Clinton Coverup Queen

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by jennypenny »

I'm so cynical when it comes to everything related to this election, my first thought when I read that Abedin is separating from Weiner was that she's probably doing it now to garner sympathy and counter some of the negative press she's gotten recently. It was a harsh thought given his colorful history, but it doesn't seem that far-fetched either.

I hate being this cynical.

shade-tree
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by shade-tree »

Hey now, Be nice everyone. :-)

Young candidate that was popular= Obama. (past candidate, of course, just an example of how people feel about folks with shorter resume)
Outsider= Trump
Long history/one main job= Bernie

I do stand by my claim that very few people have been all of the following: a first lady, a senator, a secretary of state. Therefore few people have exposure to the high level decision-making situations she has. That we're not all going to agree with her decisions and that some will have had serious consequences seems a given. I just don't see evil motivation.

Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Dragline »

BRUTE wrote:brute completely agrees with ffj. Dragline only need take one look at 4chan to realize anonymity lets out the true self.
Are you comparing support for Trump to partaking in misogynist porn? I don't think most Trump supporters would feel that way.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by BRUTE »

Dragline wrote:Are you comparing support for Trump to partaking in misogynist porn? I don't think most Trump supporters would feel that way.
brute has no idea what most Trump supporters would feel like, but clearly Dragline must have a different taste in 4chan than brute.

Riggerjack
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Riggerjack »

"Therefore few people have exposure to the high level decision-making situations she has. That we're not all going to agree with her decisions and that some will have had serious consequences seems a given. I just don't see evil motivation."

OK. For the record, I don't think her motivation for evil is all that unusual in her profession. However, as you say, she has been in power a long, long, long time. Time enough to leave a trail of blood and slime, as BRUTE so eloquently put it.

The last time a politician with this much dirt ran was Huey Long, and he was still a local politician. This, I believe, would be more damaging than anything she did or didn't do in office. Corruption is part of democracy. But here in the USA, we expect our scandalized politicians to disappear from the public eye. Instant, permanent, involuntary, early retirement.

If there is a Hillary standard, it is that no rules, standards, or expectations apply to her. That there are different rules for the rulers is beyond question. But HRC elected, is a blatant statement that even those rules can be thrown out.

CS
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by CS »

I am not going to read this whole thread because blood pressure, but I just want to throw this out there - I am more than STOKED to vote for Hillary. As a woman coming near fifty, who has had to deal with sexism, professionally and personally for the 45 years that I can remember, I am beyond impressed with her willingness to keep engaging. She works hard for others.

I've also contributed a ton to her campaign (It's cheaper than a move to Canada). I figure one of the best benefits of keeping my expenses down is that when I have something or someone I want to support, I've got the resources.

Go Hill!

IlliniDave
Posts: 2872
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by IlliniDave »

Riggerjack wrote:But HRC elected, is a blatant statement that even those rules can be thrown out.
This to me is what's really at stake. It would bring out into the open a popular mandate that following rules, obeying the law, telling the truth in matters related to acting officially in a high-level government office, and ethical behavior while holding a high-level government office, are blatantly/openly no longer required to be elected president. Seems the genie will be out of the bottle for good. The blinders people seem to put on to fully support HRC exceed the blinders people seem to need to fully support DJT.

We'll more-or-less get the government we deserve.

Once this clown show is behind us I intend to be fully transitioned to ER prior to the next time a president is elected. I have now added a very deliberate tune-out of politics to my future lifestyle agenda. And for me, during the open water season at least, Canada is only a moderate day's paddle away. :D

RealPerson
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:33 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by RealPerson »

Dragline wrote:
ffj wrote: I do agree however with the premise that people are much more honest when they are anonymous and don't have to suffer criticism for their viewpoints and that is going to be a factor this November.
Why do you agree with that premise? Do people who answer random polls really "suffer criticism for their viewpoints" by somebody recording their preference in a box? And if so, how -- unless they shared what they told the pollster with others on their own?

I think that people with firm viewpoints like to vocalize them and signal to like-minded individuals. And the internet provides even greater opportunities for such signaling.
Interesting observation. When you are being polled, someone you don't know took the initiative to contact you. They know who you are, where you live, where you work, whether you own your home, etc.. You have no idea whether what you tell the pollster will be entered in some database and what it might be used for in the future. Actually, I take that back. It will be used for other purposes.

With posting online, you take the initiative. You decide how much to disclose about yourself. The readers of the blog pretty much know what you disclosed, and nothing else. You can stay pretty anonymous if you manage your postings carefully. In other words, you are in the driver's seat.

Polls have been wrong before, especially when it involves a candidate that is perceived as somehow "bad". Trump is perceived by many as a tasteless and racist bully, so you may not want your name attached to him. That may prompt someone to tell a pollster that they are undecided, when they really have decided to vote for Trump. Hillary, for all the scandals surrounding her, is really a very mainstream candidate. She doesn't have that Trump stigma for the most part. Just my 2 c worth.

