How do you tell when Hillary is stating her public or her private position?

[Lighthouse]

We can say cause Hillarys votes are a matter of public record which speaks favorably on things like women's rights and gay marriage and such.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm

Fair, as she has publically and has walked by what she has talked in many regards.
Then there are many who see her talking and walking contrary also when cash or winning applies.
Still the two-edged sword.
This is not to take away any of the good she has done.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Not quite, considering, per fact checker PolitFact:

Clinton:
10% = False
02% = Pants on Fire False
24% = Truthful

as compared to

Trump:
35% = False
17% = Pants on Fire False
04% = Truthful

Evidently, most of the fetor is emanating from one particular corner.

So maybe he doesn't think those things about women?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If you can hear her, it's her public position. You're the public.

As someone who is required by the Constitution itself from expressing my personal opinions at work, the thought that there might be a difference between these two positions is not concerning or surprising to me. What is surprising to me is that so many people apparently want to elect into a diplomatic office someone who cannot keep their mouth shut. Personal authenticity is great in a stand-up comedian. It is not so good at preventing war or economic collapse.

He would clear the rome.. I mean the room...
I definitely see why people vote Hillary.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

We can say cause Hillarys votes are a matter of public record which speaks favorably on things like women's rights and gay marriage and such.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm

Yeah but that got DOMA in and took it down like why do you have to apologize now for DOMA, oh to gain support, they were mad about what was voted in, said that she should apologize? She said sorry I think and was like okay.
You have to invite all things crazy and contradictory for them to support you even if against ... Clintondontcare act next

 

[Callisto]

So maybe he doesn't think those things about women?

He was either lying to Billy Bush or he was lying to Anderson Cooper. He told Bush he objectifies and sexually assaults women then told Cooper he does not. If he lied to Bush, that would indicate that he lies far more than the polls have managed to account for and would need to be adjusted to reflect that higher percentage given what he said on the bus is in keeping with his decades' worth of misogynistic vomiting.

 

[Acim]

Your hilarious. There is no meat to your argument. If there is an email worth sharing then share it.

Honestly, you're hilarious. The meat is clear from a recent headline where it was clearly stated, by Hillary, that she believes in having a public and a private position on policies. Came up in the debates. So, for you to claim no meat, would be like me saying I don't think the economy has ever been an issue during any POTUS campaign that I'm familiar with. Yep, that's how ridiculous you're being.

 

[idav]

Honestly, you're hilarious. The meat is clear from a recent headline where it was clearly stated, by Hillary, that she believes in having a public and a private position on policies. Came up in the debates. So, for you to claim no meat, would be like me saying I don't think the economy has ever been an issue during any POTUS campaign that I'm familiar with. Yep, that's how ridiculous you're being.

I believe public policies that are on record. I stated my position that having personal vs public views is a good thing , you didn't rebuttal that. Your rebuttal instead was what the truth is on the tax code which Hillary has public plan and voting record to match. It's wrong to conflate unrelated statements as if that applies to all policies.

 

[Acim]

I believe public policies that are on record. I stated my position that having personal vs public views is a good thing , you didn't rebuttal that.

Because the issue is about positions. The idea that in private, Hillary holds views that taxes are too high, but in public makes the case that taxes aren't high enough, that the rich isn't paying their fair share. If her personal view is that taxation is, say unethical, while her working (in governmental position) view is that it is necessary, that isn't the same as when in governmental position behind closed doors, she is saying one thing (the rich pay too much) and to the public she's making the case that the rich don't pay their fair share.

I think to most people, perhaps not all, it is obvious she has a position that will gain favor with progressive Dems, and another position that amounts to her being two faced/lying.

If you're really, earnestly trying to make the case that HRC is inherently (and politically) trustworthy, seriously, good luck with that.

Your rebuttal instead was what the truth is on the tax code which Hillary has public plan and voting record to match. It's wrong to conflate unrelated statements as if that applies to all policies.

With Hillary, and regards to Wikileaks, it helps explain (to everyone) why she is untrustworthy, her motivations for it. Her decision to hide transcripts from Wall Street speeches, which are now revealed (in part) has us now realizing she is willing to side with them (privately) while publicly having appearance that she stands firmly against them. This is precisely what Bernie attacked her on. And Wikileaks has notoriously revealed the attack of character, plus DNC bias that made sure Bernie would not gain the nomination.

Here's that excerpt from Wikileaks that helps in making the counterpoint to whatever your point is:

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

The highlighted part is the item that raised a red flag, and for many still does. I observe it doesn't really follow from what is being said in the paragraph, and is why Trumps response during the debate: "She just blamed Honest Abe" landed well. She goes from Lincoln needing help in maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed to her justifying why she has a private position and a public one. If anything, she's essentially saying she's like Seward, not Lincoln.

