# Will Hillary Clinton be the next U.S. President? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 4, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557 "2015-10-04T23:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/321 "2015-10-25T05:41:15Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Are you calling me a liar? I would say, at least to my understanding of the situation, and I may be proven wrong once we have more information about what exactly **TonySinclair** means, that there is a chance, not a certainty, that you are, more likely than not, being willfully dense. But no one called you a liar. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/322 "2015-10-25T05:51:21Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > … Are you calling me a liar? … Also not Tony but pointing out that someone is making false statements is not saying they are lying. Lying means a willful intent to deceive. There are many possible explanations for someone to make false statements. The person could be misinformed by others who are lying to him/her or who are honestly mistaken themselves. The person could have misunderstood an actual source. Or honestly disagree about what that source demonstrates. The person could biased to believe that which comports to their pre-existing belief set and to doubt that which produces cognitive dissonance. Or a person could be lying. No one here knows which one you are and makes no accusation that you are any particular one of the above. Meanwhile what we know is that [Obama came out the next day](http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/) stating > [@President Obama the day after](#): > > No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. And we have [Obama’s actual speech to the UN](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly), made while anti-American protests related to the video were ongoing across the Arab world, which honors the memory of Chris Stevens and the values that he stated Stevens believed in and died in service of. He then went on to discuss those values put them in contrast to the forces of intolerance and violence. > [@Obama at the UN](#): > > If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis – because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common. > > Today, we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens – and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations. … Part of his remarks go on to explain to those in the Arab world who are not familiar with a free press that tolerating speech we find offensive has to be part of that: > [@](#): > > At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe. And often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others. > > That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. > It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. > > I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. … Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. … And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. (Applause.) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. No, that last bit is not claiming the video was the cause and a statement that it does is false. It was a response those elements that were using the video in service of justifying attacks against Americans. And as information develops in the aftermath of an event it is very much the case that both statements that we know there has been attack (if such was actually said) and that we do not yet know if the attack was preplanned or opportunistic can be true. Facts appear to be that the Obama administration from day one characterized this event as a terror attack to the American people and stated with various degrees of emphasis along the way what was not yet known about it. And again, how would the hypothetical Hillary having _had_ jumped the gun in private conversation and stated she already “knows” it was a premeditated preplanned (rather than opportunistic) terror attack before the evidence was solid enough to state that publicly, have any bearing on her qualifications to be president? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/323 "2015-10-25T07:43:13Z")
Gee, guys, don’t be needlessly dense! Its totally obvious that admitting that the attack was a premeditated act of terror would bring up the whole issue of Obama being a secret Muslim. But if it was a spontaneous act of riot and mayhem, that would reflect so positively on the Obama admin., his usual critics would have been silent, or even approving! I mean, what choice would they have? For the terrorists, I might have thought they would prefer the “spontaneous” scenario, makes their viewpoint seem more populist, more in tune with the common people of Libya. Could be someone suspected that the “someone in Ansar al-Sharia” who claimed responsibility was trying to cop the credit or even thought he was telling the truth. Or the guy who denied it knew it to be true but preferred the “popular uprising” spin. Certainly they were eager to exploit the whole “video” issue. Didn’t know the truth for sure? Can’t say as I blame them for that. Didn’t tell the truth about what they knew, and when? Not sure I can much blame them for that, either. Not entirely sure why it matters all that much. Not really all that much you can do about security of an embassy. An embassy is a statement of trust in the host nation, perhaps a polite fiction, perhaps not, depending. A well secured and fortified office is not an embassy so much as a military outpost. Diplomats bravely risk their lives for their country as well as do soldiers, main difference being they can’t shoot back. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/324 "2015-10-25T10:24:34Z")
