80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 01:04 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

There was Republican obstructionism during Obama's term. The only remark Bill Clinton made about the time before Obama's term can be found on the video on the 0:48 mark, where he said:
"...and the seven years before that when we were practicing trickle down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash..."


Hold on a second. No one on this site has ever been able to understand the nuance of a politicians words in the past and you expect me to believe you guys are all suddenly nuance genius's? Nah. I don't believe it at all.

Quote:
But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics with no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her.


Two clauses, "the awful legacy of the last eight years" and "the seven years before that".

Those are Presidential terms. Obama for 8 years and Bush the 7 before that. Plain as day. Neither Clinton ever liked Obama, mostly because he is black, because everyone knows that the only reason anyone would be opposed to Obama is because he is black as has been demonstrated on A2K repeatedly. Bill is only telling the truth. The last 8 years HAVE been awful.

I just don't know why you guys would support someone as racist as the Clinton's though.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 02:12 pm
@McGentrix,
You said,
Quote:
Neither Clinton ever liked Obama, mostly because he is black, because everyone knows that the only reason anyone would be opposed to Obama is because he is black as has been demonstrated on A2K repeatedly.

Please show me how you arrived at this conclusion?
Blickers
 
  1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 02:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do you really want to know? Very Happy
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 02:41 pm
@Blickers,
Yes.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 03:45 pm
@Blickers,
know what?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 04:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes.

Why would you want a blinkered, myopic "explanation" that won't give you any more information?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 04:21 pm
@snood,
Just want to hear his opinion. It might be fun.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 04:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I admire Obama, come what may. We could argue at length, I don't agree with him on everything, but I'd argue more re people dismissing him.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 04:30 pm
@ossobuco,
I wonder how many agree with Obama 100% of the time.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 06:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
He was always more right than me, you and I can differ.. But hey, now we get Hillary, cough, who I'll vote for.


Jiminy Christmas.


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 06:27 pm
@ossobuco,
I have liked and respected Obama as our president. He's intelligent, and had a wide range of knowledge before he became president.
Donald Trump scares me. Not only because he's a racial bigot and xenophobe, but he's ready to carpet bomb where ISIS lives. He doesn't seem worried about collateral damage. He's scary.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 08:49 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
Two clauses, "the awful legacy of the last eight years" and "the seven years before that".

Those clauses followed the sentence, at 0:29: "But if you don't believe that we can grow together again......then you might find reasons not to support, [Hillary]....
Clinton was talking about the failure of people in government to work together for the country. Therefore, the Obama presidency was a disaster from a cooperation to work together standpoint, and the Bush presidency was disaster because if both sides had worked together, the economy would not have crashed.

Obviously, the Obama presidency was not a disaster from a performance standpoint. When Obama first took office the country had LOST 6 Million Full Time jobs the previous year. Now the country has GAINED 2.5 Million Full Time jobs in the last 12 months alone, and 5 Million Full Time jobs in the past two years. That is a strong recovery.


snood
 
  3  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 08:55 pm
@Blickers,
Why would Bill and Hillary promote two distinctly different messages - Obama was great vs Obama was a disaster?
zardo
 
  -1  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 09:59 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Why would Bill and Hillary promote two distinctly different messages


Maybe the honeymoon is over. Or it could be Bills Viagra is taking the blood from his brain.
snood
 
  2  
Thu 24 Mar, 2016 10:47 pm
@zardo,
Thanks for that astute analysis. And welcome to A2K..... I think.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Fri 25 Mar, 2016 06:12 am
@Blickers,
The problem is that Obama had 2 years of a Democratic Congress. That's how he got Obamacare through, remember? So, only 6 years of Republicans taking the country back but Clinton said 8. So he must be referring to Obama's awful legacy. No one keeps track of a Congressional legacy.
woiyo
 
  -1  
Fri 25 Mar, 2016 06:26 am
@Blickers,
8 Years of failed international leadership and failed State Department leadership is enough o disqualify Clinton from consideration as President.

Her successor, who parrots her policies, made this stunning comment after the Brussels attacks.

Quote:
"We will not be deterred. We will come back with greater resolve - with greater strength - and we will not rest until we have eliminated your nihilistic beliefs and cowardice from the face of the Earth."


https://www.yahoo.com/news/kerry-arrives-brussels-talks-countering-extremism-075737252--politics.html?nf=1

We have heard this throughout Obamas time in office and Hillary talks the same talk.

