Why no one should consider voting for Hillary Clinton

[ivwshane]

Lol! Thanks for proving my point

Probably because she seems more committed to becoming POTUS than any set of core beliefs, so it's hard to tell what policies she would pursue. If I had to guess she'd fit pretty neatly into the 1970s era Rockerfeller Republicans with an ocassional genuflection towards some of the crazier radical left ideas. However if the original Hillarycare and how she handled the Bengazi sitation are any indication, she is both paranoid and has a tin ear politically which will make it hard if not impossible for her to execute on any big ideas. In a job where the ability to persuade and inspire is your main asset I find it rather hard to imagine she'll have a huge amount of success since her personality seems almost the opposite of those and 'work hard technocrats' don't seem to do well in the Oval Office.

 

[First]

"So I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses, whether that’s a private server or a public one," Morell said. "They’re that good."

Probably 90% of all confused trope can be traced back to poor reading comprehension. That simple.

 

[glenn1]

Lol! Thanks for proving my point

Which point? Bengazi wasn't corruption or obtstruction, it was just ineptly handled after the fact and probably due to the same streak of paranoia/need for secrecy and control I mentioned earlier. It points to a deeper (but not fatal) problem with her that she seems to learn the wrong lesson from setbacks which in turn aggregates or sometimes causes a future problem.

As for her policies, she seems a pragmatist almost to a fault so without much of a true "core" of beliefs so it's hard to understand what policy decisions she'd likely make in office. Sure they'll probably have a center-left tilt to them, but that's too general of a point to have any real discussions about.

 

[Jhhnn]

And another completely random word spew from the usual suspect. Good job posting something so completely unrelated to the topic except for the throwaway Bengazi reference at the end.

Typical. You're *obviously* completely unwilling to even examine the "core values" that created what I spoke of, let alone change them.

Nice cocoon of denial.

Hillary is clearly more of a pragmatist, more goal oriented, more flexible, more open to new thinking than any of her ideologically hidebound adversaries & their "core values".

Doing the same thing over & over again while expecting different results is one kind of insanity. It takes a lot of revisionist history to believe that it might be otherwise, that's for sure.

 

[glenn1]

Typical. You're *obviously* completely unwilling to even examine the "core values" that created what I spoke of, let alone change them.

Nice cocoon of denial.

Hillary is clearly more of a pragmatist, more goal oriented, more flexible, more open to new thinking than any of her ideologically hidebound adversaries & their "core values".

Doing the same thing over & over again while expecting different results is one kind of insanity. It takes a lot of revisionist history to believe that it might be otherwise, that's for sure.

Okay, so in translation you're saying she has a lack of core principles but that's a good thing? It's a reasonable argument to make but make it explicitly if at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Okay, so in translation you're saying she has a lack of core principles but that's a good thing? It's a reasonable argument to make but make it explicitly if at all.

Meanwhile, you've framed the whole thing around undefined "core values" in a truly nebulous pitch to emotion. It evokes irrational response among the faithful, as intended.

What are these "core values" you speak of?

 

[MrColin]

I'm a lefty and I don't like Hillary because she and Bill made their millions initially through shady real estate shenanigans. Also, she's in bed with the banksters, much like the entire GOP and Barak.

Bernie Sanders mufugga.

 

[ivwshane]

Which point? Bengazi wasn't corruption or obtstruction, it was just ineptly handled after the fact and probably due to the same streak of paranoia/need for secrecy and control I mentioned earlier. It points to a deeper (but not fatal) problem with her that she seems to learn the wrong lesson from setbacks which in turn aggregates or sometimes causes a future problem.

As for her policies, she seems a pragmatist almost to a fault so without much of a true "core" of beliefs so it's hard to understand what policy decisions she'd likely make in office. Sure they'll probably have a center-left tilt to them, but that's too general of a point to have any real discussions about.

"Benghazi was ineptly handled after the fact"? According to who? Fox news? Issa? Some right wing conspiracy site?


You've managed to create the perfect candidate to hate! You dislike her because of a lack policy positions caused by her being too pragmatic! Lol!

 

[etrigan420]

Election is still a year and a half away, this shit getting old all ready.

This.

