Trump will bring these local jobs all back! Just grab those jobs in the pussy!
ISTM that Clinton in '92 was responding to the fact that the New Deal Democrats (such as they were, by that point) had abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of Ronnie Reagan and his voodoo economics, not that Clinton and the DNC had cast the NDDs aside.
Is there any evidence anywhere that she deleted work-related emails? Any whatsoever? And keep in mind, all it would take is one person in government slipping up (or intentionally fingering her) and revealing a copy of an email from her that hadn’t been in the FBI’s probe but had been on their government servers, and she would have been quite thoroughly screwed - you’d think someone, somewhere might have done that if it was a thing that actually existed.
Her long record of bipartisanship and deep understanding of domestic and foreign policy, as well as her focus on the details. If you actually know anything about Clinton’s political career, and aren’t focused entirely on the scandal-mongering that essentially devoured this election cycle, you would know that.
From stupid people who were wrong. I remember people saying that Obama was a fascist, too. That doesn’t mean that anyone pointing to Trump’s openly fascist qualities is automatically wrong.
Do you seriously still not get that Trump is kind of a special case here? I mean, really?
As a matter of principle, I would prefer if we didn’t have the electoral college, as I said in the post you quoted, and I explained my reasons at length to Herbie, because I was willing to believe he hadn’t heard this shit before - he’s not the brightest. You I expected better from.
Clinton won by over 1.5 million votes.
So basically your argument is “Nuh-uh” and handwaving. I gave you a perfectly valid reason, you called it “rationalization” and an “unprincipled defense” and an “excuse”. Her speeches are her intellectual property, and speechwriters often do heavily recycle material (even for $250,000 a pop).
Meanwhile, “I want it, therefore I have a right to it” is not a particularly compelling counterargument.
Now see, this is what “rationalization” and “unprincipled defenses” and “excuses” look like. It is not Clinton’s fault Trump didn’t release his tax returns. He tried to claim it was because he was under audit until the IRS and Warren Buffett shot that one down. The demand that Clinton release her speeches first was a desperate afterthought. If you weren’t so emotionally invested in condemning Clinton you’d stop offering excuses for Trump.
Cite? Because I’m pretty sure it was the other way around.
Which is entirely irrelevant to my point. Which was that “I get to demand that you give me everything I want so that I can sift through your life in order to find something I can use against you while I get to hide everything” is hypocritical bullshit. It’s the same path that led Ken Starr’s investigation from a property deal in Arkansas to a mutually-consensual sex act in the White House. The point isn’t that the speeches had damning content. The point is that the demand that she release them was without merit.
Technically candidates don’t even have to release their tax returns; it’s just common practice these days. If Trump had simply refused to do so that would at least have been honest - the “I would but I can’t because A, er B, no I mean C” pretty much demonstrates that the demand for her speeches was a distraction, not a reason (and only a “cover” if you’re not paying attention).
I’m not defending her behaviour. I’m pointing out that your argument is rubbish.
I’m not making excuses for Clinton. I’m pointing out that the country is a much nastier place that people suspected.
Again - it was patently obvious that no matter how bad Clinton is, Trump is worse. And people still voted for him.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that throwing every criticism of Clinton into your post doesn’t actually constitute a coherent argument. Some of it is relevant. Some of it isn’t. And some of it is false.
I know it’s popular to froth about Hillary and then accuse anyone who points out that you sound like a crazy person of “defending her”, but that’s really not what I’m doing here, so please try to keep up. Clinton did plenty wrong. But that doesn’t mean everything you want to pin on her is justified.
Yes she did. Maybe that’s what a lot of voters want now. Have you considered that?
You’re kind of obsessed about these speeches. People are saying.
Yes. And that was bad. And it’s still better than Trump’s practices.
We don’t know. He deleted them. Thousands of them.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said, oh wait, no it wasn’t.
I’ll tell you again: we don’t know. Because he deleted them.
Apparently not you. Although you certainly put a lot of effort into not giving a shit.