Did you all watch Saturday Night Live last night? They basically gave her a free 10 minute campaign commercial. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/325 "2015-10-25T11:19:41Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Did you all watch Saturday Night Live last night? They basically gave her a free 10 minute campaign commercial. SNL is a couple hours past my bedtime these days. (How much of an audience does it have anymore? I remember watching it 40 years ago when it was new and cool.) Anyway, so what? The Fairness Doctrine bit the dust back when Reagan was President. The people that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or the army of mini-Rushes on talk radio across the country malign don’t get equal time on their programs. So occasionally this state of affairs (which I deeply disagree with!) briefly works to the advantage of someone on the center-left side of the political spectrum. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/326 "2015-10-25T17:00:42Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Did you all watch Saturday Night Live last night? They basically gave her a free 10 minute campaign commercial. That was an “encore” presentation or re-broadcast of the season premier from 10/3/15. I’m not really sure why the showed it a second time so soon. So they gave her a free 10 minute campaign commercial twice. Plus, she was funny. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > SNL is a couple hours past my bedtime these days. (How much of an audience does it have anymore? I remember watching it 40 years ago when it was new and cool.) > > Anyway, so what? The Fairness Doctrine bit the dust back when Reagan was President. The people that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or the army of mini-Rushes on talk radio across the country malign don’t get equal time on their programs. > > So occasionally this state of affairs (which I deeply disagree with!) briefly works to the advantage of someone on the center-left side of the political spectrum. So what? I couldn’t agree more, if people are going to get so bent about this type of thing then get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. Frankly it would eliminate a whole lot of the nonsense that passes for “news” these days from both sides. As to ratings, according to [this](http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/10/04/saturday-night-live-season-premiere-with-miley-cyrus-nearly-even-with-last-seasons-premiere/475828/) the season opener was up 13% in viewership over last year. And if you didn’t see the episode from a couple of weeks ago with their take on the Demcratic debate you should look it up. Larry David as Bernie, Alec Baldwin as Jim Webb. It was hilarious in all the right ways. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/327 "2015-10-25T18:08:38Z")
No, the Fairness Doctrine gives a false sense of security about bias in media. Now we know who is biased and on which side. SNL has been gently mocking Democrats and portraying Republicans as demons for decades. Jon Stewart followed the same template: Democrats will be mocked for their cute little foibles, while Republicans will be portrayed as batshit insane, criminals, liars, and probably warmongers too. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/328 "2015-10-25T18:10:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, the Fairness Doctrine gives a false sense of security about bias in media. Now we know who is biased and on which side. SNL has been gently mocking Democrats and portraying Republicans as demons for decades. Jon Stewart followed the same template: Democrats will be mocked for their cute little foibles, while Republicans will be portrayed as batshit insane, criminals, liars, and probably warmongers too. And your point? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/329 "2015-10-25T18:12:57Z")
The point is that we already know SNL’s biases. We knew they were anti-Hillary in 2008(most of the liberal media was once they fell in love with Obama), and now they are pro-Hillary because she’s the best Democrat available. They are the palace guard. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/330 "2015-10-25T18:13:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The point is that we already know SNL’s biases. We knew they were anti-Hillary in 2008(most of the liberal media was once they fell in love with Obama), and now they are pro-Hillary because she’s the best Democrat available. > > They are the palace guard. It’s also possible that the Republicans are much more mockable. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/331 "2015-10-25T18:16:40Z")
I’ll admit they are. But it does get disappointing sometimes how they’ll pass up obvious points of attack because they don’t want to actually draw blood. I looked forward to Bill Maher’s comedy DVD a few years ago because I love his political commentary, but it was 99% about the Republicans. Whatever happened to the media and comedians challenging the powers than be? Instead, they went after the minority party. LIke I said, palace guard. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/332 "2015-10-25T18:23:02Z")
Call out the Republican comedians, they will rush to the stage! Let’s see, there’s Dennis Miller. Gallagher. “Redneck” Jeff Foxworthy. And Dennis Miller… ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/333 "2015-10-25T18:27:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’ll admit they are. But it does get disappointing sometimes how they’ll pass up obvious points of attack because they don’t want to actually draw blood. > > I looked forward to Bill Maher’s comedy DVD a few years ago because I love his political commentary, but it was 99% about the Republicans. Whatever happened to the media and comedians challenging the powers than be? Instead, they went after the minority party. LIke I said, palace guard. Again, comedians want to get laughs. There’s just not that much that’s funny about Obama… remember Clinton on SNL? Lots about Bill Clinton can be funny. So comedians and shows like SNL will go for the targets that yield laughs… and maybe the Democrats aren’t doing that much stuff that’s laughable right now. It’s entirely reasonable that it has nothing to do with bias or “palace guard” nonsense, but rather the behavior of the two parties. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/334 "2015-10-25T18:27:53Z")
