Hillary's (Not so) Nice Demeanor

[Acim]

So with the latest Trump smear going on, I thought it would be interesting to find what a google search might provide on similar things for Hillary. I just went with terms of "Hillary Clinton cursing" (minus the quotes). Found a lot, and some of it stuff I wasn't aware of.

Like I wasn't aware of Dolly Kyle and her book "Hillary: The Other Woman." I think my lack of awareness is because I have phases where political stuff is unimportant to me (for a couple weeks) and because MSM is going to under report it, while RW media is generally looking for latest scoop rather than harping on stuff (though that's obviously debatable, but I'm really not sure why RW media isn't continuously referencing Dolly Kyle - whereas say Juanita Broaddrick comes up every other week on my radar).

Anyway, here is piece on Dolly Kyle, and her book that I learned about today:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/

“When are they going to get those f—ing ree-tards out of here?!”

Those are said to be the infamous words of Hillary Clinton – also known as Arkansas’ “Mother of the Year” in 1984 – when Hillary reportedly grew frustrated that handicapped children weren’t collecting their Easter eggs quickly enough on the lawn of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.

And this, of course, wasn't only thing I found. I suggest anyone google it, do your own research. But in interest of trying to play fair (though not sure why I would when other side is clearly not all that interested in that right about now), here is what I found on Snopes:

How accurate is collection of controversial statements reportedly made by Hillary Clinton?

CLAIM: List reproduces various statements made by Hillary Clinton.

MIXTURE

 

[bobhikes]

Gary Johnson.

 

[Quetzal]

Hmm, if this is actually the case, she needs to be held accountable just as any other candidate would.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well the fact Hillary defended and helped free a child rapist shows where her principles lay. Aquiring money and advancing her own position is more pressing and importaint than anything else. If it takes defending a child rapist and helping free such a person into society is what it takes, she will be more than happy to do it.

Helping out childern my ***.

Whatever it takes. That's how she rolls.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

 

[Acim]

Hmm, if this is actually the case, she needs to be held accountable just as any other candidate would.

You could go first, if you truly believe this. Or is it that you don't think it the case of anything in OP being true about Hillary?

All asked rhetorically, since I addressed post by you in other (Trump) thread whereby I acknowledge it would be foolish for you, if you are a Dem, to shame your own candidate.

But, one would think part of accountability would be all media treating both candidates in similar fashion. Instead, as noted in OP, I don't see MSM holding her accountable for this and intentionally under reporting it. And if RW media brings it up, then liberal types can just dismiss it as not coming from, what they think of as, a legitimate news outlet.

 

[Acim]

In this not so subtle thread bump, I do find it fascinating that currently 9 of the threads on the 1st page of the North American Politics sub-forum have Trump in the title, 3 have Hillary in their title and none of the word/name Clinton in them.

Can't get enough of Trump bashing, can we? While a thread like this, or the non-existent thread on the Wilileak dump from yesterday are destined to not be discussed.

Again, part of me does kind of hope for a Hillary victory as it is clear to me, from last 30 years of politics, that whatever party (and its supporters) is not holding executive branch, more or less holds the cultural power. Mostly cause the winning side rests on their laurels and the detractors within the party (that does hold executive branch) are no longer playing nice. IOW, if Hillary wins, I look forward to her demeanor (as is noted in this thread) upsetting a whole lot of liberals and realizing she probably was a worst choice than Trump. Hard to make that claim here 30 days before the election, but in last 30 years, you certainly have to be die-hard party supporter to think the other candidate that lost, wouldn't have done things differently, arguably better. I'm going back to Reagan, with such an assertion, but only exception I think is Bush Sr. and probably only cause he didn't get to experience being a lame duck POTUS. All the rest did, or are about to.

 

[Quetzal]

Or is it that you don't think it the case of anything in OP being true about Hillary?

I just don't really know much about these accusations and haven't slotted time to look it up.

 

[Quetzal]

Can't get enough of Trump bashing, can we?

If he would stop making it so easy to do, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Acim]

If he would stop making it so easy to do, this wouldn't be an issue.

Hey, let's make this thread another Trump bashing thread. Apparently there's plenty of time for that, but not enough to look up the Hillary stuff.

 

[Quetzal]

Hey, let's make this thread another Trump bashing thread. Apparently there's plenty of time for that, but not enough to look up the Hillary stuff.

