

 

[Bowfinger]

They do but its a very, very meager back up its due to funding.

Again, I've missed something. What spawned your comment? Did someone say they lack backups?

 

[Attic]

As long as our thinking and moral compass continues to be controlled by our party affiliation, who gives a shit? Politicians will continue to get away lying and deceiving while being rewarded with more control.


Hilary 2016, the President America deserves. I'm betting she won't be coming out with any Tax Plans that rock the boat, she knows who she is serving and I doubt she has underestimated the intelligence of her supporters (who could?). In a country where the peoples ignorance is the Politicians biggest asset, Hilary is indestructible on her path the Presidency.

 

[werepossum]

As long as our thinking and moral compass continues to be controlled by our party affiliation, who gives a shit? Politicians will continue to get away lying and deceiving while being rewarded with more control.

Hilary 2016, the President America deserves. I'm betting she won't be coming out with any Tax Plans that rock the boat, she knows who she is serving and I doubt she has underestimated the intelligence of her supporters (who could?). In a country where the peoples ignorance is the Politicians biggest asset, Hilary is indestructible on her path the Presidency.

Yep. Although if one of the Pubbies' establishment candidates were leading, the same exact thing could be said of them as well. Hell, about the only positive thing about Trump is his not being of the Republican or Democrat establishment. That's the beauty of democratic representation - we get the leadership we deserve.

 

[werepossum]

Personally I find it disgusting that the state department doesn't have proper IT funding to back up all their shit regularly for a reasonable amount of time. Imagine if BMW gets a bunch of email requested by congress and BMW's response was well we don't have enough resources to back them all up, we do back most of them up and store them for a couple of months provided we can manage to do that occasionally.
Nobody seems to want to talk about it though.

It's not a funding issue, it's a CYA issue. No amount of funding would allow the State Department to back up a server for which they have no permissions and no physical or logical control.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not a funding issue, it's a CYA issue. No amount of funding would allow the State Department to back up a server for which they have no permissions and no physical or logical control.

While true, that misses the point entirely. If Repubs want the govt to have robust backups for witch hunts they'll need to fund it.

Or follow their usual- nail the bureaucracy's feet to the floor, scream bloody murder when they can't run.

 

[werepossum]

While true, that misses the point entirely. If Repubs want the govt to have robust backups for witch hunts they'll need to fund it.

Or follow their usual- nail the bureaucracy's feet to the floor, scream bloody murder when they can't run.

In this case, the bureaucracy has prevented itself from running to preserve Hillary Clinton's political viability, to belabor an already labored analogy.