A reminder of one of Hillary's misrememberings...

[telling tiger 156]

Well...I comprehend half that voting coin.....I detest Trump as a candidate. I have 2, 15 month olds, in my house, more capable of being POTUS and they both possess a better, yet similar temperament.

EVEN WITH, all her flaws, she wouldn't get us in another war based on someone pissing her off.

Not to mention, in no way, do I want someone approved or vetted by the Heritage Foundation as a member of SCOTUS or the human race.

Some days our opinions are similar and some days they are not.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"EVEN WITH, all her flaws, she wouldn't get us in another war based on someone pissing her off"

Actually Hillary is quite hawkish. If you disagree you apparently haven't followed her career. I wouldn't put her ahead of anyone based on her being a "dove"

[TitanTiger 21,068]

"EVEN WITH, all her flaws, she wouldn't get us in another war based on someone pissing her off"

Actually Hillary is quite hawkish. If you disagree you apparently haven't followed her career. I wouldn't put her ahead of anyone based on her being a "dove"

She's not as hawkish as Bush/Cheney. She's more hawkish than the average Democrat though.

[telling tiger 156]

A. You will need to find someone else to argue with, I simply unblock your participation to occasionally laugh.

I only bothered to unblock it this time, because of proximity.

B. At no time, in any way, did I state that HRC was a dove. As usual, you invent something and argue with it.

C. I stated, imo, she wouldn't get us involved in a war, because someone pissed her off.

D. Being a dove and not getting involved in a war because she was PERSONALLY offended, are vastly different things.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I didn't realize this was an argument but, obviously, it is for you. Most of your points are moot because they are all simply arguable if one was inclined. like you seem eager to be. More than one source has reported that Hillary has an explosive temper. I don't know her personally but between her and Huma Weiner they're both considered monsters by the secret service. I have no idea what Hillary would do if someone pissed her off but nothing would surprise me given her celebrations of "We came. WE saw. He died." when Kadahfi was taken out. That's worked out realy well for the Middle East wouldn't you agree?

[homersapien 12,172]

When you have 30 years of a witch hunt, from people who have no problem lying while claiming, morals, honor and truth.....after the 7th, 8th or 9th, politically motivated investigation that has proven the exact opposite of claims, the incessant whining ceases to have meaning. Rational people tune those people out. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to work on the Committee to Prove HRC triggered Foster's suicide and the Committee to Prove That Friends of Bill Keep Mysteriously Dying....at 60-80 Years Old.

http://www.politifac...-recent-round-/

That's a rather flippant response. And while I agree that Republicans have hated Hillary for a long time, it doesn't change the fact that Hillary has earned her "liar" badge completely on her own merits, wholly separate from any loony right-wing conspiracy theories.

It's not flippant. Hillary has been held to a different standard ever since she worked on the Clinton's healthcare bill. Being first lady in the Clinton administration didn't help.

That Hillary has a likability problem is pretty much beyond dispute, and has sent pundits to determine why. New York Times columnist David Brooks, no Hillary hater, concluded that Hillary is too much of a policy wonk to win public affection. She seems to care too much about the nuts and bolts of governance and too little about the social graces (and inanities) that can make other candidates so appealing. It is the old “beer test” — would I want to have a beer with this person? Hillary isn’t the sort of person you would probably want to share a frosty mug with, but, lest you forget, George W. Bush passed the beer test with flying colors, and then horribly failed the presidency test. Barstool mate, yes. President? Hell no!

Brooks assumes that Hillary Clinton really is a bloodless policy automaton — a woman who is all work and no play. He doesn’t allow that Hillary might either have been made to behave that way or chose to behave that way, not because she doesn’t realize the deficits of doing so, but because she realizes the dangers of the alternative — any alternative.

And that is where the media come in. Hillary Clinton has always been under a media microscope. They assess her pantsuits, her hairdos, her gestures, her expressions, her“grating” voice. They assume that there is always some ulterior motive or calculation to everything she says and does — as if there isn’t for any presidential candidate. Whether you like Hillary Clinton or not, she labors under the media’s presumption of guilt.

