3rdnlng Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-blames-trust-issues-on-gop/?subscriber=1 Hillary Clinton blamed Republicans last night for the trustworthiness problem plaguing her, blasting the GOP's "constant barrage of attacks" for negative poll numbers and sidestepping questions about underdog U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' growing popularity. "This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years," Clinton said on CNN during her first national interview, adding that the attacks are "largely fomented and coming from the right." Clinton, who was asked about polling showing Americans question her honesty, said she followed the rules when it came to using a private Internet server at her home during her time as secretary of state. "Everything I did was permitted," she said, pointing again to the fact that she handed over 55,000 pages of emails. Clinton wiped her server clean, however, and even Democrats have voiced concern about the lax cyber security. "This is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact," she said, adding, "people should and do trust me." Who?
B-Man Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 ALL POLITICIANS ARE TO SOME DEGREE FAKE AND SCRIPTED. BUT HILLARY TAKES IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL: WaPo: The Making Of A Hillary Clinton Echo Chamber. One day in May, operatives from a Washington-based super PAC gathered New Hampshire mayors, state representatives and local politicos at Saint Anselm College for a day of training. They rehearsed their personal tales of how they met Hillary Rodham Clinton and why they support her for president. They sharpened their defenses of her record as secretary of state. They scripted their arguments for why the Democratic front-runner has been “a lifetime champion of income opportunity.” And they polished their on-camera presentations in a series of mock interviews. The objective of the sessions: to nurture a seemingly grass-roots echo chamber of Clinton supporters reading from the same script across the communities that dot New Hampshire, a critical state that holds the nation’s first presidential primary. The super PAC, called Correct the Record, convened similar talking-point tutorials and media-training classes in May and June in three other early-voting states — Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina — as well as sessions earlier this spring in California. Presidential campaigns have for decades fed talking points to surrogates who appear on national television or introduce candidates on the stump. But the effort to script and train local supporters is unusually ambitious and illustrates the extent to which the Clinton campaign and its web of sanctioned, allied super PACs are leaving nothing to chance. That’s because Hillary is a terrible candidate with poor speaking skills, an unappealing personality, and not much ability to think on her feet. Best line: “The super PAC’s effort comes as Clinton struggles on the campaign trail to appear accessible and genuine.” .
OCinBuffalo Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Yes, nothing says accessible and genuine like "rope line", and media sycophants going along with it. Edited July 9, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
reddogblitz Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) so did Kerry and a lot of the other bozos from both parties. Sanders did make a very eloquent objection: "Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good. ... But again I don't think he has a realistic chance. Do you? So I take it you're planning to vote for the Hill? Please if you can explain why. I'm genuinely curious because you're one of the more articulate and balanced posters, and I just don't see anything to support voting for her My mention that Senator Biden voted for the Iraq War just like Senator Clinton, was not a rationalization for Hillary. Rather, it was noting that Biden is no better at least on this regard. IMHO, a vote for Iraq is a deal breaker. I WILL NOT be voting for either one. Reading Bernie's comments in your post, he was right on every point. As far as if he has a chance, I think he does. Especially if Hillary implodes and Bernie gets the young and new voters and re energizing other like Barack did. Edited July 9, 2015 by reddogblitz
Magox Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 My mention that Senator Biden voted for the Iraq War just like Senator Clinton, was not a rationalization for Hillary. Rather, it was noting that Biden is no better at least on this regard. IMHO, a vote for Iraq is a deal breaker. I WILL NOT be voting for either one. Reading Bernie's comments in your post, he was right on every point. As far as if he has a chance, I think he does. Especially if Hillary implodes and Bernie gets the young and new voters and re energizing other like Barack did. So what determines your vote more than anything is how someone voted on the war based on faulty intelligence more than a decade ago? Get a grip, man.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 So what determines your vote more than anything is how someone voted on the war based on faulty intelligence more than a decade ago? Get a grip, man. I actually think that's a really valid reason not to give someone your vote. Or do you subscribe to the belief that time washes away all sins? Or to put it another way, are you really saying:
IDBillzFan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I actually think that's a really valid reason not to give someone your vote. Or do you subscribe to the belief that time washes away all sins? Time washed away their perspective on gay marriage, no? It washed away Hillary's perspective on sanctuary cities, no? Wait. Let me guess. That was "evolving."
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Time washed away their perspective on gay marriage, no? It washed away Hillary's perspective on sanctuary cities, no? Wait. Let me guess. That was "evolving." I have no intention of voting for Hillary.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I actually think that's a really valid reason not to give someone your vote. Or do you subscribe to the belief that time washes away all sins? Or to put it another way, are you really saying: Making a decision based on the best intelligence and information available at the time, which in hindsight, turned out to possibly be a poor decision, is not the same thing as doing the wrong thing, or making a poor moral judgment. There are millions of good reasons to not cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. This is not one of them.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Making a decision based on the best intelligence and information available at the time, which in hindsight, turned out to possibly be a poor decision, is not the same thing as doing the wrong thing, or making a poor moral judgment. There are millions of good reasons to not cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. This is not one of them. It's not a good reason for you, because you feel differently about the war than Red. For someone who disagrees with the war, and all the !@#$ ups that got us into the war in the first place, it certainly is a good reason not to vote for her.