Don't get bitter just because people are smart enough to stay away from a baited hook.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Can't get enough of Trump bashing, can we? While a thread like this, or the non-existent thread on the Wilileak dump from yesterday are destined to not be discussed.

Nope. I can never get enough of the Trump bashing. He's earned it, and what's happening the Republican party right now is hilarious.

For me, the election's in the bag. it's all about the Senate. Feel that judicial, liberal burn, baby.

 

[Acim]

Nope. I can never get enough of the Trump bashing. He's earned it, and what's happening the Republican party right now is hilarious.

For me, the election's in the bag. it's all about the Senate. Feel that judicial, liberal burn, baby.

We'll see if it's in the bag. IMO, this tape would've been better released a week before the election. Now, there will certainly be bounce back and that could come as early as tonight's debate. It's not like news from 3 weeks ago is primary topic of conversation, so come 2 weeks from now, there will be so much more added to the plate that this will just be a blip on the radar.

I get to know that if Hillary wins, all Dems/liberals that like Bernie and his message will realize just how screwed they are (particularly) when, or if, Hillary becomes POTUS. Feel the Wall Street, corporate interests being protected burn, baby.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I get to know that if Hillary wins, all Dems/liberals that like Bernie and his message will realize just how screwed they are (particularly) when, or if, Hillary becomes POTUS. Feel the Wall Street, corporate interests being protected burn, baby.

I know, and I don't disagree. If I saw an alternative that had a healthy disagreement with me about minor fiscal policies and taxation, was less war hawkish, and found a way to get support from the right while being able to drop the social/evangelical conservatism and anti-science rhetoric. . . Well, that's be a candidate I could live with.

But not Trump. We'd be even more screwed under Trump. Why did you conservatives have to pick Trump?

 

[Acim]

I know, and I don't disagree. If I saw an alternative that had a healthy disagreement with me about minor fiscal policies and taxation, was less war hawkish, and found a way to get support from the right while being able to drop the social/evangelical conservatism and anti-science rhetoric. . . Well, that's be a candidate I could live with.

But not Trump. We'd be even more screwed under Trump. Why did you conservatives have to pick Trump?

Because Pubs got fed up before Dems with the establishment lying to them during elections and then putting in establishment candidate who will maintain a status quo whereby party principles are thrown out the window. Whether Trump for sure can buck that trend, we may never know. We surely won't know if Hillary is in and Trump is out.

But Dems (that are a little intelligent) ought to know that Hillary is lying on anything she says right now that makes her out to be progressive. All the things that liberals care about, and that Bernie espoused (and gained lots of support) are either all things or most things that Hillary will not actually do when she gets into office. Instead, I think she'll do the opposite, and justify that with idea that campaigning and actual governing are not the same. So, Dems are currently supporting a shill for Wall Street, but I think (and I really do think) they feel she will stand up to them.

Could go down all the issues, and I do actually think on some of the issues that Hillary for sure will be good for Dems, but not so much for liberals or ultra left progressives. Maybe one or two items on that count.

The reality is something like "free tuition" - all that she has to do is propose a bill that she knows will fail in Congress (even among all Dem lead congress) and then claim she at least tried. Whereas political reality is if you truly want that, you propose what you want, and you fight for it (like Obama did with ACA). I honestly can't think of much, honestly nothing, that I see Hillary fighting for. And can see her upsetting a whole lot of liberals, but because of the Clinton machine, you'll be told to be good little sheep and to re-elect her 4 more years. Chances are, whatever she is willing to fight for, it'll occur in the first 4 years. I honestly see that as nothing positive for progressives and more likely just her countering Pubs, or same kind of thing Obama has been doing, minus the (few) notable progressive accomplishments.

From conservative/Pub perspective, I think it will be horrible. But I do actually hope for same amount of gridlock in D.C. as last 8 years given what Hillary represents.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Because Pubs got fed up before Dems with the establishment lying to them during elections and then putting in establishment candidate who will maintain a status quo whereby party principles are thrown out the window. Whether Trump for sure can buck that trend, we may never know. We surely won't know if Hillary is in and Trump is out.

But Dems (that are a little intelligent) ought to know that Hillary is lying on anything she says right now that makes her out to be progressive. All the things that liberals care about, and that Bernie espoused (and gained lots of support) are either all things or most things that Hillary will not actually do when she gets into office. Instead, I think she'll do the opposite, and justify that with idea that campaigning and actual governing are not the same. So, Dems are currently supporting a shill for Wall Street, but I think (and I really do think) they feel she will stand up to them.