Suppose Clinton, like Trump, hurled ad hominem insults at opponents. Trump seems to get away with it because it is just “Trump being Trump” — which is another media meme altogether. You pretty much know that if Clinton did so, the media would be calling her “desperate” or “mean” or “unladylike.” Suppose she got all teary-eyed, the way John Kasich used to do. You know the media would say that she is a “phony” or “too soft.” Suppose she parroted the same lines again and again, the way Rubio did. You know the media would call her “programmed.”

Some Hillary supporters have attributed this animus not to the media’s Clinton problem, but to the media’s woman problem. (Not at all incidentally, the biggest Hillary haters are white males.) Those supporters say that every female candidate is forced to walk a tightrope between strength and compassion, masculinity and femininity, policy and aesthetics that male candidates don’t have to walk, in part because testosterone is their birthright.

For example, Hillary is accused of being too hawkish. But if she weren’t hawkish, she would be accused of being too passive — which is to say, too womanly. As Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Hillary supporter, put it on CBS’s Face the Nation, “If she was a man, all this stuff wouldn’t be at the same level.”

http://billmoyers.co...-wrong-hillary/

[homersapien 12,172]

TBV- You have a vote. I have a vote. I will use mine to vote for the democratic nominee because either of them are a better choice. It's ironic that I'm the one treated like I don't have a brain by a few of the men here because I'm a woman yet I'm constantly having to repeat myself on the issue of Clinton. I've never said she was perfect, I've never said she didn't lie. I have said repeatedly in this thread is that I think Clinton is more qualified to serve as POTUS than Trump.

Im not trying to change your mind, Im simply pointing out that Hillary AND her husband are nothing but common criminals. If anyone else, and, I do mean ANYONE else, had done what Hill and Bubba had done they'd already be in a penitentiary but the media refuses to cover their malfeasance with the same vigor they do conservatives because they chose sides a long time ago. George Orwell saw this coming coming and some are now officially more equal under the law than orders, Trump is awful but just not as bad as Hillary.

You couldn't change it anyway. Ah, so Hillary and Bill are so powerful that they are above the law? You do know that Bill was impeached? And as for Hillary, well seven congressional investigations held by REPUBLICANS found no wrong doing on her part. Now certainly I know that the Clinton's aren't saints but to say that they have committed crimes that anyone else would be punished for is hysterical. Had no idea the Clinton's ran the legal system. That's even funnier than Trump consulting himself on foreign policy. You might want to turn off Faux News.

with

You're reaching in a big way with several statements in this reply. The Clinton machine is populated with surrogates who operate as attack dogs for the Clintons. Its the people who when confronted with Bubba's debauchery cast aspersions on the women by saying "that's what you find when you drag a 100 dollar bill through a trailer park". Its the same people who set themselves up as impartial observers, like George Stephanopoulis, who deceitfully disguise their allegiance while virtually vouching for their innocence on every slimy thing they do.

No, the Clintons don't run the legal system but have tremendous influence in shaping its perspective because they are leftist progressives which the media in this country, along with academia and Hollywood all most closely identify as. This gives them support on most every front not to mention the current administration that is doing everything in its power to cover for her so that Obama can block turning back the hands of time on his agenda.

There is more than enough evidence simply based on what is currently known to indict Hillary right now but, its very doubtful that will happen because she's above the law as long as democrats are the ones who have to make that call......Obama and his DoJ probably wont. Denying the obvious, doesn't make it go away.

