7
   

How pathetic can Hillary Clinton get.

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 04:26 pm
@tibbleinparadise,
tibbleinparadise wrote:
. . .bafoon . . .
Great word! Can I use it?
tibbleinparadise
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 06:41 pm
@neologist,
I welcome you to do so!
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 10:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
So who told you I was infuriated? I said Max was a sucker to latch onto the bash Hillary bandwagon, since that is what the Trump defenders are desperately hanging onto, Trump himself being increasingly indefensible. Is it terribly necessary to be infuriated before someone can be called a "sucker" for falling for a political PR gambit? I don't think so, but apparently you do.

I still consider Max somewhat of a liberal or left, and I think in this case he is being gulled by the other side. For instance, he said Hillary has baggage left over from the "War On Crime". At that time, Hillary was the First Lady. During Clinton's term, crime, which had been surging, did a complete about face. I don't see that as baggage, I see that as a stunning success. Observe the following stats:
The number of black murder victims by year. Stats from the FBI.
1987...... 8,998
1988...... 9,956
1989......10,566
1990......11,487
1991......12,227
1992......11,777


Bill Clinton Takes Office
1993.....12,433
1994.....11,854
1995.....10,442
1996......9,473
1997......8,841
1998......7,933
1999......7,139
2000.....7,425

Under Bill Clinton, there were 75,540 blacks murdered in eight years. At the rate of black homicide victims during Bush's last year, 94,216 blacks would be murdered during this time. Bill Clinton becoming president saved the lives of over 18,000 blacks.

Opponents of both Clintons try to point to his crime record as something they should be ashamed of, but all I saw and all the record reveals is crime and murder plummeting because of the jobs created under his leadership. Lash, for instance, is constantly bringing up the amount of people being incarcerated, but never considers-ever-the fact that if murder and violent crime goes up over 18% for the four years prior to Bill Clinton taking office, it means that if murder is going to fall, quite a few murderers have to be taken off the streets and put into jail. It's a simple concept really.

Bill Clinton's leadership took a surging murder rate and turned it into a 40% murder rate reduction. And many people are walking around alive now who would have been murdered if the violent crime surge had not been stopped by Clinton. So much for Hillary's War On Crime "baggage".


Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 10:18 pm
@Blickers,
I'll let max respond to this since he made the original statement. My repugnance for Clinton has nothing to do with her husband's record. (I'm sure though that Bill will add a little extra personal touch to your Christmas card this year when he finds out you're still defending him.

I would never have voted for Nancy Reagan for President and I think her husband was a super-duper president. Bill was a better president than his wife ever could be, and if I thought he was the GOAT President, why would that make me want to vote for his wife?

Did you ever buy that two for the price of one nonsense?


Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 10:21 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Goddammit, Finn. Congratulations, you've apparently won the internet.


I don't want it. It's filled with too many low attention span dullards who get a headache if they have to read more than headlines.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 11:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
My repugnance for Clinton has nothing to do with her husband's record. (I'm sure though that Bill will add a little extra personal touch to your Christmas card this year when he finds out you're still defending him.

Yes, God forbid anyone speak up for the Clinton presidency after he cut the murder rate, burgeoning before he took office, by more than 40%. As for why her husband's record should be taken as an example of what Hillary's leadership is like, unless Bill & Hill have a Mary Matalin-James Carville type relationship, which they don't, we can safely assume they both are on the same page on almost everything. Since Bill Clinton's terms were times of prosperity and international respect, those are powerful reasons to vote for Hillary.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 04:33 am
@Blickers,
You are missing the main point Blickers. I am "bashing" Clinton because she saw this election as something that was owed to her. I don't believe that a losing candidate has ever written such a bitter, scorched earth book before attacking his own party.

The war on crime is a side issue. You can argue the war on crime; maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. There were many of us who did see this as a big issue and it was clear that her campaign felt this was a weakness because she apologized for her statements.

But what the hell is she doing now attacking half of her own party? She is opening up wounds in her own party... and for what purpose. Every other candidate loses gracefully and goes on with public service or a decent private life.

She is showing that this election really was all about her.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 06:12 am
@Blickers,
Omg. Here it is again!
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 09:50 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Yes, God forbid anyone speak up for the Clinton presidency after he cut the murder rate, burgeoning before he took office, by more than 40%.


