1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What's wrong with Hillary?

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by Spiderman, Aug 26, 2016.

  1. Mercy Not Sacrifice

    Mercy Not Sacrifice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,779
    Ratings:
    +263
    All three of the issues you raised have been discussed at length.

    First of all, it's not the "Muslim world" as you describe it. Nearly every citizen of Turkey is a Muslim, yet Bush didn't seek authorization to invade Turkey.

    Secondly, she has been upfront about the fact that this was a mistake. Contrast that with Trump, whose best imitation of apologies is that "he's being sarcastic."

    Third, it is a common misconception that that authorization was a declaration of war. It wasn't. Remember, at the time, we still trusted President Bush, and that authorization of force was designed as leverage to get Saddam to cooperate with weapons inspections. Too bad that Bush, Cheney & Co. had different plans in mind.

    Can you imagine what would have happened had the Clintons come out in favor of gay marriage when Bill was president? Back then, gay marriage was about as popular as heroin legalization is right now. To push for a good cause too soon is to jeopardize it entirely. Example, Hillarycare.

    That is not true. Instead of making a rash, politically expedient decision, she weighed the options carefully before eventually deciding that the optimal course of action was to oppose it.

    Changing one's mind, even as a politician, is not a bad thing per se. The devil is in the details. For example, when one candidate is all over the board in terms of his immigration policy, or his relationship with Vladmir Putin, then yes, we have a legitimate problem. But waiting until gay marriage became nationally popular to support it is beyond just a political calculation: It's common sense. I guarantee you that HRC, Obama, and other center-left politicians would, left to their own devices, be significantly more progressive than they have been. But there's this thing called reality, which a lot of angry voters have forgotten about this election cycle.
     
  2. Labourwave

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,688
    Ratings:
    +3,662
    How about her involvement in coups?
    How about her foreign record?
    How about her constant flip flopping on every second issue?
    What about criticizing Bernie for supporting policies she supported last election?
     
  3. Spiderman

    Spiderman Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    16,531
    Ratings:
    +4,704
    Religion:
    Shintopathic
    Regardless, if Trump wins, we can't deny that miracles do happen :)

    She's Trumping him
     
  4. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,457
    Ratings:
    +70,308
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Ya know what's funny.....
    People who dis conspiracy theories are so quick to embrace her "vast right wing" conspiracy.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Acim

    Acim Revelation all the time

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,513
    Ratings:
    +686
    I find it hard to balance what you are trying to get across with what Hillary said (in video below) where Bush's name didn't come up.

     
  6. Acim

    Acim Revelation all the time

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,513
    Ratings:
    +686
    Can you imagine if she came out in favor of gay marriage back in 2007 when she was then running for president? Back then, gay marriage was about as popular as marijuana legalization is right now. To push for it then might have cost her the presidency back then. Oh wait.



    Quote from the video: I've always believed that marriage should be left up to the states...
     
  7. 4consideration

    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    19,665
    Ratings:
    +2,909
    It is funny.

    It's also funny that the very thing she was being interviewed about when she first alleged a "vast right wing conspiracy" (on January 27, 1998,) the recent breaking of the story about sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky -- which Bill Clinton had outright lied about just a day earlier (January 26, 1998) -- was an accusation later shown to be confirmed by DNA testing of Monica's dress as being evidence he did, in fact, have sexual relations with her.

    Yet, people continue to repeat this phrase -- as though a vast right wing conspiracy has been shown to exist, when...actually...the opposite was demonstrated. He actually did do what he had been accused of doing.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/


     
    #27 4consideration, Aug 27, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,457
    Ratings:
    +70,308
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I'd often hear how Monica was a Republican operative who seduced a vulnerable Bill.
    Rich stuff, eh.
     
    #28 Revoltingest, Aug 27, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Mercy Not Sacrifice

    Mercy Not Sacrifice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,779
    Ratings:
    +263
    See, these are the kinds of mischaracterizations that have poisoned the well this election cycle. HRC isn't 100% perfect, therefore she must be 100% evil and no better than Donald Trump. Which is absurd. Nobody could reasonably come to such a ridiculous conclusion without grossly distorting the whole truth, not just cherry-picked parts, in order to suit a particular narrative.

    Ideological purity solves nothing. All it does is give the naysayers an excuse to hoot and holler at something because it doesn't fit their narrative.
     
