Main issue with Hilary is not the apparent favours she happily accepts or the apparent missing emails of importance that should have a record, that may contain information on her part that will be really embarrassing.
It's the allegations where women have come forward and said that she knew about Bill Clintons sexual misconduct towards them but yet she tried to shut them up and also showed no sympathy, and stayed by her man, regardless of whatever.
He f*cked around with so many different woman, whether it was rape (allegedly) or not rape but yet she appeared to be fine with it.
It's rather "creepy" id say. That is not a normal human behaviour with integrity.
Bill Clinton may never have done anything with those woman that was against the law.
I just instinctively feel that it's bollocks and it kind of all adds up.
It's totally common among the rich and successful. Woman stays with her man thanks to his wealth and power while he plays away, meantime she's having it away with Pedro the gardener. They have a different moral compass to us mere mortals - similar to their attitude to paying tax...
Seeing the above picture of Bill ( i did not have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton. Was this taken after a Reunion with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers on the same Night ?
So they're quoting a campaign ad from eight years ago. It's not a quote from Barrack Obama. As I've said before, this is the problem with blatantly biased websites, like The Federalist you posted from previously. It's click bait. It's "YOU WON'T BELIEVE THAT THESE 20 CELEBRITIES ARE GAY (ESPECIALLY NUMBER 13)!"
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment. I think it's been much better this campaign than 2008, but I have a problem with her lack of consistent principles. But quoting political attack ads which are technically not made by the candidate themselves is nonsense. And you know better.
Reading the New York Times there is a page devoted to the concept of Bill being The First Gentleman. Will he have an office in the East Wing, like First Ladies are supposed to, or The West Wing with executive input.
'Would a philandering First Lady be accepted if they had behaved like Bill', was another thread in the article.
Reading the New York Times there is a page devoted to the concept of Bill being The First Gentleman. Will he have an office in the East Wing, like First Ladies are supposed to, or The West Wing with executive input.
Why? The lefties don't hesitate to (angrily) bring up the past. I'm tired of the attacks from the one or two who can't have a civilized debate.
But a civilized debate doesn't include intentional disregard for context. You are better and smarter than that. You can debate the issues, not just the smear campaigns. I've seen you do it, and when you do, you come across as very articulate and well rounded. But parading attack ads as quotes, or a statement that makes an erroneous claim about what is or isn't national security does nothing to move the conversation forward. Particularly, as I said, you can simply look at her stances on issues and make the case that Hillary lacks a consistent set of political stances.
Why? The lefties don't hesitate to (angrily) bring up the past. I'm tired of the attacks from the one or two who can't have a civilized debate.
.......... Particularly, as I said, you can simply look at her stances on issues and make the case that Hillary lacks a consistent set of political stances.
You could make that case but you should still expect some people to completely reject that view. And you shouldn't immediately throw your toys out of the pram and whine about unreasonable lefties. Just make your case and back it up with links to respected sources. And respected sources does not include rabid right wing media outlets such as Fox News and Breibart.com
Her core values and stances on things like Civil Rights, Human Rights, Women's Rights, Children's Rights, Workers Rights, Universal Healthcare and education, seem to have remained fundamentally the same since she was in college. Her views on non-core values such as Gay Rights, Globalisation, Trade Agreements and many others evolved over time. Only political and religious tyrants have a consistent unchanging set of political stances throughout their lives.
Why? The lefties don't hesitate to (angrily) bring up the past. I'm tired of the attacks from the one or two who can't have a civilized debate.
.......... Particularly, as I said, you can simply look at her stances on issues and make the case that Hillary lacks a consistent set of political stances.
You could make that case but you should still expect some people to completely reject that view. And you shouldn't immediately throw your toys out of the pram and whine about unreasonable lefties. Just make your case and back it up with links to respected sources. And respected sources does not include rabid right wing media outlets such as Fox News and Breibart.com
Her core values and stances on things like Civil Rights, Human Rights, Women's Rights, Children's Rights, Workers Rights, Universal Healthcare and education, seem to have remained fundamentally the same since she was in college. Her views on non-core values such as Gay Rights, Globalisation, Trade Agreements and many others evolved over time. Only political and religious tyrants have a consistent unchanging set of political stances throughout their lives.
