PDA

View Full Version : Hillary


Southpaw2012
01-08-2016, 06:58 PM
How much more must she do before America wakes up?


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html

Nazbaque
01-08-2016, 07:08 PM
You know guys there is one seriously good thing about a republican president: Southpaw won't be able leave his little complaints about the current president around the place.

Kimon
01-08-2016, 07:33 PM
How much more must she do before America wakes up?


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html

Much like your other recent thread, wakes up to what? There isn't anything surprising in this article as we've known about these email problems for many months. And while Grassley calls this particularly query "disturbing", it's clear from the article that he hasn't even read it, nor does he, or any of the officials discussing it know for certain whether it was classified, or if Hillary ever even received it into her private email...

"It raises a host of serious questions and underscores the importance of the various inquiries into the transmittal of classified information through her non-government email server," said Grassley, who went on to ask: "How long has the State Department been aware of this email? Why is it just now being released? Was her instruction actually carried out? If so, has the FBI opened a criminal inquiry into these circumstances?"

A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."

"I'm not going to speculate about whether the document being discussed was classified," this official added. "Generally speaking, I can say that just because a document is sent via a secure method doesn't mean that it's classified. Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified."

A spokesperson for Grassley's office says it is working under the assumption the email was classified, since Clinton's aides would have had other ways to send the document to her if it wasn't, such as through email.

This is the closest we get to a description of what it was about:

On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.

Talking points implies that it was intended for dissemination, which would seem to indicate that there was nothing on it that was so sensitive to be worth make such a stink about now. On the other hand, it is redacted. Using her private email was dumb, but it's nothing new.

Hillary isn't a great candidate, but she's still far better than anyone that the Republicans are running.

Southpaw2012
01-08-2016, 09:06 PM
You know guys there is one seriously good thing about a republican president: Southpaw won't be able leave his little complaints about the current president around the place.

Unlike many of you, I don't support or criticize a president or candidate based on political party. I'm a constitutionalist with originalist interpretive thought. You guys support Supreme Court justices for making decisions based on their personal policy preferences while I support Supreme Court justices who follow the Constitution as it was always meant to be interpreted. The ignorance with regards to American founding history is staggering, and our nation is headed down a dangerous path.. But that's okay with many of you, correct? As long as social flings of the day are met, regardless of laws, that's all that matters, right? Big, regulation obsessed government is what we need, correct? Unbelievable.

Kimon
01-08-2016, 09:35 PM
Unlike many of you, I don't support or criticize a president or candidate based on political party. I'm a constitutionalist with originalist interpretive thought. You guys support Supreme Court justices for making decisions based on their personal policy preferences while I support Supreme Court justices who follow the Constitution as it was always meant to be interpreted. The ignorance with regards to American founding history is staggering, and our nation is headed down a dangerous path.. But that's okay with many of you, correct? As long as social flings of the day are met, regardless of laws, that's all that matters, right? Big, regulation obsessed government is what we need, correct? Unbelievable.

The constitution was not meant to be an unchanging or unchangeable document, hence the amendments. Moreover, if you're going to complain about justices turning against precedent, then you must also ridicule the shift that the conservative justices have made in their recent interpretations of the second amendment, and their break from precedent that allowed for the Citizens United Ruling. This isn't about purity, nor about some fantasy of what the founders intended. It is simply a philosophical struggle. All of the justices are chosen based upon their politics. Not just those on the left. Not just those on the right. All of them. Pretending that isn't the case is silly. You simply don't like the political philosophy of the four, and we disagree with the political philosophy of the other five - especially Scalia's.

Pretending that either you or they hold some originalist high ground in this debate is both ridiculous, and offensive. Without that progress, the original document would still allow for both slavery, and for the denial of the right to vote for all women.

ShadowbaneX
01-08-2016, 09:54 PM
Ok, so why don't you suggest a candidate? I mean, with all your "originalist interpretive thought" you have to know someone that will cure what ails the greatest nation on the planet.

Nazbaque
01-08-2016, 11:27 PM
Unlike many of you, I don't support or criticize a president or candidate based on political party. I'm a constitutionalist with originalist interpretive thought. You guys support Supreme Court justices for making decisions based on their personal policy preferences while I support Supreme Court justices who follow the Constitution as it was always meant to be interpreted. The ignorance with regards to American founding history is staggering, and our nation is headed down a dangerous path.. But that's okay with many of you, correct? As long as social flings of the day are met, regardless of laws, that's all that matters, right? Big, regulation obsessed government is what we need, correct? Unbelievable.