Sooooo much this.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Probably because she seems more committed to becoming POTUS than any set of core beliefs, so it's hard to tell what policies she would pursue. If I had to guess she'd fit pretty neatly into the 1970s era Rockerfeller Republicans with an ocassional genuflection towards some of the crazier radical left ideas. However if the original Hillarycare and how she handled the Bengazi sitation are any indication, she is both paranoid and has a tin ear politically which will make it hard if not impossible for her to execute on any big ideas. In a job where the ability to persuade and inspire is your main asset I find it rather hard to imagine she'll have a huge amount of success since her personality seems almost the opposite of those and 'work hard technocrats' don't seem to do well in the Oval Office.

Agree on most points!

Benghazi, OTH, while she and particularly the Ambassador, made mistakes, the mistakes they made are typical of the kind of mistakes the military makes when confronted with a situation that looks like one thing but becomes another. The days leading up to the attacks on 9/11/12 saw increasing protests by the citizens over the movie mocking Muslims and it's not hard to understand why the Ambassador and secretary of state would attempt to try to calm things down instead of militarize the situation. The terrorist attackers were aided by the unrest that existed due to this movie and in no small way the makers of that movie, as well as there supporters, share a role in the deaths.

This is not to say that Hillary didn't act to cover up her communications on this attack and in fact everything we know about her shows she is such a control freak she'd be almost unable to resist trying to prevent the other side from any access to her thoughts and actions in this case.

The Repubs have circle jerked this case for years and frankly, they could if they were so inclined second guess the failures of just about any military officer in time of war as pretty much all of them have made similar mistakes in battle. Deception and capitalizing on events that provide tactical cover are part of nearly all military actions and in the case of Benghazi the terrorists were aided by folks here in the USA that had to make a movie insulting Islam.


Brian

 

[boomerang]

Bill is easily the best President within my lifetime. Imagine if we didn't have term limits how our response to 9-11 may have been a positive one instead of an unmitigated disaster.

How do you feel it would have been different? Clinton explained to the world the dangers of the Hussein regime in Iraq. Why is the intelligence he received then good and the intelligence Bush later received bad?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

 

[nageov3t]

How do you feel it would have been different? Clinton explained to the world the dangers of the Hussein regime in Iraq. Why is the intelligence he received then good and the intelligence Bush later received bad?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Clinton enforced the no-fly zone and did occasional bombings of the country, but I don't think he ever showed a desire or willingness to actually conduct a ground invasion to topple Saddam with no plan for the aftermath.

 

[glenn1]

"Benghazi was ineptly handled after the fact"? According to who? Fox news? Issa? Some right wing conspiracy site?

You've managed to create the perfect candidate to hate! You dislike her because of a lack policy positions caused by her being too pragmatic! Lol!

Are you stupid? Who thinks Bengazi was handled poorly? Oh, just 50% of Americans. But on your planet I suppose Bengazi was just a triumph in crisis control and the communications after were a textbook example.

I don't dislike her and if I had disagreements with specific policies she held I would disagree with them. As it is, when asked why she supports a particular position her answer is often "because it worked well in the 1990s," which for example was why she justified raising capital gains to 20% but not 28% like Obama preferred. Which might be true but is also beside the point since the reason it worked well then may have completely changed. As it is now her position on anything is likely to simply mirror prevailing opinion, whether it's Iraq, gay marriage, or any number of subjects. If you think that's a feature rather than a bug that's fine, but many may disagree. I'll wait to see what those views turn out to be (at least expressed views) before deciding.

 

[IGBT]

well..I think the endless scandals and grift would be entertaining. Why not??

 

[ivwshane]

Are you stupid? Who thinks Bengazi was handled poorly? Oh, just 50% of Americans. But on your planet I suppose Bengazi was just a triumph in crisis control and the communications after were a textbook example.

I don't dislike her and if I had disagreements with specific policies she held I would disagree with them. As it is, when asked why she supports a particular position her answer is often "because it worked well in the 1990s," which for example was why she justified raising capital gains to 20% but not 28% like Obama preferred. Which might be true but is also beside the point since the reason it worked well then may have completely changed. As it is now her position on anything is likely to simply mirror prevailing opinion, whether it's Iraq, gay marriage, or any number of subjects. If you think that's a feature rather than a bug that's fine, but many may disagree. I'll wait to see what those views turn out to be (at least expressed views) before deciding.

So your answer to "how was benghazi handled ineptly after the fact", is to say, "look at the polls!"?
Are you stupid? Benghazi only has any negativity about it because of the so called scandal republicans yelled about but failed to produce anything from. I'd ask the question again but I have no interest in responding to a third dodge and another straw man argument.