Okay, first off, I'd like to draw a line under the "will say anything to get elected." That's not what I feel, but instead I feel that her opinions tend to "evolve" toward what is popular and politically beneficial, and not a principled, unpopular stance.
On to your post. What you consider "Core" and "Non-Core" issues is entirely subjective to you. I would argue, as would she post 2013, that gay rights ARE human rights, there is no distinction there. I have also highlighted areas where I feel that her stance has changed in a noteworthy fashion.
As far as stances changing, yes, absolutely that will happen. And I would expect most people to change their stances on things like globalization and trade because they are constantly evolving situations where the factors are different. Things like Gay Rights and Healthcare have roughly the same factors they had 10-15 years ago, the only thing that has changed is popular opinion.
Healthcare: No, this has changed drastically, and it's one of my largest issues with her. What she did going before Congress in the early-mid 90s was incredibly impressive. But since then she has shifted right drastically. I did not vote for Obama in 2012 because of healthcare, despite voting for him in 2008 knowing that we had differing views on many things. The notion that we have "universal healthcare" in the States is false. We have expanded the private for-profit health insurance industry.
Gay Rights: Again, no, she was very, very late to the game on this, and said she would have signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) which made it so that gay couples were not viewed as legally married by the FEDERAL Government (despite claiming she felt it was a "State's Rights" issue, more in the article below--I know the whole state versus Federal thing can be confusing, can go into further detail on that if necessary).
Education: Was a supporter of No Child Left Behind, an initiative that was deeply flawed in many ways, but most notably through a ridiculous increase in testing, which then led to test results being used for federal funding (including funding punishments for those schools who underachieved). It also provided vouchers for students to go to private schools and expanded charter schools (of which I am an alum) which greatly expanded the "tiered" education that we have in this country. This tiered education system dictates that, based on race and socio-economic conditions, the worse off you are, the worse your education.
Foreign Policy She is a hawk. She voted unabashedly for the Iraq war, and continued to support it until it was unpopular. The way the Iranian uprising was handled was very good, and foreign policy was one of the reasons why I supported Obama. From there, things went downhill.
The neglect of the Tunisian uprising which started the Arab Spring was regrettable, but for me the low point came during the Egyptian uprising. There were many times when she could have taken a principled stance and stood with those who wanted free and fair elections against Mubarak. Instead, she toed every line she could. Why? Because Egypt is the only Muslim country that recognizes Israel, and as a result we send them LOADS of money to fund primarily their military. The approach was old-fashioned cold war politics, we will do anything it takes, including pumping in money AND standing up for an oppressive, authoritarian, un-democratic regime just to keep them sweet and "on our side."
In general, I very much disagree with her stance on Israel. I think it's archaic and I think that the current administration has done well by distancing themselves a bit from Israel, a country whose politicians continue to drive further and further to the right. Taking a more balanced approach could find us with a lot more friends in the middle east than we might previously have had. No one benefits from ISIS, and it's noteworthy how drastically our relations have improved with Iran since John Kerry became secretary of state.
So that's sort of a high level overview. Tried not to get too policy wonk of "inside baseball."
It's unfortunate that there are NO news outlets that aren't biased. "Fox" gets slaughtered on here, rightly or wrongly, and the "Main Stream" are so biased to the left of center they should be embarrassed for themselves. Those not particularly interested tend to soak up the (liberal] sound-bytes, and take them for gospel simply because there are so many more of them than right-biased. Those with extreme views , it would seem, couldn't care less about any narrative that is in conflict with their own, and even get angry when one is presented. People read newspapers and watch media outlets that confirm their already settled points of view, and usually miss or dismiss other opinions. The election will be settled by the"undecideds", as usual, not by people who are extreme left or right, or even by people slightly left or right (like myself) of center. I often hesitate to get into the political debates on this site because of the few extremists who are very unpleasant; who, if involved in a similar discussion in a pub, for instance, would be asked to leave, such are their responses. My personal opinion. I can't stand Hillary, and although Trump would have never been my first choice, he doesn't scare me as much as she does. When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, since then the candidates who have been elected have been elected mostly for their personality, not their qualifications. This will be the first election where voters will have to get past the personalities of both candidates.