But now that you have me on the Wikileaks page, I'll just add in a few more excerpts of HRC's private remarks and how they surely appear to not line up with her (current) public positions.

Clinton: “Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. *In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]

Hillary Clinton: “And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

 

[esmith]

The way I see it is by the same statement Trump made about what he could do and his base would still support him goes the same for Hillary.
At this point in time Hillary's base will not abandon her, just as Trump's will not.
Hillary doesn't have to do or say anything to win the election, Trump can't seem to focus on what needs to be said and the media is giving Hillary a pass. Trump might be a good business person but he has not idea how to interact with a broad spectrum of the population.
All I say is I hope the Republican hold the Senate or House preferably both.

 

[metis]

Why should we re-elect "takers" instead of "makers", which is all the Republicans in Congress are? On this Republican-dominated Do-Nothing Congress, which has the worst record on passing legislation than any previous Congress in all of American history, they still collect their paychecks and also get their medical care for the rest of their lives.

 

[Acim]

Why should we re-elect "takers" instead of "makers",

Because the "makers" on the Left would make America even worse than it is now via hefty regulations and higher taxes, while doing next to nothing on cutting spending.

 

[Politesse]

Because the "makers" on the Left would make America even worse than it is now via hefty regulations and higher taxes, while doing next to nothing on cutting spending.

"Spending"? Is that what you call the functions of government?

 

[idav]

Because the issue is about positions. The idea that in private, Hillary holds views that taxes are too high, but in public makes the case that taxes aren't high enough, that the rich isn't paying their fair share. If her personal view is that taxation is, say unethical, while her working (in governmental position) view is that it is necessary, that isn't the same as when in governmental position behind closed doors, she is saying one thing (the rich pay too much) and to the public she's making the case that the rich don't pay their fair share.

I think to most people, perhaps not all, it is obvious she has a position that will gain favor with progressive Dems, and another position that amounts to her being two faced/lying.

If you're really, earnestly trying to make the case that HRC is inherently (and politically) trustworthy, seriously, good luck with that.



With Hillary, and regards to Wikileaks, it helps explain (to everyone) why she is untrustworthy, her motivations for it. Her decision to hide transcripts from Wall Street speeches, which are now revealed (in part) has us now realizing she is willing to side with them (privately) while publicly having appearance that she stands firmly against them. This is precisely what Bernie attacked her on. And Wikileaks has notoriously revealed the attack of character, plus DNC bias that made sure Bernie would not gain the nomination.

Here's that excerpt from Wikileaks that helps in making the counterpoint to whatever your point is:



The highlighted part is the item that raised a red flag, and for many still does. I observe it doesn't really follow from what is being said in the paragraph, and is why Trumps response during the debate: "She just blamed Honest Abe" landed well. She goes from Lincoln needing help in maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed to her justifying why she has a private position and a public one. If anything, she's essentially saying she's like Seward, not Lincoln.

But now that you have me on the Wikileaks page, I'll just add in a few more excerpts of HRC's private remarks and how they surely appear to not line up with her (current) public positions.

I will put it to you this way. As long as she is voting a certain way I could care less if she secretly hates abortionists or is a closet homophobe or close islamaphobic, so log as she doesn't put her interests above people in policy. Her voting record shows being for for civil rights, rights of women, rights of lgbt and against corporate greed.

Take abortion for example. See the main thing isn't that people Dont have to have the same opinion that abortion is ok but that people put the rights of the woman above that of their personal agendas. So yes people will have opinions but it should not infringe on basic human rights or it will be deemed unconstitutional, just like gay marriage.

Does Obama really not like gays even though he votes for lgbt rights? My answer is tolerance goes a lot further regardless of personal opinion.

Your example with the carriage loop hole is funny cause it says she did what she could for Wall Street yet voted against them. I would say taking away loop holes is not doing "everything" she can for Wall Street but is doing "what she can" within limits. She certainly would make a lot of rich people angry with votes like that. She's been fighting with rich people ever since lol. Is it supposed to be some sort of news that politics is like a game of chess? Hardly.

 

[Callisto]

I will put it to you this way. As long as she is voting a certain way I could care less if she secretly hates abortionists or is a closet homophobe or close islamaphobic, so log as she doesn't put her interests above people in policy. Her voting record shows being for for civil rights, rights of women, rights of lgbt and against corporate greed.