Well I'll be, he actually replied. He ignores the fact that I live in another country and therefore won't be massively affected by USA elections. Indeed the biggest influence is his endless repetition of the same old opinions and alas he is of the opinion that he is going to complain about all presidents of his country no matter what they do.

fionwe1987
01-09-2016, 12:10 AM
You guys support Supreme Court justices for making decisions based on their personal policy preferences while I support Supreme Court justices who follow the Constitution as it was always meant to be interpreted.

Name one guy that actually does that, instead of just paying lip service to the idea.

And that idea... just how absurd is it? Don't we, rightly, ridicule Aes Sedai in WoT for blindly sticking to age old customs, laws and traditions in the face of staggering social change?

Look, all due respect to the Founding Fathers, but they knew jack about what the world would become. Nor were they so filled with hubris that they thought the laws they wrote would be always valid and valuable to society.

And this is why they provided for ways to modify and amend this document. It borders on insanity to think this country should be beholden to the words and intent of men who lived 3 centuries ago.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2016, 04:19 AM
You guys support Supreme Court justices for making decisions based on their personal policy preferences while I support Supreme Court justices who follow the Constitution as it was always meant to be interpreted.
That means: racist.

For instance, the 2nd Amendment had two goals:
1. Providing an organised militia (National Guard, now) which could fight against foreign invaders if needed. Generations of Supreme Court Justices have ignored this in favor of their political preferences by pretending that the " being necessary to the security of a free State" clause does not exist.
2. Allowing the white slave owners to have the means to suppress the black population. This is still an ongoing issue, of course, as the current Bundy insurrection shows. If that had been a bunch of armed Black Panther activists instead, then the response would have been very different indeed. As the response would be if a few dozen Native Americans tried to grab back some of the land which the USA officially acknowledged as theirs for eternity.

So, do you want racist judges?

The Unreasoner
01-09-2016, 05:24 PM
So, do you want racist judges?

He does.

Does he go to Jordancon?

Frenzy
01-10-2016, 03:49 PM
you've convinced me. i'm voting Bernie.



(i really shouldn't feed the trolls, i know, but he's such an adorable little fluffball of hate you just can't help yourself.)

Rand al'Fain
01-11-2016, 01:13 AM
Trump? Hillary? Any of them? I can't in good conscience bring myself to vote for any of these losers that are running for POTUS. Remember that South Park episode about voting for a giant douche and a turd sandwich? Multiply both of those by ten, and that's about how I feel about each of the candidates.

There is no "right" choice, from what I can see. Right now, it's basically to see which candidate sucks less. Which is a pretty terrible way of going about this whole thing.

Terez
01-11-2016, 01:59 AM
If I had to choose, I'd vote for Bernie, but I don't think he's a good candidate. I just think Hillary's worse. I'm so angry at the base of the Democratic Party for forcing her on us, turning a blind eye to all her weak spots (and Bill's) and lining up for her coronation. If they weren't so enthusiastic about her, we would have had better competition in this primary, that's for sure. And of course, if the GOP wins the White House, they'll blame all the Democrats who couldn't stomach voting for her. And we'll blame them for lining up.

Ozymandias
01-11-2016, 02:56 PM
I'm a constitutionalist with originalist interpretive thought.

Technically, it is impossible to be an "interpretive originalist". If you are an originalist, then the text needs no interpreting. Of course, this also sticks you in an ossified, backwards 18th century mindset, since had we all been Originalists in 1865 then we'd still have slavery.

So thanks for betraying the fundamental dishonesty of all literalists/originalists. You are pro-interpretation, until you disagree with a given point, at which point you hide behind the text as a holy document.

fionwe1987
01-11-2016, 06:17 PM
If I had to choose, I'd vote for Bernie, but I don't think he's a good candidate. I just think Hillary's worse. I'm so angry at the base of the Democratic Party for forcing her on us, turning a blind eye to all her weak spots (and Bill's) and lining up for her coronation. If they weren't so enthusiastic about her, we would have had better competition in this primary, that's for sure. And of course, if the GOP wins the White House, they'll blame all the Democrats who couldn't stomach voting for her. And we'll blame them for lining up.

I'm with you on Hillary being forced on Dems, but I'm not sure there's a deep bench of qualified candidates waiting out there. Sure some might have gotten scared off by the Hillary machine and said "maybe next time", but not a lot. Down from the top tiers the Dems are currently truly lacking in interesting candidates who may one day be credible Presidential candidates.

The Unreasoner
01-11-2016, 07:44 PM
he's such an adorable little fluffball of hate
I know. I have to meet this creature, see it with my own eyes.

Kimon
01-11-2016, 07:58 PM
I'm with you on Hillary being forced on Dems, but I'm not sure there's a deep bench of qualified candidates waiting out there. Sure some might have gotten scared off by the Hillary machine and said "maybe next time", but not a lot. Down from the top tiers the Dems are currently truly lacking in interesting candidates who may one day be credible Presidential candidates.