It's unfortunate that there are NO news outlets that aren't biased. "Fox" gets slaughtered on here, rightly or wrongly, and the "Main Stream" are so biased to the left of center they should be embarrassed for themselves. Those not particularly interested tend to soak up the (liberal] sound-bytes, and take them for gospel simply because there are so many more of them than right-biased. Those with extreme views , it would seem, couldn't care less about any narrative that is in conflict with their own, and even get angry when one is presented. People read newspapers and watch media outlets that confirm their already settled points of view, and usually miss or dismiss other opinions. The election will be settled by the"undecideds", as usual, not by people who are extreme left or right, or even by people slightly left or right (like myself) of center. I often hesitate to get into the political debates on this site because of the few extremists who are very unpleasant; who, if involved in a similar discussion in a pub, for instance, would be asked to leave, such are their responses. My personal opinion. I can't stand Hillary, and although Trump would have never been my first choice, he doesn't scare me as much as she does. When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, since then the candidates who have been elected have been elected mostly for their personality, not their qualifications. This will be the first election where voters will have to get past the personalities of both candidates.
I honestly can't think of a single reason why a well-balanced, intelligent, thoughtful person would vote for Trump. If he has any redeeming characteristics, policies or attitudes, they're dwarfed and hidden by his wild, dangerous, xenophobic rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that there are NO news outlets that aren't biased. "Fox" gets slaughtered on here, rightly or wrongly, and the "Main Stream" are so biased to the left of center they should be embarrassed for themselves. Those not particularly interested tend to soak up the (liberal] sound-bytes, and take them for gospel simply because there are so many more of them than right-biased. Those with extreme views , it would seem, couldn't care less about any narrative that is in conflict with their own, and even get angry when one is presented. People read newspapers and watch media outlets that confirm their already settled points of view, and usually miss or dismiss other opinions. The election will be settled by the"undecideds", as usual, not by people who are extreme left or right, or even by people slightly left or right (like myself) of center. I often hesitate to get into the political debates on this site because of the few extremists who are very unpleasant; who, if involved in a similar discussion in a pub, for instance, would be asked to leave, such are their responses. My personal opinion. I can't stand Hillary, and although Trump would have never been my first choice, he doesn't scare me as much as she does. When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, since then the candidates who have been elected have been elected mostly for their personality, not their qualifications. This will be the first election where voters will have to get past the personalities of both candidates.
Whether you can stand Hillary or can't stand her, I'm struggling to see how she can scare you more than Trump. It seems to me you can elect someone who can work with both sides of the Senate/Congress/House/whatever it's called and other people around the world or you can elect someone who appears to have no policies other than 'piss off those you can't scare in to voting for you' and who certainly scares most/all of the rest of the world. So, I'd be interested in hearing what it is about Hillary that scares you.
Trump has NO settled policies. He shifts his position on everything every time he opens his mouth. He is a lying conman and those who think he will change are being conned.
Comments
Was this taken after a Reunion with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers on the same Night ?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/12/1500138/-Obama-2008-Campaign-Ad-She-ll-say-anything-and-change-nothing
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment. I think it's been much better this campaign than 2008, but I have a problem with her lack of consistent principles. But quoting political attack ads which are technically not made by the candidate themselves is nonsense. And you know better.
Will he have an office in the East Wing, like First Ladies are supposed to, or The West Wing with executive input.
'Would a philandering First Lady be accepted if they had behaved like Bill', was another thread in the article.
I blame the Russians.