Take abortion for example. See the main thing isn't that people Dont have to have the same opinion that abortion is ok but that people put the rights of the woman above that of their personal agendas. So yes people will have opinions but it should not infringe on basic human rights or it will be deemed unconstitutional, just like gay marriage.

As a related aside, a point in Kaine's favor during the vp debate was when he cited a personal example of being religious and not in favor of the death penalty. However, as then governor of VA where it's the law, he felt obligated to uphold the oaths of his office and the laws of the state.

 

[idav]

As a related aside, a point in Kaine's favor during the vp debate was when he cited a personal example of being religious and not in favor of the death penalty. However, as then governor of VA where it's the law, he felt obligated to uphold the oaths of his office and the laws of the state.

Death penalty and abortion of course are some touchy issues. Kaine supports the Hyde amendment however is choosing to support Hillary, Hillary wanting it repealed. Those are good examples.

Here is one of Kaines quotes about the Dems:
"I'm used to the fact that we're a big family with a lot of different points of view. Unlike the Republicans, you know we haven't had the litmus test where if you don't believe this, we're going to throw you out. We have ideological breadth and that's good, that's what we want to have."

 

[Acim]

I will put it to you this way. As long as she is voting a certain way I could care less if she secretly hates abortionists or is a closet homophobe or close islamaphobic, so log as she doesn't put her interests above people in policy. Her voting record shows being for for civil rights, rights of women, rights of lgbt and against corporate greed.

Take abortion for example. See the main thing isn't that people Dont have to have the same opinion that abortion is ok but that people put the rights of the woman above that of their personal agendas. So yes people will have opinions but it should not infringe on basic human rights or it will be deemed unconstitutional, just like gay marriage.

Abortion, IMO is not a good way to make this case in the way you did (basic human rights), but I do get what you're saying.

Yet, abortion is perhaps the ideal way to make the point because it does acutely help in understanding why the issues are apparently so challenging politically. To me, from my more independent perspective, I truly think Pubs are handling issues in the way that Dems handle (the unborn) in the abortion issue. They care, and gave general sense of sympathy, but they aren't going to get into the emotional trap of identity politics to come up with workable solutions. Such that when LW media/progressive types claim "war on women" or "hatred of LGBT crowd," I truly think that is as fair as saying progressives have a war against the unborn, and hate the unborn (that are conceived).

Does Obama really not like gays even though he votes for lgbt rights? My answer is tolerance goes a lot further regardless of personal opinion.

I think Obama doesn't like/dislike gays as a whole and is more of issue that he identifies with progressive policies whereby federal government is best tool of protection for anything that concerns that group. Whereas Pubs, in general, see it as state issue, and if state counters what some believe ought to be federal policy then let's have that debate, not let's bring in the emotional trap of identify politics and have you fend off that rhetoric (i.e. won't anyone think of the children?).

 

[Revoltingest]

Not quite, considering, per fact checker PolitFact:

Clinton:
10% = False
02% = Pants on Fire False
24% = Truthful

as compared to

Trump:
35% = False
17% = Pants on Fire False
04% = Truthful

Evidently, most of the fetor is emanating from one particular corner.

Politifact is owned by the Tampa Bay Times.
Guess who they support for prez?

Their findings are biased.
Example....
They once gave Palin their lie of the year award for her comment there'd be death panels under Obamacare. It turns out she was supported by even Obamacare fans, who simply used a different name, ie, "end of life panels". I heard this on NPR, so it must be cromulent.
It makes sense because allocation of limited resources would certainly mean that someone must set standards for who gets what care.

 

[Notanumber]

Not quite, considering, per fact checker PolitFact:

Clinton:
10% = False
02% = Pants on Fire False
24% = Truthful

as compared to

Trump:
35% = False
17% = Pants on Fire False
04% = Truthful

Evidently, most of the fetor is emanating from one particular corner.

http://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2016/10/18/nra-politifact-100-biased/

http://freebeacon.com/politics/fisking-fiskes-record/

 

[ShivaFan]

"The claim that the investigation of misuse of classified guvernment materials was fixed by political influence so that the former Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) would not be held accountable under the law" is "simply not true" ...

Dennis Kucinich doesn't agree.

Democratic presidential candidate and United States House of Representatives Member from Ohio Dennis Kucinich said on Neil Cavuto's cable news show on Monday that instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was “a very political process” that had “everything to do with the 2016 presidential election” in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that “the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information.”

She can say anything in public, it means nothing as she can do anything in private and collusion with special interests and foreign entities and crony capitalists and the corrupt politicians from both parties because the regime and government class will never hold her accountable, will protect and cover up for he'r, they are also guilty, nor will the corporate media ever expose her because their sponsors are the same cheap labor benefactors.