Magox Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 If you are telling me that being provided faulty intelligence and happening to believe in that information is a sin, then I disagree with that characterization. Now if you are telling me that if you were a politician and that you knew that the intelligence was inaccurate and you went to war anyway, then I'd agree with what you are saying. I happen believe that most politicians that voted for the war relied on that intelligence as being accurate and that their intentions and votes for the authorization of war were not for any other reason than them believing that S. Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In regards to my response to Reddog, he's a virtually a singular issue based voter. Everyone is free to vote on the issues that matter to them, and I'm free to mock anyone who I believe to be a irrational single issue based voter.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 It's not a good reason for you, because you feel differently about the war than Red. For someone who disagrees with the war, and all the !@#$ ups that got us into the war in the first place, it certainly is a good reason not to vote for her. How so? Unless someone is a pacifist, which in and of itself is problematic as a national policy, it's not a logical stance. Mistakes will always be made, because humans are fallible, but mistakes made in good faith, based on the best information available at the time, are not disqualifying in nature. How could they logically be?
reddogblitz Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) There are millions of good reasons to not cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. This is not one of them. For your vote maybe, but not for mine. 150+ congress members voted against the war. How were they able to see through "faulty intelligence" while the majority like Hillary and Joe did not.? People like Lincoln Chaffee, Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Patty Murray, and Louise Slaughter made the right decision. Perhaps they were doing their job and their due diligence? Like maybe reading the classified documents instead of making their decision for political reasons? Past performance is the best predictor of future actions. Joe and Hillary blew it last time on a very important decision. Any reason to think their decision making is better now? Edited July 9, 2015 by reddogblitz
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 For your vote maybe, but not for mine. 150+ congress members voted against the war. How were they able to see through "faulty intelligence" while the majority like Hillary and Joe did not.? People like Lincoln Chaffee, Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Patty Murray, and Louise Slaughter made the right decision. Perhaps theset were doing their job and their due diligence? Like maybe reading the classified documents instead of making their decision for political reasons? Past performance is the best predictor of future actions. Joe and Hillary blew it last time on a very important decision. Any reason to think their decision making is better now? They voted against the war for three reasons, which are documented in the congressional record: 1) They made a partisan decision for purely political reasons. 2) They disagreed with the Bush Doctrine of "Pre-emptive War". 3) They were avowed pacifists (Lincoln Chafee)
Magox Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Nearly 75% of the House and over 75% of the Senate voted for the war. The one's who did not vote for it, the great majority of them are politicians who in most circumstances would hardly ever vote for any authorization of war. And you know what? In this circumstance they were right. But let's not pretend that they were provided different intel than the other 75% of those that did vote for it or that they had some sort of epiphany leading them to this decision, it was just a vote that fit their ideology. Which is a non interventionist form of foreign policy that plays well with the constituents that vote them in. Edited July 9, 2015 by Magox
reddogblitz Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 They voted against the war for three reasons, which are documented in the congressional record: 1) They made a partisan decision for purely political reasons. Where is this documented?
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Where is this documented? In the congressional record. No shortage of Democrats stood to grandstand about a "Republican push to war", looking for nothing more than to politicize a bi-partisan initiative to their advantage, hoping to spin their opposition and further bolster their own political power in their districts. Magox does a good job of highlighting this in post #875.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 How so? Unless someone is a pacifist, which in and of itself is problematic as a national policy, it's not a logical stance. Mistakes will always be made, because humans are fallible, but mistakes made in good faith, based on the best information available at the time, are not disqualifying in nature. How could they logically be? Because continually re-electing career politicians is one of the biggest problems facing our republic today. It doesn't matter if the mistake was made in good faith, the mistake was clearly made. Pin that on the intelligence agencies if you want (and they do share a large portion of the blame), but we as citizens do not get to hire and fire intelligence agencies. We get to hire and fire politicians. If you're saying voters can't hold officials responsible for the votes they make while in office, then what can we hold them accountable for? (I agree every person has their own reasons, their own priorities when it comes to voting. That's to be expected. Some stances are silly, but this isn't one of them. We're still paying for the mistakes made in 2003, and will be for decades. It's a VERY relevant issue when it comes to choosing who you give your vote to, especially when you have chicken hawks like Rubio running around stirring up fervor to repeat those same mistakes, only this time in Iran.)
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Because continually re-electing career politicians is one of the biggest problems facing our republic today. It doesn't matter if the mistake was made in good faith, the mistake was clearly made. Pin that on the intelligence agencies if you want (and they do share a large portion of the blame), but we as citizens do not get to hire and fire intelligence agencies. We get to hire and fire politicians. If you're saying voters can't hold officials responsible for the votes they make while in office, then what can we hold them accountable for? (I agree every person has their own reasons, their own priorities when it comes to voting. That's to be expected. Some stances are silly, but this isn't one of them. We're still paying for the mistakes made in 2003, and will be for decades. It's a VERY relevant issue when it comes to choosing who you give your vote to, especially when you have chicken hawks like Rubio running around stirring up fervor to repeat those same mistakes, only this time in Iran.) You should hold them responsible for failed policy decisions when there was evidence, at the time the decision was being made, that the decision was a poor one. This was not the case with the Iraq War.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 You should hold them responsible for failed policy decisions when there was evidence, at the time the decision was being made, that the decision was a poor one. This was not the case with the Iraq War. So, in other words:
Recommended Posts