Since you've stated that if she held a position you disagreed with you'd disagree with them (lol) and you haven't stated any particular policy, I can only conclude that you agree with her policies but you disagree with her politics.

 

[Jhhnn]

How do you feel it would have been different? Clinton explained to the world the dangers of the Hussein regime in Iraq. Why is the intelligence he received then good and the intelligence Bush later received bad?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Who said the intelligence that Clinton actually received was "good"?

What he actually did in no way compares to the invasion of Iraq, but you appear to need false equivalency to maintain your "core values". Like most Righties, chief among them is never admitting to having been misled or bamboozled by the best propaganda in the business, the firestorm of fear mongering & bloodlust exploited by the Bushistas in the wake of 9/11. Once suckered, you stay suckered because you can't man-up to it.

You've been used & abused at an emotional level & you're begging for more.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you stupid? Who thinks Bengazi was handled poorly? Oh, just 50% of Americans. But on your planet I suppose Bengazi was just a triumph in crisis control and the communications after were a textbook example.

You mean the handling of the scurrilous after the fact attacks from the Romney camp and the vast conspiracy theories generated from them? It really didn't matter what the Obamites did because Righties had found a shit storm opportunity, a way to use smear tactics to serve their ends.

I don't dislike her and if I had disagreements with specific policies she held I would disagree with them. As it is, when asked why she supports a particular position her answer is often "because it worked well in the 1990s," which for example was why she justified raising capital gains to 20% but not 28% like Obama preferred. Which might be true but is also beside the point since the reason it worked well then may have completely changed. As it is now her position on anything is likely to simply mirror prevailing opinion, whether it's Iraq, gay marriage, or any number of subjects. If you think that's a feature rather than a bug that's fine, but many may disagree. I'll wait to see what those views turn out to be (at least expressed views) before deciding.

Please. Dems were lucky to raise LTCG taxes to 20%, let alone 28%. Or maybe they could have Gone for all or nothing, come up with nothing.

Prevailing opinion? Hillary mirrors what Libs have believed for decades & what more people believe today wrt gay marriage or most anything else. If that threatens your well propagandized "core values", maybe you need to look at them a little bit more closely.

Iraq? Hillary can well afford to admit that she was manipulated & misled into voting for the AUMF & that experience has made her much more wary of anybody advocating war. She can tell the truth, call out the Bushistas as liars, cheats, thieves, charlatans & war mongers, something no Repub opponent can possibly do.

 

[nickqt]

Are you stupid? Who thinks Bengazi was handled poorly? Oh, just 50% of Americans. But on your planet I suppose Bengazi was just a triumph in crisis control and the communications after were a textbook example.

I don't dislike her and if I had disagreements with specific policies she held I would disagree with them. As it is, when asked why she supports a particular position her answer is often "because it worked well in the 1990s," which for example was why she justified raising capital gains to 20% but not 28% like Obama preferred. Which might be true but is also beside the point since the reason it worked well then may have completely changed. As it is now her position on anything is likely to simply mirror prevailing opinion, whether it's Iraq, gay marriage, or any number of subjects. If you think that's a feature rather than a bug that's fine, but many may disagree. I'll wait to see what those views turn out to be (at least expressed views) before deciding.

Well, 70% of Americans polled believe in Angels, so it's official, y'all, there are angels!

Also: Benghazi.

 

[boomerang]

Clinton enforced the no-fly zone and did occasional bombings of the country, but I don't think he ever showed a desire or willingness to actually conduct a ground invasion to topple Saddam with no plan for the aftermath.

Your recollection may be correct but Hillary was without a doubt in full support of the ground invasion. I don't recall her raising questions about the 'aftermath', but my recollection may be failing me.

“I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” she said on the Senate floor. “Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...clinton-supported-iraq-war-bef/#ixzz3aXIxdILr
​

If polling of likely voters showed support for it, she'd still be for it. She is for and fully supports whatever polling of likely Democrat voters are for - I guess, because she's been hiding from the press for a long while now. AFAIK, she is still running. Can anyone confirm?

 

[Genx87]

How do you feel it would have been different? Clinton explained to the world the dangers of the Hussein regime in Iraq. Why is the intelligence he received then good and the intelligence Bush later received bad?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I don't believe he would had invaded Iraq because of 9-11.