They would have run different campaigns, but all of them had flaws that Trump and the GOP would have hammered home. If Bernie had been the nominee we’d have heard nothing but “SOCIALIST!” for months on end which would have ended his chances with the majority of Americans in a heartbeat. Biden, while likable and experienced, was not a great campaigner or public speaker and had a history of verbal gaffes. Bloomberg was a party hopper. I would have enthusiastically supported Warren but I didn’t think she had enough experience (little did I realize that no one gives a fuck about experience anymore) and the Democrats couldn’t risk the Senate seat. Was Rendell even interested?
Personally I was an O’Malley supporter but he didn’t make for exciting news coverage next to the Hillary and Bernie Show, and even he had major baggage.
Given that none of those people actually ran apart from Bernie (who despite the insistence that he was the people’s choice mainly won Democratic caucuses, not primaries, suggesting that just maybe the “democratic machinations” weren’t very effective) and a brief dalliance by Biden, it’s all a bit speculative.
So he’s not an unbeatable candidate; he’s a candidate who just happened to beat everyone. He was a clever enough candidate to outmaneuver all dozen-plus of his primary opponents but he was somehow too ineffectual to outmaneuver Clinton, who had to help him over the line. I guessing damning her with faint praise is fine as long as you’re still damning her.
Seriously? You don’t think society has changed in a reactionary direction? Have you read the news lately?
I realize you’re grooving on your Two-Minute Hate here but while Clinton’s campaign was deeply flawed Trump’s message resonated with a disturbingly large percentage of the American population and it wasn’t Clinton who made that happen.
You mean you don’t want to blame anyone else.
Translation: You don’t want to check some of your underlying assumptions about why Hillary lost and how electable she was to begin with, so you rail against anyone who contradicts you.
I get it. It’s been hard for all of us to accept Trump’s win. And it’s easier to blame Clinton than to come to terms with the fact that a lot of Americans genuinely wanted to vote for the guy.
They were under subpoena. You don’t get to go through your emails and decide which ones are relevant to the subpoena and which ones are not. You fight that out in court.
Even if the deleted emails between Hillary and the head of ISIL were not work related, they might still be germane if she discusses how she will abandon the Banghazi embassy so they can kill Americans on the anniversary of 9/11.
[quoe]Her long record of bipartisanship and deep understanding of domestic and foreign policy, as well as her focus on the details. If you actually know anything about Clinton’s political career, and aren’t focused entirely on the scandal-mongering that essentially devoured this election cycle, you would know that.
[/quote]
Her political career? Pfft.
Her bipartisanship? What he heck did she ever accomplish that was bipartisan? Hillarycare?
She has never won an election that wasn’t served to her on a platter. Her primary political attribute is and always has been being married to Bill Clinton, pretty much everything flows from there. Without Bill, she would be a law partner at some firm somewhere working for the same corporate interests she has worked for all along. She might not be as rich but she would be working for the same people.
Smart policy wonks are a dime a dozen in the DC area. She’s nothing special.
[quoe]From stupid people who were wrong. I remember people saying that Obama was a fascist, too. That doesn’t mean that anyone pointing to Trump’s openly fascist qualities is automatically wrong.
[/quote]
No, What I remember hearing is that the electoral college should overturn the results of the election because some people didn’t find Obama acceptable.
Special as in ride the short bus special? Yes. Special enough to abandon democracy? No. We will survive him. His only lasting legacy would be the supreme court and he wouldn’t be any worse than any other republican president in along that vector.
I can go either way on the electoral college. I don’t thin you get to renegotiate the terms of engagement after the engagement. I don’t think you get to overturn the electoral college because California is really really really blue.
Clinton lost by over 70 electoral votes. Didn’t someone explain the electoral college to Clinton after she decided to run for president?
Putting party and expedience ahead of more welfare for the country. :smack:
I’m saying that your explanation is bullshit. Noone buys it. The reason she didn’t release the speeches is because it would have revealed something pertinent to the election that she didn’t want revealed. It would have been better to reveal that during the primary so that she could have bowed out then and gone back to the senate as a corporate shill in sheep’s clothing.