  10. Mercy Not Sacrifice

    Mercy Not Sacrifice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,779
    Ratings:
    +263
    Another cherry-picked example. Obama openly supported gay marriage in 2007, right? o_O
     
  11. Acim

    Acim Revelation all the time

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,513
    Ratings:
    +686
    I see it as clearly a flip flop for political expediency. On an issue that is core to progressives, and is designed to make sure she gets the votes, seen as 'friend to LGT' community (I'm intentionally leaving out B).

    I think every time I've seen a flip flop by a POTUS candidate, the supporters call it growth of some sort; while the opposite side frames it as political expediency.

    So, if I'm pointing out Hillary's flip flop as political expediency, it is easy (I would think) to write my thoughts off if you're a supporter of hers, as just my partisan opinion. When liberals do the same thing with Trump, guess what? Easy to write off your thoughts on the matter as partisan opinion.

    I honestly think Hillary does it more than all other politicians I'm familiar with, but that again is perhaps just partisan opinion. I really do not think Hillary knows her own truth anymore. Perhaps if I met her and sat down with her for an hour (or ten), I'd feel differently, but it currently shows up as all political expediency to me, and has for about 20 years with her and her politics.

    I have a close relative visiting with me currently, and he made the point last night of saying what is the purpose of any debates at this stage. Essentially saying it won't change any minds, and he feels everyone is pretty firm in who (of the two major candidates) they will vote for. I tried to explain that of the non-major candidates, and/or independents, they are (I think) still open to who they may vote for. I do think the debates could change their minds, influence their decision. But with the people already convinced Hillary, or Trump, are the best bet, I don't see them changing their opinion/position regardless of how the debates go. I currently don't know if anything would change their minds (such as news story of the candidate being involved in a murder - I don't see that necessarily preventing them from full fledged support).
     
  12. Mercy Not Sacrifice

    Mercy Not Sacrifice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,779
    Ratings:
    +263
    You call it flip-flopping; I call it realpolitik. It seems to me that your position is one of idealism, not historical reality. I want you to stop, and think, about how badly the Clintons could have jeopardized the progress of the nascent LGBT movement, which was far less popular at the time, had they pushed for something like gay marriage. Again, and I don't feel that I was listened to on this point, gay marriage at the time was about as popular as heroin legalization is now. Do not forget that Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell was actually a fairly progressive compromise at the time it was enacted. But a couple decades later, support for LGBT rights had navigated into friendlier territory, and Obama was able to repeal it entirely.

    One of the most constant themes I hear from reporters who spend time behind the scenes is that the HRC portrayed in the popular media and the HRC they actually see are two different people. She's actually a very kind person who is readily willing to listen to others--something that is desperately needed in today's world. Now which would you rather have: A politician that listens, and realizes that a change of course may be necessary, or a politician that sticks to their guns regardless of the evidence?

    EDIT: This. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...e-gracious-and-accessible-20160826-story.html

    You and I both know that in practice, presidential debates have simply turned into the opportunity for the opposing bases to flex their muscles at each other. I largely blame the American media for this; they would rather see as much drama as possible in our political sphere than to have an effective government. Ratings mean more to them than anything else.
     
    #32 Mercy Not Sacrifice, Aug 28, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2016
  13. Acim

    Acim Revelation all the time

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,513
    Ratings:
    +686
    I really think you are not remembering this correctly. If it were the 1950's, I'd agree. That would equate to your point about heroin.
    I posted Hillary interview from 2007, and that was easily a time when it was far more acceptable.
    But all of this is beside the point. You are setting up straw man if you think it amounts to she would necessarily push for it. It's not like Obama has done anything on this regard, other than after it gained political steam, he too flip flopped. But as POTUS, it didn't really matter his personal beliefs. The real point is the principle. Had Hillary at any point been pro same sex marriage, then she could've left it at that AND said it is up to the states. Which would signal to everyone (that understands American politics) that she wouldn't be pushing for it, based on her views (alone). Really, at pretty much every position she was in from First Lady to date, it would've made sense to hold the position of favoring it. Bill could disagree with her, and it wouldn't really matter what she thinks, other than to have the principle of the matter known to others, where she stands. When Senator of NY, it would've made sense to favor it, being that it is one of the most progressive cities in the world. If others in NY disagree with her, then perhaps she pushes a little, but realizes then is not the time, but maintains her principle. For sure would've made sense in the 2008 election to take that position. One could say, as you are, that it would've cost her the election, but as she lost, then it really wouldn't have mattered on hindsight if she were pro same-sex marriage. As Secretary of State, that would be about the only time where it makes sense to not vocalize it, or if she did, to say that is a domestic issue, and she is (then) in a position dealing with diplomatic relations.