Part of me wishes he would forbid her from whining anymore and part of me hopes she not only keeps it up, she gets even uglier with her accusations.

Blickers wrote:
As for why her husband's record should be taken as an example of what Hillary's leadership is like, unless Bill & Hill have a Mary Matalin-James Carville type relationship, which they don't, we can safely assume they both are on the same page on almost everything. Since Bill Clinton's terms were times of prosperity and international respect, those are powerful reasons to vote for Hillary.


Gosh, that's nonsense. First of all your assumption is as solid as soap bubbles. She couldn't agree with him on a key campaign strategy that quite possibly resulted in her losing the election.

Her infamous political debacle with health care was far more a result of Bill owing her a plum project as a reward for sticking by him during his serial extra-marital affairs than him asking her to spearhead a reform in which they were moving in lockstep.

You're right though that they don't have a Carville/Matalin marriage: James and Mary actually seem to care very much for another (God knows what she sees in him though Smile )

I'm trying to figure out if voting for the wife of a president you admire because you assume she thinks like he does is sexist or not. I suspect that if that comment had come out of right field it would have immediately been branded patriarchal and patronizing.

That's the sort of thinking that leads to political dynasties and brought Evita to Argentina, Sirimavo Bandaranaike to Sri Lanka, Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan and Lurleen Wallace to Alabama.

It's also the sort of thinking that led to generations of Kennedys being elected to high offices for little reason other than their swimming in the same gene pool as JFK. The name is probably still golden even though the shine is more akin to that of iron pyrite than any aurous qualities of the clan.

Cults of personality, by their very nature, offer very powerful reasons for all sorts of unsupportable, foolish, and sometimes even dangerous decisions.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 08:44 pm
@Lash,
Apparently, the only permissible Clinton Talk is that which contains fulsome praise for one or both of them.

I think it a ridiculous notion that any regular member of this forum is some sort of operative for a political party, organization, foreign government, powerful individual, or fiendish fraternal order like the Freemasons or the Knights of Columbus, but if there was one person of whom I would be suspicious, it's Blickers. Cool

I still don't believe he's a Clinton or DNC operative, but that's only because I think it's ludicrous that any organization or individual would waste resources on trolling this site. You and I may hold the fate of the nation (if not the world) in our hands, but clearly, no one else here has that sort of influence. Twisted Evil

However, I am noodling around a couple of theories that might explain how it could be possible that someone who behaves just like a Clinton operative might actually be one (or something like one) and still swim in the enjoyable shallows of this but backwater forum. I've thrown in a third which explains what I believe is the real Blickers, no political agent for anyone but himself, but who remains inspired to follow in the footsteps of his mid-century, suburban liberal parents.

THEORY NUMBER ONE:
Blickers is a former Clinton operative; now retired who keeps up with the drill because old habits die hard and he has always been a loyal soldier for Bill Clinton. It was Bill who won him over with Fleetwood Mac soundtracks and the way he bit his lower lip and now he feels duty bound to defend the wife. This would explain why he is so much more passionate and even somewhat convincing in his defense of Bill and yet less effective and barely stirred by sticking up for Hillary. This theory assumes he's still on numerous talking point distribution lists and would explain how he's so closely in sync with the Clinton narrative.

THEORY NUMBER TWO:
He's got a connection, by marriage, with one of the mid-level members of the Clinton Inner Circle. The individual pulled a few strings and got Blickers an audition here in A2K. If he impresses the people who matter, there's a chance he will get promoted to the Comments section of the Washington Times. His Dutch Uncle, like Blickers, has always been a Bill loyalist which explains why our friend has languished here in A2K for so long. However, now that Hillary has so completely screwed the pooch, Bill's the top money magnet for Clinton Inc. and is once again the Big Dog, back on top and running the show. There's a decent chance that Blickers will now finally pass the audition and move on to bigger and better propaganda efforts.

THEORY NUMBER THREE:

Blickers is simply a wannabe political operative for the Democrats, with no connections and no chance whatsoever of making it to the Show. Nevertheless he is a voracious consumer of left-wing blog content, and as he is retired from the civil service position he held since he got out of college and his mother found a spot for him in whatever federal or state agency in which she spent a lifetime, he has loads of free time on his hands and can stay on top of the latest narrative being spun by actual DNC operatives on TV, the radio and OpEd sections of major liberal news media websites. This is more like a passionate hobby than an avocation for Blickers who fondly remembers his High School Health teacher Dad, his mother and his two much older siblings passionately discussing at the dinner table how Adlai Stevenson was just too good a person for this country, and how women in America would never obtain true equality with men unless they secured the right to end a pregnancy through legal and safe abortion facilities.

Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:39 pm
@Lash,
Quote Lash:
Quote:
Omg. Here it is again!

Odd words coming from someone who spent most of 2016 bringing up the same statistics supplied by Michelle Alexander about imprisonment under Clinton over
and over
and over
again daily. Without mentioning that the people being put into prison were the people who were murdering people, as evidenced by the murder rate dropping went they got put away. About how city housing projects were suffering from drug gangs developing the strategy of rapid fire shooting through the locked front door of public housing, the other side of which invariably was the living room where mothers and babies watching TV were killed. That you didn't mention. Nor did you mention exactly how one stops a violent crime surge without putting the perpetrators in jail. You didn't bother with that one either.

Just constant wailing about the same imprisonment statistics over and over.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 12:11 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote Finn:
Quote:
That's the sort of thinking that leads to political dynasties and brought Evita to Argentina, Sirimavo Bandaranaike to Sri Lanka, Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan and Lurleen Wallace to Alabama.

As long as you brought it up, I eagerly await your detailed analysis of just how Lurleen Wallace's term as Governor of Alabama significantly differed from her husband George's. If you can't show how she did most of the same things, then you have no point-the voters wanted more Wallace style leadership, unfortunately, and they got it.

Of course, Lurleen was just a political wife with no actual political or electoral experience prior to assuming the top job, but that's no problem for you. After all, you support Trump for the top job as the head of the national government, and he had no political experience at all. And boy, does it ever show. If you voted and support Trump with no political experience at all for President, why are you cracking on Lurleen who at least had someone in the house she could ask if something unfamiliar came up on the job? The only one Trump had to ask was Bannon, and he had no political experience either. And Bannon's gone anyway.

Quote Finn:
Quote:
You're right though that they don't have a Carville/Matalin marriage: James and Mary actually seem to care very much for another (God knows what she sees in him though)

I have no idea of the nature of the Clinton marriage, and unlike yourself, I don't pretend I do. However, if having a mistress disqualifies a man from being able to say he loves his wife, then clearly the White House has been the most loveless domicile in the world, judging by the number of men with mistresses who have occupied it throughout history.


Quote Finn:
Quote:
I'm trying to figure out if voting for the wife of a president you admire because you assume she thinks like he does is sexist or not. I suspect that if that comment had come out of right field it would have immediately been branded patriarchal and patronizing.

Again, you play the victim. Turn off the tear ducts, will you, we have enough floods going on in the country as it stands. If the GOP wants to find out if they would get accused of patriarchy by running the wife of a successful politician, try going against your own "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" base and run one.

Quote Finn:
Quote:
It's also the sort of thinking that led to generations of Kennedys being elected to high offices for little reason other than their swimming in the same gene pool as JFK.

From 1976 thru 1996, the Republicans did not run a president/vice pres combo that did NOT contain a Bush or Dole on the ticket. How many of those GOP tickets did YOU vote for? Physician, heal thyself.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 12:31 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote Finn:
Quote:
However, I am noodling around a couple of theories that might explain how it could be possible that someone who behaves just like a Clinton operative might actually be one

Your concept of being a Clinton operative is someone who simply states Clinton's record on domestic and foreign policy, as opposed to dwelling on the only Clinton focus Republicans will allow, which is as Monica's lover. It probably has something to do with the 16 Million Full Time jobs created during Clinton's tenure as well as the prevalence of rising living standards and prosperity generally, including the closing of several town welfare offices due to lack of applicants. In foreign policy, we saw Clinton bring peace to Central Europe while cutting the Russians out of the picture almost entirely. A refreshing contrast to the current President who runs down NATO constantly and has publicly stated that he wants to get rid of NATO and replace it with a policy of letting Russia do what it wants as long as we get our cut.

In short, while you post these lengthy tomes wondering how anyone such as myself would dare to step outside the standard conservative guidelines for acceptable posting, I answer with giving facts and statistics as opposed to the grammatical, but fact-free mishmash of supposition and innuendo that you normally throw up here.