Same with tax returns. but I can still hold it against you.
Hillary is the one that gave him an excuse. I condemn Hillary because she lost to Trump. I don’t know if there is any political event that is more worthy of condemnation in recent years.
Hillary was asked for her speeches during the primary. Tax returns don’t become an issue until the general.
It was pertinent to an election where she was saying something to the electorate while she was saying the opposite to monied interests.
Do you know how political cover works? You don’t have to invoke the political cover for it to provide you with cover. His refusal to release his tax returns became more acceptable because of Hillary’s refusal to release her speeches.
The nasty country that elected Barack Obama twice. THAT nasty country?
Obvious to you and me but not to people who voted for Trump. Most of them would have voted for anyone with an R next to their name. The rest could have voted for a Democrat if that Democrat wasn’t Hillary.
What am I trying to pin on her?
The only thing I am pinning on her is Donald Trump in the white house for 4 years.
I did for a while until I remembered that our current president is black.
We’ve seen the contents of some of those speeches.
I must have missed it, So, how did Trump rig the primary again?
Do you have a cite that he deleted them? Did he do so with the same deliberateness as Hillary did? Were they under subpoena (or likely to become subpoenaed) when he did that?
No you didn’t say that, Hillary said that.
I am trying to find a cite that says that Colin Powell deleted emails. I’m having some trouble. can you help me out?
It doesn’t take a lot of effort to write off a cheater.
And none of them could have done worse than Hillary. You make it sound like Trump was unbeatable or something. Is that what you are saying? That if Hillary couldn’t beat Trump, well, then NOONE could!!!
And he would have done better than Hillary once the nation realized that they had to choose between Trump and what’s behind door number 1. He was the only Mainstream Democrat that was willing to risk the eternal wrath of Hillary and throw his hat in the ring.
Her machinations kept them out of the primary. They worked just fine.
He beat the clown car full of Republicans because people like you and me (and the media) were kinds sorta rooting for him to win because we thought it would be hilarious and we were also worried that he may be the only candidate that Hillary could beat. The media just wanted ratings.
You mean like MSNBC or FOX News? Forget the news. Show me facts and statistics. In the last decade or so, we have seen a black president; legalized gay marriage; an Indian governor in TWO southern states; a serious challenge by a socialist with a face made for radio and a voice made for print; a dawning realization that a female president isn’t a matter of “if” but “when”; I guess there are ways in which society has turned back the dial as well but America isn’t moving back to the 1950s, they just don’t like Hillary.
The part of Trump’s message that resonated with the Trump voters I know was:
Hillary is owned by large multinational corporations and wall street; I am financing my own campaign, I don’t need these guys.
We have been making some horrible trade deals.
We need to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and terrorists. Meanwhile Hillary is giving speeches to the Bank of Brazil talking about her desire for free trade and open borders.
He also threw out a lot of bigotry and it bothered them too but not as much as the thought of handing over our country to a corporate shill.
No, I’m saying that Trump is such a horrible candidate that if you lose to him, you suck.
Nope. Trump’s negatives were almost as high as Hilary’s… Almost.
We didn’t give them a better option. You don’t think this was a “lesser of two evils” election for swing voters?
What I’m worried about is the possibility that Democrats will decide they have to get down into the mud with the Republicans. They may figure “We tried being better than the Republicans and they beat us. So now we need to try being worse than the Republicans. We’ll fight their underhanded tactics with our own underhanded tactics. We’ll tell bigger lies and encourage more fear than they do.”
What concerns me even more is that in doing that, they might win.
Be Careful What You Ask For.
Your link would have less of an impact if it actually read like this http://stuff.is-a-geek.net/random/Forums/DeportationsBegin.png
Ohh so officially. :dubious:
What, you are questioning the veracity of the Boston Globe now? Just because it’s a future issue doesn’t mean that it didn’t will have happened.