So you might want to consider asking Hillary WHEN that "comeback" will actually begin and from where are we "coming back from"?


revelette2
 
  3  
Fri 25 Mar, 2016 07:49 am
@McGentrix,
The fallacy of Obama having two years of a filibuster proof congress started and kept up with Moring Joe, and had been repeated for years, it was not true.

Quote:
FACT: Obama had 72 Working Days of a Filibuster-Proof Majority

https://progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/filibuster2.jpg?w=476&h=265
From Chicago Tribune – The first requirement to have “complete, unadulterated control” of Congress is to command a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate, and the Democrats didn’t have that when Obama became president.

•Minnesota Democrat Al Franken, the prospective 60th vote, was locked in a bitter recount battle. By the time Franken was sworn in — July 7, 2009 —…
•…Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was too ill to participate in the legislative process. Project Vote Smart records reflect that Kennedy stopped voting on major bills in late March.

He died in late August. His temporary replacement, Democrat Paul G. Kirk, was sworn in Sept. 24 and served until the Feb 4, 2010, swearing-in of Republican Scott Brown, winner of the special election to finish the balance of Kennedy’s term.

Congressional records reflect that the Senate was in session for 72 days during the four months and one week (of the nearly 41 months Obama has so far been in office) that the Democrats actually had a filibuster-proof majority — not a particularly long time in the deliberately pokey upper chamber.

But even in this window Obama’s “control” of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.

It’s meant to represent that Obama’s had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism he’s encountered since Day One.

They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, you’ll believe it.

Read More: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-16/news/ct-oped-0617-zorn-md-20120616_1_minnesota-democrat-al-franken-filibuster-proof-majority-barack-obama

_______________

And from the examiner.com –


Host of Fox News, Chris Wallace, made the incorrect assertion during an interview Sunday that President Barack Obama had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for two years. The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

This is not the first and will certainly not the last time Fox New has been caught saying completely untrue things on the air.

Wallace shot back with the fallacy, “But in fairness, the first two years, he (President Obama) had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a big majority in the House.”

There is certainly nothing fair about telling a lie on the air to millions of people. Villarigosa did not deflect the point as untrue, and that was his failing.

The simply reality is Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010, as was noted by talkingpointsmemo.com

This lie that is perpetuated by Fox News as fact, shows that if a lie is told enough times then it is accepted as truth.

_____________

And from the Plymouth Patch:


Before ya go all “but they Democrats had the majority…” Here are some facts. Yes, the Democrats held a majority in both houses and Nancy Pelosi had an incredibly busy and productive tenure as Speaker of the House writing some amazingly progressive legislation. None of that mattered though because of the gridlock in the Senate.

Even though the Democrats held the majority in the Senate they couldn’t move legislation forward. If you’ve been paying attention, you will have noticed that having a simple majority doesn’t matter.

Nope, you need a super-majority and that means 60 Senators instead of 51. We can thank Rule 22 for that. Basically, it gives 41 Senators the ability to block any legislation.

How democratic does that sound?

I don’t care if you like the President or not. I don’t even care if you think he was born on Mars to a three-headed Rick James look-a-like. What I do care about is lying.


Blickers
 
  3  
Fri 25 Mar, 2016 08:07 am
@McGentrix,
Quote McGentrix:
Quote:
The problem is that Obama had 2 years of a Democratic Congress.

You must be forgetting the record number of times the Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster and the 60% rule to prevent legislation from getting to the floor for a vote.

In more patriotic, less partisan eras, the minority Senate party would use the 60% rule to forge a compromise a little more to their liking. Not the Republicans Party in the modern era. The hell with the country, let's make Obama look bad by not passing letting anything pass if we can help it.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Fri 25 Mar, 2016 08:10 am
@woiyo,
Woiyo, Kerry meant the West would come back from the attack. I have no idea what you are reading into that.

PS: It was Bush's grand plan to build a democracy in Iraq, remember? He decided to rebuild the whole government from the ground up, including the Iraq military. Spent many years doing this. Then when we turned the keys over to Iraq government and let them run the country, in accordance with the agreement made during the Bush Administration, the Iraq military Bush built collapsed. 600 ISIS fighters took Mosul away from THIRTY THOUSAND Iraqi troops.

Bush's Iraq nation-buiding was a miserable failure. And we're still picking up the pieces.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:08:36