Felonius Monk! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/335 "2015-10-25T18:29:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Again, comedians want to get laughs. There’s just not that much that’s funny about Obama… remember Clinton on SNL? Lots about Bill Clinton can be funny. > > So comedians and shows like SNL will go for the targets that yield laughs… and maybe the Democrats aren’t doing that much stuff that’s laughable right now. It’s entirely reasonable that it has nothing to do with bias or “palace guard” nonsense, but rather the behavior of the two parties. Clinton is beyond hilarious and they did go for the jugular in 2008. Hopefully they do that now. They have the material. If they don’t use it, it’s because there are too many fans among the writers. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/336 "2015-10-25T18:31:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Clinton is beyond hilarious and they did go for the jugular in 2008. Hopefully they do that now. They have the material. If they don’t use it, it’s because there are too many fans among the writers. They have an angle – Hillary as the not-quite-human ambition-monster (and Sanders as the weird old man yelling from his lawn) – and that angle is funny, at least sometimes. It may not be as negative as you like, but I doubt they care about that. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/337 "2015-10-25T18:48:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > SNL has been gently mocking Democrats and portraying Republicans as demons for decades. Jon Stewart followed the same template: Democrats will be mocked for their cute little foibles, while Republicans will be portrayed as batshit insane, criminals, liars, and probably warmongers too. So you’re complaining that comedians are accurately portraying the Republicans? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/338 "2015-10-25T21:34:05Z")
I mentioned this in my last post but [here is SNL with a funny bit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o) about the Democratic debate for those who missed it a couple weeks back. It is long but hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/339 "2015-10-25T22:26:09Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That’s not the point. Hillary said we knew it was an attack on September 12, and on September 14, Jay Carney said “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” This is asinine. I’ve told you this multiple times with cites to the testimony. 1. Benghazi happens. It is thought that the film had something to do with it, because of hazy intelligence. 2. An AQ affiliate claims responsibility. This makes them think it wasn’t related to the film. 3. Clinton sends the email saying it wasn’t related. 4. The AQ affiliate retracts their claim. Due to hazy intel, it is thought it had to something to do with the video. 5. Jay Carney makes his quote. It baffles me that you can’t understand something that simple. What exactly is confusing you? In specific. Because what I typed there is something that almost anyone should be able to follow. This isn’t an elaborate Columbo plot. It’s a simple timeline. > [@](#): > > Both of those statements cannot be true. Both can’t be true, but one or both can be wrong, based on intel that was available at the time. > [@](#): > > And you’ve avoided the question. Why were they telling two different stories, in private vs. in public? Isn’t the American public owed the truth? No one has avoided the question. People have answered it clearly and intelligently. You appear to not be able or willing to parse the explanation spoke plain. > [@](#): > > Are you calling me a liar? You don’t have to be a liar to be embarrassingly wrong. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t it make you angry that people are so easily manipulated by the left wing media? The “left wing” members of the board aren’t the ones that can’t understand totally plain language explanations of their questions. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2015, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/340 "2015-10-26T10:39:04Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > They had it wrong for about a week, and you want their heads. But JEB! is saying we can’t blame his brother for the mess in Iraq, when W had four months of UN inspectors on the ground, telling him that his intelligence was wrong, before he invaded. > > By the way, do you have a cite for them saying “WE KNEW” to the American people, as opposed to Chelsea, or an Egyptian? Because [here’s what Susan Rice said](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933) on the morning of Sept 16, less than five full days after the attack, that got her burned in effigy by McCain and Graham: > > I added the emphasis to make it easier for you to comprehend that she gave several disclaimers that we didn’t KNOW anything, because the investigation was still being done. You’re welcome. > > This stuff has been out there for three years. Obama’s UN speech that you’ve been falsely claiming linked Benghazi to the video has been out there for three years. All you had to do was read it, but instead, you get your information predigested from Fox News or whatever, and they feel free to lie about it (and it is impossible that it’s not a deliberate lie) to their audience, because they know you won’t read the originals. You, who throws a shit fit when anyone else quotes an editorial, and demands the original report. > > I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you watch Fox News, and when Hannity or whoever says “Here’s proof that they lied,” and then shows his little montage of Obama or Rice or Hillary talking about the video, but not including (in the case of Rice) all the disclaimers that it’s preliminary information, and not including (in the case of Obama) that he’s talking about Cairo or Pakistan or Yemen, and not Benghazi, and you lap it up and figure that you don’t need to read the original speech, because the clips are enough. > > Well, they’re not enough. They are deliberately taken out of context, and then they have “experts” like Graham or Giuliani tell you what to think about them, and that’s what you think. > > Doesn’t it make you angry that people are so easily manipulated by the right wing media? Please don’t personalize things. Attack the post, not the poster. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=18)