Could go down all the issues, and I do actually think on some of the issues that Hillary for sure will be good for Dems, but not so much for liberals or ultra left progressives. Maybe one or two items on that count.

The reality is something like "free tuition" - all that she has to do is propose a bill that she knows will fail in Congress (even among all Dem lead congress) and then claim she at least tried. Whereas political reality is if you truly want that, you propose what you want, and you fight for it (like Obama did with ACA). I honestly can't think of much, honestly nothing, that I see Hillary fighting for. And can see her upsetting a whole lot of liberals, but because of the Clinton machine, you'll be told to be good little sheep and to re-elect her 4 more years. Chances are, whatever she is willing to fight for, it'll occur in the first 4 years. I honestly see that as nothing positive for progressives and more likely just her countering Pubs, or same kind of thing Obama has been doing, minus the (few) notable progressive accomplishments.

From conservative/Pub perspective, I think it will be horrible. But I do actually hope for same amount of gridlock in D.C. as last 8 years given what Hillary represents.

Yeah, that's a possibility. But Obama accomplished as much as he could between 2008-10 before the dems lost congress. Haven't had it back since.

Trump's presence might be enough of a wave to get at least a dem senate and handle the progressive's desire for a more liberal court.

But no, I don't expect a lot that's different other than that. The college thing is a joke, as are a few of the agenda items cribbed from Bernie's campaign. Those issues are kinda like the abortion thing . . Appease the christian right with your worthless vote, but you still failed to make it illegal.

The economic status quo is working fine, so I don't have a problem with that. Unemployment way down, consumer confidence high, and one progressive issue, middle class income stagnation, was in the right path in 2015, so all I can do it hope for the correct agenda to continue - the fight to give the middle class a raise commiserate with its productivity.

My biggest problem with Hillary is foreign policy. I think she made a great case for the Iran deal in the first debate, as an example of how to use diplomacy to avoid war, but there are too many drone strikes, and too many enemies being made. I don't expect that aspect of American foreign policy to change, and if I have an outright protest about Hillary, it's that.

Still, I think Trump is a nightmare, so I'll take the mixed bag as the best compromise available, thanks.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I read with in interest a number of these accounts. Unlike Trump, there's no incontrovertible proof like a recording and a number of them sound fraudulent.

 

[Acim]

I read with in interest a number of these accounts. Unlike Trump, there's no incontrovertible proof like a recording and a number of them sound fraudulent.

Thank God we have Wikileaks to provide incontrovertible proof of certain HRC items.

As far as demeanor, we just have the fake facade she usually displays in public.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Thank God we have Wikileaks

But what have they really provided? It's not very damning of her. Not by a long shot. What amI missing?

As far as demeanor, we just have the fake facade she usually displays in public.

You can say that because you don't like her, but we don't have any video or audio proof that her public demeanor is fake. She's certainly been far more presidential than Trump.

 

[Acim]

But what have they really provided? It's not very damning of her. Not by a long shot. What amI missing?

That she's a shill for Wall Street and everything Bernie was warning Dems about. She pivoted during primaries to make it so she didn't seem so far to the right of Bernie (think moderate Dem). Now she's hoping to have people believe she's still progressive, to gain those votes. Those sheeple are likely to be disappointed when her moderate politics take over in office and she realizes how utterly impossible it will be to pass any of that nonsense.

You can say that because you don't like her, but we don't have any video or audio proof that her public demeanor is fake. She's certainly been far more presidential than Trump.

We don't have any video or audio proof that her public demeanor has been genuine. So, it is a matter of bias. I agree we'll never see eye to eye on this, but I honestly can't recall a situation where it has been genuine. Like even her mini tirade on "What difference does it make?" wasn't genuine disgust with the questions asked, but just that she had no way out, so more like a distraction. As in, I'm all emotionally flustered now, so please stop throwing hard ball questions at me.

And no, not more presidential than Trump. Truly about on par with him.

 

[columbus]

IMO, this tape would've been better released a week before the election.

The DNC seems to think it was better now. Possibly because it threw shade on the Wikileaks thing.
I'm telling' ya, that Godzillary is a hardened old political player.
Tom