Who is the spy ?
https://buzzfeed.com/lyapalater/bill-the-balloon-guy?bffbmain&ref=bffbmain&utm_term=.eoogGm7BW#.bxr4YgR80
Her core values and stances on things like Civil Rights, Human Rights, Women's Rights, Children's Rights, Workers Rights, Universal Healthcare and education, seem to have remained fundamentally the same since she was in college. Her views on non-core values such as Gay Rights, Globalisation, Trade Agreements and many others evolved over time. Only political and religious tyrants have a consistent unchanging set of political stances throughout their lives.
On to your post. What you consider "Core" and "Non-Core" issues is entirely subjective to you. I would argue, as would she post 2013, that gay rights ARE human rights, there is no distinction there. I have also highlighted areas where I feel that her stance has changed in a noteworthy fashion.
As far as stances changing, yes, absolutely that will happen. And I would expect most people to change their stances on things like globalization and trade because they are constantly evolving situations where the factors are different. Things like Gay Rights and Healthcare have roughly the same factors they had 10-15 years ago, the only thing that has changed is popular opinion.
Healthcare:
No, this has changed drastically, and it's one of my largest issues with her. What she did going before Congress in the early-mid 90s was incredibly impressive. But since then she has shifted right drastically. I did not vote for Obama in 2012 because of healthcare, despite voting for him in 2008 knowing that we had differing views on many things. The notion that we have "universal healthcare" in the States is false. We have expanded the private for-profit health insurance industry.
Gay Rights:
Again, no, she was very, very late to the game on this, and said she would have signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) which made it so that gay couples were not viewed as legally married by the FEDERAL Government (despite claiming she felt it was a "State's Rights" issue, more in the article below--I know the whole state versus Federal thing can be confusing, can go into further detail on that if necessary).
A really good article on her stance on gay rights here (from 2014), and I'll see if I can track down that interview with Terry Gross in a format where you don't have to pay for it (archived NPR shows are usually sold on iTunes):
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/
Education:
Was a supporter of No Child Left Behind, an initiative that was deeply flawed in many ways, but most notably through a ridiculous increase in testing, which then led to test results being used for federal funding (including funding punishments for those schools who underachieved). It also provided vouchers for students to go to private schools and expanded charter schools (of which I am an alum) which greatly expanded the "tiered" education that we have in this country. This tiered education system dictates that, based on race and socio-economic conditions, the worse off you are, the worse your education.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-did-the-2016-candidates-vote-on-no-child-left-behind-and-its-replacement/article/2578093
Foreign Policy
She is a hawk. She voted unabashedly for the Iraq war, and continued to support it until it was unpopular. The way the Iranian uprising was handled was very good, and foreign policy was one of the reasons why I supported Obama. From there, things went downhill.
The neglect of the Tunisian uprising which started the Arab Spring was regrettable, but for me the low point came during the Egyptian uprising. There were many times when she could have taken a principled stance and stood with those who wanted free and fair elections against Mubarak. Instead, she toed every line she could. Why? Because Egypt is the only Muslim country that recognizes Israel, and as a result we send them LOADS of money to fund primarily their military. The approach was old-fashioned cold war politics, we will do anything it takes, including pumping in money AND standing up for an oppressive, authoritarian, un-democratic regime just to keep them sweet and "on our side."
In general, I very much disagree with her stance on Israel. I think it's archaic and I think that the current administration has done well by distancing themselves a bit from Israel, a country whose politicians continue to drive further and further to the right. Taking a more balanced approach could find us with a lot more friends in the middle east than we might previously have had. No one benefits from ISIS, and it's noteworthy how drastically our relations have improved with Iran since John Kerry became secretary of state.
So that's sort of a high level overview. Tried not to get too policy wonk of "inside baseball."
My personal opinion. I can't stand Hillary, and although Trump would have never been my first choice, he doesn't scare me as much as she does. When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, since then the candidates who have been elected have been elected mostly for their personality, not their qualifications. This will be the first election where voters will have to get past the personalities of both candidates.
What am I missing?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/08/why-some-liberals-have-started-to-love-donald-trump/