Riggerjack
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Riggerjack »

I am more than STOKED to vote for Hillary. As a woman coming near fifty, who has had to deal with sexism, professionally and personally for the 45 years that I can remember, I am beyond impressed with her willingness to keep engaging.
Excellent! I am glad you found a candidate you can get behind. I knew Somebody had to support her, instead of settling for her. Though such people seem hard to find.

Back to the original question of this thread, "Why?" Or are you a single issue voter?

I am looking forward to voting Johnson. And for the record, I am pretty much a single issue voter over gun rights. So please don't take my question as any kind of attack on your blood pressure.

It would be nice to hear the other side for more than a post or two in this thread.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by BRUTE »

funny, brute is also in the Johnson camp (hrhrhr), but he doesn't care much for firearms (he doesn't own any). brute's "single issue" is the drug war and those other wars in the middle east.

Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Dragline »

Yeah, I'll probably "Feel the Johnson" this time around, too, although I won't bother to make up my mind until late October. I honestly have no real idea of what Jill Stein's platform is. (And not really that much about Trump's either, as it seems to change weekly.)

"Least likely to start/engage in more wars" is where I usually end up. HRC has still not convinced me that she's not "Bush-lite" (tastes the same, has a more diplomatic label) in that department.

At this point, I don't think there is much of anything Trump can do/say to beat Clinton. But there are still things that Clinton could do/say (or maybe has already done/said) to lose to Trump. Still waiting for the promised "Assange Surprise". Sounds like a dessert, doesn't it?

Riggerjack
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Riggerjack »

Oh, I didn't mean I will vote Johnson over gun rights. Who is President has very little to do with gun rights. For instance, it is easier for me to get silencers (suppressors) under the new rules the BATFE enacted under Obama last January. The assault weapons ban of 1994, and the backlash have pushed all gun rights issues down to the state and local level.

I'm voting Johnson for his actual accomplishments, even though it was in deep red country. He has no real chance, and would get nothing accomplished if he did win. But I'll be damned if I throw my vote at HRC or Trump. The demopubs should be punished for the show they are putting on. A demopub will win, but if Johnson can get 5% of the popular vote, the libertarian party gets a share of the presidential election fund.

Vote Johnson, just to spite 'em!

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Ego »

Dragline wrote:Yeah, I'll probably "Feel the Johnson" this time around, too
Speaking of which.... how about that crazy Weiner? Hills already clinched the angry-wife vote a looooong time ago. Seems like a flashback to 1998. Hope they had a prenup :?

Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by Dragline »

Ego wrote:
Dragline wrote:Yeah, I'll probably "Feel the Johnson" this time around, too
Speaking of which.... how about that crazy Weiner? Hills already clinched the angry-wife vote a looooong time ago. Seems like a flashback to 1998. Hope they had a prenup :?
Hah! I honestly don't know why she didn't dump Oscar Mayer in the first round of embarrassment and humiliation, but there are children involved, too. And those "Twilight Zone" comparisons with her mentor.

I'm now just waiting for him to appear on reality TV. "Dancing with my Wiener" :lol:

I need to find the SNL episode from the 90s where the Bill Clinton character appears with a bunch of bruises on his face and insists that "he's clumsy" and "he fell", and the HRC character shows up with a large iron frying pan.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5868
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

My kids told me that Jill Stein is anti-vaccine (sigh.)

ffj
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by ffj »

@7

Not true, at least according to her. I was listening to her on NPR a few weeks ago and really started to dig her until she started talking about prison and criminal justice reform. She's quite the idealist but very well spoken however.

ffj
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by ffj »

@Dragline
I really don't care about their marriage but some of the headlines regarding their breakup were pretty funny. I think Yahoo's was something like "Huma gives up Weiner". I got a chuckle out of that one.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by jennypenny »

I can't believe more emails are coming out. Why on earth didn't she release them all at the beginning of this mess? They'd be all but forgotten by now. The Clinton's SOP of stonewalling might end up costing her the election. So foolish. Benghazi was four years ago. She had time to recover from it if she'd come clean and shown at least a little contrition.

I know everyone thinks she's smarter and more qualified for the presidency, but her mishandling of the email thing and the Foundation stuff has me wondering if we're giving her too much credit. The Clinton machine is showing some wear.

ffj
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by ffj »

For those confused about the e-mails and aren't sick of hearing about them, here is a young investigative reporter on C-span who clears up a lot of confusion regarding timelines, legalities, and behavior on Clinton's part. It's actually fairly informative and worth the 40 odd minutes. Ignore the title of the video as the reporter does a good job being impartial and sticking with facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWy7Ntty9o0

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Clinton Coverup Queen

Post by BRUTE »

reading Jill Stein's platform, brute saw that it's now:
LGBTQIA+
will there be no end to this acronym?

Post Reply