What delusional BS this is.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

When you have 30 years of a witch hunt, from people who have no problem lying while claiming, morals, honor and truth.....after the 7th, 8th or 9th, politically motivated investigation that has proven the exact opposite of claims, the incessant whining ceases to have meaning. Rational people tune those people out. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to work on the Committee to Prove HRC triggered Foster's suicide and the Committee to Prove That Friends of Bill Keep Mysteriously Dying....at 60-80 Years Old.

http://www.politifac...-recent-round-/

That's a rather flippant response. And while I agree that Republicans have hated Hillary for a long time, it doesn't change the fact that Hillary has earned her "liar" badge completely on her own merits, wholly separate from any loony right-wing conspiracy theories.

It's not flippant. Hillary has been held to a different standard ever since she worked on the Clinton's healthcare bill. Being first lady in the Clinton administration didn't help.

That Hillary has a likability problem is pretty much beyond dispute, and has sent pundits to determine why. New York Times columnist David Brooks, no Hillary hater, concluded that Hillary is too much of a policy wonk to win public affection. She seems to care too much about the nuts and bolts of governance and too little about the social graces (and inanities) that can make other candidates so appealing. It is the old “beer test” — would I want to have a beer with this person? Hillary isn’t the sort of person you would probably want to share a frosty mug with, but, lest you forget, George W. Bush passed the beer test with flying colors, and then horribly failed the presidency test. Barstool mate, yes. President? Hell no!

Brooks assumes that Hillary Clinton really is a bloodless policy automaton — a woman who is all work and no play. He doesn’t allow that Hillary might either have been made to behave that way or chose to behave that way, not because she doesn’t realize the deficits of doing so, but because she realizes the dangers of the alternative — any alternative.

And that is where the media come in. Hillary Clinton has always been under a media microscope. They assess her pantsuits, her hairdos, her gestures, her expressions, her“grating” voice. They assume that there is always some ulterior motive or calculation to everything she says and does — as if there isn’t for any presidential candidate. Whether you like Hillary Clinton or not, she labors under the media’s presumption of guilt.

Suppose Clinton, like Trump, hurled ad hominem insults at opponents. Trump seems to get away with it because it is just “Trump being Trump” — which is another media meme altogether. You pretty much know that if Clinton did so, the media would be calling her “desperate” or “mean” or “unladylike.” Suppose she got all teary-eyed, the way John Kasich used to do. You know the media would say that she is a “phony” or “too soft.” Suppose she parroted the same lines again and again, the way Rubio did. You know the media would call her “programmed.”

Some Hillary supporters have attributed this animus not to the media’s Clinton problem, but to the media’s woman problem. (Not at all incidentally, the biggest Hillary haters are white males.) Those supporters say that every female candidate is forced to walk a tightrope between strength and compassion, masculinity and femininity, policy and aesthetics that male candidates don’t have to walk, in part because testosterone is their birthright.

For example, Hillary is accused of being too hawkish. But if she weren’t hawkish, she would be accused of being too passive — which is to say, too womanly. As Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Hillary supporter, put it on CBS’s Face the Nation, “If she was a man, all this stuff wouldn’t be at the same level.”

http://billmoyers.co...-wrong-hillary/

I'm not concerned, nor am I talking about her pantsuits, her voice, her hairdos, her gestures or even her supposed hawkishness. I'm talking about her trustworthiness. I'm talking about her lying or her "misremembering." These issues are not based on gender or being held to a different standard. I'm holding her to the same standard I hold anyone asking for my vote.

[telling tiger 156]

I didn't realize this was an argument but, obviously, it is for you. Most of your points are moot because they are all simply arguable if one was inclined. like you seem eager to be. More than one source has reported that Hillary has an explosive temper. I don't know her personally but between her and Huma Weiner they're both considered monsters by the secret service. I have no idea what Hillary would do if someone pissed her off but nothing would surprise me given her celebrations of "We came. WE saw. He died." when Kadahfi was taken out. That's worked out realy well for the Middle East wouldn't you agree?

When someone assigns blame to fit their political spin, when avoiding it for some, MINIMALLY equally dubious characters in their own party, CHEEney, Shrub, Rumsfeld and Rice, as a FEW examples, I simply tune you out.....If I wanted the opinions of someone who was more turn of the century than my great, great, great grandmother, I'd consult you. I simply do not care about your opinions, except to laugh at them...