 

[nageov3t]

Your recollection may be correct but Hillary was without a doubt in full support of the ground invasion. I don't recall her raising questions about the 'aftermath', but my recollection may be failing me.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...clinton-supported-iraq-war-bef/#ixzz3aXIxdILr
​

If polling of likely voters showed support for it, she'd still be for it. She is for and fully supports whatever polling of likely Democrat voters are for - I guess, because she's been hiding from the press for a long while now. AFAIK, she is still running. Can anyone confirm?

the made that assessment based on information provided by the Bush admin, who essentially cooked the books and lied to get public support.

but that's a moot point with regards to whether or not Bill Clinton would have launched a ground invasion in Iraq in response to 9/11.

 

[boomerang]

the made that assessment based on information provided by the Bush admin, who essentially cooked the books and lied to get public support.

But how do you explain that every intelligence agency in highly developed countries was saying the same thing? Some kind of conspiracy? The talking points surrounding all this have been swirling for a long time. Dem's love to rewrite history to suit the narrative they desire but if so many intelligence agencies were saying the same thing, that's a pretty amazing level of cooperation in a world where so many are at each others throats. It seems highly unlikely.

Let's assume the books were in fact cooked. How could somebody purportedly as smart as Hillary fall for that? Especially when her husband had not been out of office for very long at all? Surely he should have known the "books were cooked". How could so many long term Democrat leaders in Congress fall for it? Some real heavy hitters were fully on board.

It's a curious thing.

 

[nickqt]

But how do you explain that every intelligence agency in highly developed countries was saying the same thing? Some kind of conspiracy? The talking points surrounding all this have been swirling for a long time. Dem's love to rewrite history to suit the narrative they desire but if so many intelligence agencies were saying the same thing, that's a pretty amazing level of cooperation in a world where so many are at each others throats. It seems highly unlikely.

Let's assume the books were in fact cooked. How could somebody purportedly as smart as Hillary fall for that? Especially when her husband had not been out of office for very long at all? Surely he should have known the "books were cooked". How could so many long term Democrat leaders in Congress fall for it? Some real heavy hitters were fully on board.

It's a curious thing.

You find desire for wealth and power hard to understand?

 

[Jhhnn]

But how do you explain that every intelligence agency in highly developed countries was saying the same thing? Some kind of conspiracy? The talking points surrounding all this have been swirling for a long time. Dem's love to rewrite history to suit the narrative they desire but if so many intelligence agencies were saying the same thing, that's a pretty amazing level of cooperation in a world where so many are at each others throats. It seems highly unlikely.

Let's assume the books were in fact cooked. How could somebody purportedly as smart as Hillary fall for that? Especially when her husband had not been out of office for very long at all? Surely he should have known the "books were cooked". How could so many long term Democrat leaders in Congress fall for it? Some real heavy hitters were fully on board.

It's a curious thing.

You're being dishonest about Hillary's support for the invasion, first with yourself, & then with everybody else. Referencing a snippet favorable to your POV from her speech at the time rather than the entirety of it shows that. She said she'd take Bush at his word that he'd exhaust diplomatic means first, something he simply did not do. Even you know that, I'm sure.

How many intelligence reports were issued wrt Iraq's supposed wmd/nuclear program, anyway? Thousands, I'm sure, so it's not particularly difficult to find a few that say what you want, particularly when they were forged to suit those ends in the first place. Reference Niger Uranium forgeries, the veracity of which crumbled under the most casual investigation.

http://zfacts.com/node/315

You couldn't support that claim about every intelligence agency if your life depended on it.

 

[ivwshane]

But how do you explain that every intelligence agency in highly developed countries was saying the same thing? Some kind of conspiracy? The talking points surrounding all this have been swirling for a long time. Dem's love to rewrite history to suit the narrative they desire but if so many intelligence agencies were saying the same thing, that's a pretty amazing level of cooperation in a world where so many are at each others throats. It seems highly unlikely.

Let's assume the books were in fact cooked. How could somebody purportedly as smart as Hillary fall for that? Especially when her husband had not been out of office for very long at all? Surely he should have known the "books were cooked". How could so many long term Democrat leaders in Congress fall for it? Some real heavy hitters were fully on board.

It's a curious thing.

Your recollection does indeed suck. Not only is your premise wrong but you are also clearly lacking any detail of the political climate at the time.


The bush admin pushed for war with Iraq, not because that's what the intelligence told them, it's what they told the intelligence community to find. People in congress didn't believe it, it's just that they never thought a sitting president and his admin would outright lie to them, to their face.

Of course people like boomerang don't remember that, they don't want to.