    I've heard the opposite, and that she can be very abrasive or mean behind the scenes. I'm sure it's a mixture of both and like everyone she's got her good/friendly moments and her rude/unfriendly moments.

    I'd prefer a politician maintain principles and be open to updating them, but if they do, be very clear on why the change. I don't see Hillary doing that with same-sex marriage. I see her reasoning as it became popular to favor it, so she did. Thus hard to know what her principle is other than to see it as political expedience.

    Me, I favor plural marriages and I think it matters for the B in LGBT. Not that all B's feel this way, but to me it makes sense how that would particularly benefit B, while same-sex is not really a big deal from my B-self. I'm guessing right now she opposes that but really not sure because it can't readily be a principle thing for her, and is more likely just that it isn't popular to hold that position currently. But I've had that position (along with being pro-same sex marriage) for as long as I can remember AND I feel it ought to be up to each state to decide these matters. I would hope every state would favor it.
     
  14. 'mud

    'mud ~~ Life is Stuff ~~
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    5,573
    Ratings:
    +2,367
    Religion:
    ~~ LIFE ~~
    I hear a lot of :"I hear from others and "reporters',
    or I read here someone wrote theirs cousin's, brother's,
    etcetera, etcetera, like Trump does all the time.
    I would like to see him finish a sentence without changing the subject continually.
    He can't finish a sentence unless he's reading some poorly written notes,
    or the prompter, back and forth, eyes right and then eyes left,
    oh......I'm surprised they let him caste his eyes to the left !!
    Oh well, flip a coin, maybe the edge will be up,
    and then what ?
    NuffStuff
    ~
    'mud
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. fantome profane

    fantome profane Keep safe, and keep your neighbours safe.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,439
    Ratings:
    +7,898
    If anyone wants to know more about Trump's medical doctor, the one who assured us that Trump's health was "astonishingly excellent", and that his test results showed only "positive results", please just go to his website. www.haroldbornsteinmd.com
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. 'mud

    'mud ~~ Life is Stuff ~~
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    5,573
    Ratings:
    +2,367
    Religion:
    ~~ LIFE ~~
    That guy is a total vacuum pump.
    Doctor ???? are you kidding ??
    Cheeeeeeeesssse !!!!
    ~
    'mud
     
  17. fantome profane

    fantome profane Keep safe, and keep your neighbours safe.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,439
    Ratings:
    +7,898
    Aww, I think he is just a big cuddly teddy bear.
    www.haroldbornsteinmd.com
     
  18. Mercy Not Sacrifice

    Mercy Not Sacrifice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,779
    Ratings:
    +263
    Oh so it's OK for Obama to evolve on SSM but not Hillary! Come on. Another double-standard, much?

    OK, let's try this again: In the 1990s, the mere idea of gay marriage was not popular. At all. The Clintons could have set back progress had they come swinging for it. Hell it could have cost him the 1996 election.

    That's not what my sources are telling me. I know the internet is flooded with Hillary-haters (not talking about you specifically, but there are people out there on some downright crazy websites who have invented and stirred up these narratives).

    And where is your evidence--your cold, hard evidence--that HRC secretly opposes full marriage rights for bi's? There are so many anti-Hillary conspiracy theories out there that say that she supports this, she opposes that, that it is going to take a lot to convince me that yet the latest extraordinary claim is actually true.

    And I want you to take a look at your last sentence. You think there is any chance in hell of Alabama deciding for themselves to keep gay marriage legal?

    Finally, which person--HRC, or Trump, because our next president is going to be one of those two--would nominate SCOTUS justices that continue to uphold LGBT rights? Do not underestimate this point. If you cannot bring yourself to vote for the presidency, vote for the Supreme Court. I personally know some people who will be voting for HRC this November for that reason alone.
     