Elizabeth Warren would have been the candidate most beloved by the base, but in general, we tend to prefer centrists (like Bill and Hillary), as we prefer winning to purity. There is also the simple fact that only another truly charismatic candidate (like Obama in the last cycle) could have unseated Hillary in the primary. Again, aside from Warren, no such alternative seemed present. Perhaps Cory Booker, but he seems more a VP candidate.

fionwe1987
01-12-2016, 12:02 AM
Elizabeth Warren would have been the candidate most beloved by the base, but in general, we tend to prefer centrists (like Bill and Hillary), as we prefer winning to purity. There is also the simple fact that only another truly charismatic candidate (like Obama in the last cycle) could have unseated Hillary in the primary. Again, aside from Warren, no such alternative seemed present. Perhaps Cory Booker, but he seems more a VP candidate.
Warren is too clever to enter this race anyway. Even minus Hillary, I suspect Warren would have sat this one out.

Agreed on Booker.

Terez
01-12-2016, 03:58 AM
Warren is too clever to enter this race anyway. Even minus Hillary, I suspect Warren would have sat this one out.
I'm not so sure about that. I think that Warren could have been convinced to run if Hillary's support hadn't been so overwhelming, if running against her wouldn't have been taken as some kind of uppity betrayal by party loyalists.

I think Warren was, despite all that, still considering running at the time she was invited to visit Hillary at her home in NY. That was almost a year ago, if I recall, when the Draft Warren campaign was really gaining steam. Some kind of deal was made there, and I'm very curious to know what the details were. Perhaps Warren only told Hillary that she was concerned about whether Hillary would be willing to champion her pet issues, because Hillary did step up her hard-on-finance talk around that time. But there might have been an actual position on the table, like Treasury or even SCOTUS.

GonzoTheGreat
01-12-2016, 04:09 AM
Maybe a new Warren Commission?
Then the Dems could show that their opponents are not the only ones who are capable of engaging in pointless repeat investigations.

Terez
01-12-2016, 05:15 AM
I know. I have to meet this creature, see it with my own eyes.
You should come to JordanCon anyway because I'll be there. And you can help Theoryland win team trivia.

The Unreasoner
01-12-2016, 06:35 PM
You should come to JordanCon anyway because I'll be there. And you can help Theoryland win team trivia.
Do we ever lose?

Frankly, I'd be surprised if you couldn't win on your own. But I'll think about it. Some things are beyond my control. If I do go, I'll probably keep a low profile. But I'd like to see you, in any case. Walk you through what I have in mind for music theory analysis. And I think I owe you a steak.



Who thinks Biden will enter if Hillary loses in Iowa? I think he'd want to. I think Obama would endorse him (though that is of dubious value). I think Hillary and those who would see her crowned will set the world on fire though.

I'd love to see this guy run, though:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ao1RcCKRNaA/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAABhU/2SHbLQ0FG5s/s0-c-k-no-ns/photo.jpg

Though Gavin Newsom is one of Hillary's backers, and that would be problematic.

Or Kerry? I like Kerry.

Kimon
01-12-2016, 06:44 PM
Do we ever lose?

Frankly, I'd be surprised if you couldn't win on your own. But I'll think about it. Some things are beyond my control. If I do go, I'll probably keep a low profile. But I'd like to see you, in any case. Walk you through what I have in mind for music theory analysis. And I think I owe you a steak.



Who thinks Biden will enter if Hillary loses in Iowa? I think he'd want to. I think Obama would endorse him (though that is of dubious value). I think Hillary and those who would see her crowned will set the world on fire though.

I'd love to see this guy run, though:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ao1RcCKRNaA/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAABhU/2SHbLQ0FG5s/s0-c-k-no-ns/photo.jpg

Though Gavin Newsom is one of Hillary's backers, and that would be problematic.

Or Kerry? I like Kerry.

Jerry Brown is 77. Hillary is already borderline too old, and she's 68. The idea of another president suffering from dementia while in office frightens me. Biden is frankly too old also. He's 73.

Davian93
01-12-2016, 06:48 PM
If Jerry Brown were 10 years years younger...hell, even 7-8 years younger, he'd be an absolutely awesome candidate. He really got screwed back in the day...ironically by the Clinton machine. I wonder how the world would have been different had he defeated Clinton in the 1992 primary.

The Unreasoner
01-12-2016, 07:34 PM
His parents both lived into their nineties, and I never heard about either having any kind of dementia.

I think he could do the job. He could beat Trump or Rubio. I don't think he wants the job though.