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't know if she'd get us in a war or not based on temperament. Really all any foreign country or entity has to do is just make a large enough donation to her foundation and they'll get what they want. There's no point to anyone being belligerent towards is in a scenario where she's president. China made large donations to Bills' campaign back in the 90's and he handed over lots of goodies to them.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

The problem with this thread is that the left can say "HRC is a better choice for POTUS"

And the right hears "HRC is a godly saint."

Or the left says "HRC is less likely to get us into a war because she got pissed off" and the right hears "HRC is a dove and won't go to war."

[TheBlueVue 177]

The problem with this thread is that the left can say "HRC is a better choice for POTUS"

And the right hears "HRC is a godly saint."

Or the left says "HRC is less likely to get us into a war because she got pissed off" and the right hears "HRC is a dove and won't go to war."

I disagree. I'm not making a comparison in my opinion of Hillary and I'm not hearing what you claim. It is a documented fact that Hillary is not trustworthy and will do virtually anything for the right price. You don't think she accumulated $42mil in the bank w/o selling the promise of quid pro quos do you? Their "Foundation" is a fraud set up for the sole purpose of laundering money and were she and her husband conservatives they probably would've already been prosecuted for their shady practices. How do you account for her having taken $100 million dollars while she was SoS from 5 middle eastern countries who have the worst records of women's rights abuses on the planet? Many like you think she's going to be their champion...LOL, but, it wont happen unless you throw a few $million their way. The Clintons are arguably the worst money grubbing white collar crooks in clear view right now. Forget about everything else, her record of lying and using her office as SoS to sell influence in return for contributions to the Clinton Foundation disqualifies her, period.

[homersapien 12,172]

The problem with this thread is that the left can say "HRC is a better choice for POTUS"

And the right hears "HRC is a godly saint."

Or the left says "HRC is less likely to get us into a war because she got pissed off" and the right hears "HRC is a dove and won't go to war."

I disagree. I'm not making a comparison in my opinion of Hillary and I'm not hearing what you claim. It is a documented fact that Hillary is not trustworthy and will do virtually anything for the right price. You don't think she accumulated $42mil in the bank w/o selling the promise of quid pro quos do you? Their "Foundation" is a fraud set up for the sole purpose of laundering money and were she and her husband conservatives they probably would've already been prosecuted for their shady practices. How do you account for her having taken $100 million dollars while she was SoS from 5 middle eastern countries who have the worst records of women's rights abuses on the planet? Many like you think she's going to be their champion...LOL, but, it wont happen unless you throw a few $million their way. The Clintons are arguably the worst money grubbing white collar crooks in clear view right now. Forget about everything else, her record of lying and using her office as SoS to sell influence in return for contributions to the Clinton Foundation disqualifies her, period.

If you are going to make numerous claims you need to attribute them.

I am not saying some of these events don't smell, but they don't smell any worse than say, Cheney profiting from Haliburton war contracts.

Like I said, I don't like Clinton. And the biggest reason is she represents a continuation of the sort of politics we as a country need to change. But electing a crazy narcissist is not the change I have in mind.

Bottom line, I am willing to take a 4 year risk with Hillary if the alternative is Trump.

[TheBlueVue 177]

[AURaptor 1,137]

What if Trump collapses and Hillary is indicted ? Dem voters won't care about the latter, and still would vote for a criminal

[telling tiger 156]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#!

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Plan B. ;-)

[telling tiger 156]

Yep.

[homersapien 12,172]

Feel the burn

[TheBlueVue 177]

Feel the burn

Bernie's feelin it alright- he got smoked inCali

[homersapien 12,172]

Feel the burn

Bernie's feelin it alright- he got smoked inCali

We're talking about what happens if Clinton drops out.

As your little weaseling buddy would say, "please try to keep up".