  19. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    36,066
    Ratings:
    +17,392
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Isn't it bizarre that some Trump supporters point to Hillary's "flip-flopping" whereas Trump has shown us the he can "flip-flop" between the morning and evening on one single day such as he recently just did one day about a week ago on immigration. [notice that this really isn't a question]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Acim

    Acim Revelation all the time

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,513
    Ratings:
    +686
    It's okay for Hillary to evolve on this issue, and even de-volve. But also right to note it as a flip flop. Both Obama and Hillary flip flopped on this issue.
    What started this tangent though is that Hillary has flipped on a number of issues, and did so to appear more progressive, to obtain those voters.
    Yes, Trump has done this as all politicians do some flopping from primaries to general, but Hillary has done it more. That is partially attributed to the fact of her 'political experience' or fact she's been in the game longer than the other names we are discussing, but is mostly attributed to the idea that she'll go with political expediency as the primary principle, rather than having principled positions on these issue that actually evolve rather than flip.

    So, let's try this again. Had Bill said no to gay marriage, and Hillary said yes, I believe all BC supporters would've said, we are voting for BC, not HRC. Or she could've, whenever the topic come up said something neutral, or remained quiet. You're stance on this just bolsters the idea her primary principle is to be politically expedient rather than to maintain her own set of principles.

    I'm not talking about haters. But if we're being honest, if anyone says anything negative about her, they are labeled hater, and determined to have a bias. If someone like the ex-secret service guy who came out with tell-all about his time with the Clintons (which shows Hillary in negative light), it is picked up by the haters and promoted as reason not to vote for her. Other side (Dems) are constantly doing same thing with regards to Trump. IMO, how they are behind the scene matters, but isn't as important as how they are about principles/policies in front of the cameras.

    Perhaps you missed where I said: I'm guessing right now she opposes that but really not sure because it can't readily be a principle thing for her, and is more likely just that it isn't popular to hold that position currently.

    There are a few things that I for sure would like the candidates to be asked about or speak to, but I'm around 80% sure it won't even come up. Like vaping politics truly matters to me in this election, but it so far has only (very) slightly come up, and so I'm stuck with the impression (that I do consider very accurate) that national dems want them banned and national pubs are more lenient, willing to allow small businesses in this market a fighting chance. I do hope during the debates, this matter comes up (as FDA put forth a significant ruling in 2016), but I do think it unlikely that it does. With the plural marriage issue that I see impacting B-rights, I think there is less of a chance that comes up, though if lots of debate discussion revolves around SSM, then I could see either candidate at least dropping hints about it. I'm guessing both candidates (and of the 4 running, I think GJ-libertarian is exception) would say marriage (during this election cycle) is for two people only.

    Okay. I think you are making bigger deal than I am on this issue. I bring it up because I truly think it's not something she's really considering at this point, and mostly because it's not being discussed often enough yet. I do see this as slippery slope logic and always have. Can't make the case for last 20 years that marriage equality is about 'what consenting adults want' and not have that include plural marriages. Those that disagree with this slippery slope, I enjoy discussing with them, and defeating their arguments. Some (who are anti-SSM) use slippery slope as a negative thing, I'm using it as positive/inevitable thing that will eventually occur. I don't think it will be discussed in this election cycle because HRC isn't really progressive and is only willing to go as far as whatever ways the current political winds are a blowing.

    I do think there is a chance. But as I favor SSM, I feel it better left up to states. If majority of a state wishes it for it not to be recognized state law, then I see that as matter of state rights. I realize the havoc that could cause, but is up to each state to determine if they can deal with such political repercussions. IMO, SSM was always inevitable, and so a principled person would've started with this a long time ago and maintained the idea of state rights. I see plural marriage as inevitable, which is why I'm glad I maintain my position on that. I see that as likely occurring within 10 to 15 years, and see the discussion as occurring more and more, which I felt was predictable right after SSM became nationally recognized right. I still think if any state wishes to opt out, they ought to have that right, but realize it could lead to a bit of political havoc - a little for the nation, mostly for that state and perceptions of it.

    I'd want to take B out of the LGBT thing for the question to make sense to me. For I see neither speaking to the B at this time. I think HRC appointee is more likely to uphold the current issues impacting the LGT community. For me, that is not the most important issue, and I'm B. It's perhaps because I'm B, and because I feel that group is ignored that it isn't all that important. I also understand B to be the largest group of that community, yet has the least amount to fight for.

    Voting for SC is one reason why I would vote this election cycle. Last time I voted, I believe was for Dole in the 90's. Yep, that long ago. Been a proud non-voter between then and now. This election cycle I may actually vote and one of the reasons is SC nomination. With all issues that matter to me, and I think matter to our country I would, without a doubt, vote for Trump (over Hillary).
     
Loading...