Davian93
01-12-2016, 08:01 PM
His parents both lived into their nineties, and I never heard about either having any kind of dementia.

I think he could do the job. He could beat Trump or Rubio. I don't think he wants the job though.

I think he does but he also realizes that he'd be crushed again by Clinton...and he realizes his age is an issue regardless of how well his parents did age wise.

A shame as he'd probably be a good President.

The Unreasoner
01-12-2016, 08:26 PM
I think he does but he also realizes that he'd be crushed again by Clinton...and he realizes his age is an issue regardless of how well his parents did age wise.

A shame as he'd probably be a good President.
You're probably right.

I just don't know what I want. I don't think Hillary can be a two term president. I'm certain Bernie will be absolutely useless, barring some major tectonic shifts in the House (Obama can't get legislation with bipartisan support through Congress, yet Bernie expects to be able to deliver on a single thing he is campaigning on?). If the GOP nominates another moderate, and he loses, the far right will just become even worse. If Trump or Cruz is nominated and then loses, they might be chastened, but I won't hold my breath. We either get four years with Hillary (and a useless GOP-controlled Congress) or four years with Rubio, who I don't think has the backbone to reign in his party. Any Republican president is dangerous with this Freedom caucus in town. And I don't ************** know what can be done.

Terez
01-13-2016, 01:49 AM
Do we ever lose?

Frankly, I'd be surprised if you couldn't win on your own.
I can't recall if Theoryland has ever lost team trivia. I think we always win it. But this year I'm running it, so I can't play.

Who thinks Biden will enter if Hillary loses in Iowa?
He can't. It's too late to get on the ballots at that point.

GonzoTheGreat
01-13-2016, 04:41 AM
Obama can't get legislation with bipartisan support through Congress, yet Bernie expects to be able to deliver on a single thing he is campaigning on?Might skin color make a bit of a difference?
I have no reason to think it matters to you, but there are signs that it matters to at least some of the Teabaggers.

Davian93
01-13-2016, 06:57 AM
Might skin color make a bit of a difference?
I have no reason to think it matters to you, but there are signs that it matters to at least some of the Teabaggers.

Come on now, its not like there's any evidence that the Far Right and White Power groups have much the same values or something...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/11/white-power-party-swears-loyalty-to-president-trump.html

Oh, and they're actively campaigning for Trump in Iowa too...but its probably just a coincidence.

connabard
01-13-2016, 01:10 PM
you've convinced me. i'm voting Bernie.



(i really shouldn't feed the trolls, i know, but he's such an adorable little fluffball of hate you just can't help yourself.)

Whenever I see The Bern speak it just makes me think of Larry David

How could you not vote for him (unless perhaps you vote based on things such as policies and whatever.)

Davian93
01-13-2016, 02:45 PM
He has 1 pair of underwear and he dries it out on the radiator. He's not one of those fancy billionaires that owns 4 or 5 pairs.

fionwe1987
01-13-2016, 03:01 PM
I'm not so sure about that. I think that Warren could have been convinced to run if Hillary's support hadn't been so overwhelming, if running against her wouldn't have been taken as some kind of uppity betrayal by party loyalists.
Not sure how much Warren cares for that.

I think she stayed out because she saw that for the issues she cared about, focus was more important than position. As President, you are almost forced to make a compromise on everything, and your priorities in, say, foreign policy, will bump up against your priorities on the economy. As Senator, Warren faces no such restrictions. She is incredibly well positioned to make her issues heard, and the media thankfully sees sense in paying attention to what she says, proving it can get things right now and then.

And, where she is now, she gets to keep the Democratic presidents honest on the economy. Even Hillary is running more to the left this time, and I can't help but think some of that is down to Warren.

Davian93
01-13-2016, 03:47 PM
I think most of that is Sanders acting as a giant anchor dragging her to the Left for the entire primary season.

Terez
01-13-2016, 05:10 PM
Not sure how much Warren cares for that.
If she didn't care about that then she wouldn't be supporting Hillary as a candidate. She has never been a fan of Hillary; she wrote about some of her frustrations with Hillary in her 2003 book "The Two-Income Trap".

I think she stayed out because she saw that for the issues she cared about, focus was more important than position.
I doubt she ever cared about being president. What she does care about is whether her party controls the White House, and she had a rather large grassroots organization trying to convince her that Hillary couldn't win it, but she could.

I'm aware of her public arguments on the subject, but I believe there was a time when she was very close to being convinced.

Davian93
01-13-2016, 08:09 PM
Honestly, she has more power to influence in her current position at this point...and she can easily serve another 12-18 years in the Senate before she's too old. She'll have a ton of seniority by then. At only 66, she's got plenty of more time.