Any more questions?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 04:32 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
But what the hell is she doing now attacking half of her own party?

Have you read the book? I haven't, and probably won't, but I wonder if these "attacks" are as serious as you make them sound.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 05:25 am
@Blickers,
No one has ever done anything here as often and you flopped those ridiculous stats up on the counter.
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2017 07:24 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:

Bill Clinton's leadership took a surging murder rate and turned it into a 40% murder rate reduction. And many people are walking around alive now who would have been murdered if the violent crime surge had not been stopped by Clinton. So much for Hillary's War On Crime "baggage".


Lol.

It is not just about numbers but the reason for murdering.

The main reason: Drugs.

Main killers of black people: Other black people

If the government is "soft" with enforcing drug confiscation, then more drug is free in the streets and less violence.

Under Clinton, there was more drugs in the streets.

Case closed.
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2017 07:27 pm
Hillary Clinton doesn't care about your opinions on her book. She doesn't care about what she wrote the book.

She just wanted to be on TV and other communication media to promote -indirectly- her book.

The best to do is not buying her book.

Simple.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2017 01:32 pm
A certain Sarah Leonard reviews Clinton’s book and her relationship to populism for the Guardian:

Quote:
What Happened by Hillary Clinton review – entertainingly mean but essentially wrong-headed

There’s nothing careful about this memoir, which throws lots of blame around. But it misses how out of touch Clinton was.

Sarah Leonard
Thursday 14 September 2017 14.04 BST

[...] What Happened is quite different from Clinton’s careful, tedious autobiographies. Those books tried to sell a wise and relatable candidate to the public, while playing down controversies. Her new book is more gossipy, it is meaner, more entertaining and more wrong-headed than anything she or her speechwriters have written before.

The book begins with a recounting of Donald Trump’s inauguration, which she attended, smiling. I remember wanting a dose of whatever she was on. (The book does not reveal.) 

[...] She repeatedly calls the populist discontent evident in America and Europe “tribal politics”. In the American case, she’s referring to Trump’s base, which offered an abundance of reactionary nationalism, even though his base in the end was primarily the same old Republican party. What was more surprising were the populist politics coming from the left, a swath of young voters who could hardly be called “tribal”, and who mirrored the behaviour of young voters supporting Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, Podemos in Spain, Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France, or Syriza in Greece. Instead of really grappling with the new populist politics, she sounds frustrated, saying that she was talking about economics, citing her platform, her Rust Belt tour, and even a chart showing how many times she mentioned “jobs”.

This reluctance to engage with the growing populism in the US is endemic to the Democratic party, which, for example, rejected the Sanders-endorsed populist candidate Keith Ellison to head the Democratic National Committee after the election. But in the last few years, young Americans have been radicalised in greater numbers, leading police reform efforts and adopting socialist ideas, pushing the “Overton window” – the ideas people will accept – further open.

Lots of things that Clinton says she wants, such as universal health care, have a new young constituency inspired by Sanders, which must be hard to swallow. What I see as promising, Clinton doesn’t mention or regards, in the guise of Sanders followers, as a threat. As a result, organisations to the left of the Democratic party have grown, and it is losing the young people who should be its future. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/14/what-happened-hillary-clinton-review
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 04:52 am
Hillary Clinton is bat **** insane.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/hillary-clinton-lesson-1984-trust-leaders-press/

Orwell's primary message in his novel 1984, according to crazy pants, is "trust your leaders". 😳

An authoritarian down to the bone.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 05:21 am
@Lash,
I think she's trying to draw a distinction between authoritarian rulers and the kinds of elected "leaders" we have in liberal democracies where they are analyzed by the press and generally seek the best advice from recognized authorities in science, medicine, and economics. This is in contrast to the Trump style which tries to demonize the press and generate mistrust of any expert testimony which might affect the corporate bottom line. The Washington Times (hardly an objective source) is trying to make a weak point in a few sketchy lines — hardly even counts as "news" let alone journalism.

Biggest inauguration crowd ever, right? Climate change is a hoax, right? Good people attend white supremacist rallies, right?
 

Related Topics

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
GOP Empire Strikes Back - Discussion by parados
Government School Indoctrination - Discussion by H2O MAN
The Democrats will win again in 2016 - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Obama care 2014 - Discussion by wts
The 'I voted' thread! - Question by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/17/2021 at 12:01:44