• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton agrees to testify on Benghazi, emails this month

Well, there have been at least seven women Presidents in Latin America in the past, and most of them were elected by riding on a man's coat-tails, either their husbands or a mentor they served under. The majority are left wing, so Hillary will not be a groundbreaker in any sense of the word.
With all due respect, I believe it is a bit of a stretch to typify Ms. Clinton as 'left wing'. She is a Democrat & a proponent of national healthcare (and recently and seemingly begrudgingly - LGBT rights & marriage), but many of her policies lean more centrist, particularly in relation to foreign policy, business & finance, and matters of expenditure & debt - remember, her husband signed welfare reform & 'welfare to work' into law.

At best, I'd describe her as 'left-center' or perhaps 'moderate left'.

Now if you'd like to use derivatives of the term 'left (wing)', Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders might be better examples.

The largest singular complaint in her party, is she's not 'left enough'!
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

it would be misleading for anyone to think gowdy is an average attorney. he is not nearly so accomplished


So he's "stupid"?


Really man, you cannot attack this guy that way and then claim a moral high ground.

On the one hand you claim Hillary will "stand on the truth" [which is ****ing laughable] then suggest Gowdie is not craty enough to catch her. If she's standing on truth, what's to catch? If she's so ****ing honest, why is it important for the Hillary propaganda machine to make Gowdie into an inept and "stupid" lawyer.

Were me, I would be championing how smart he is.

You blew it friend, ice cream and hot coals do not make for a good argument
 
Investigation #8... same results as investigation #9? Taking bets here!
 
I didnt know this was a negotiation. They should probably just subpoena her. There is no way this can go without Republicans being made to look bad by the media. Now that shes running for office, everything is going to be even worse. For all we know its part of her strategy. Maybe shell cry.
Yes, this is a game of extremely high-stakes politics!

The GOP obviously believe she has reasonable or likely gravitas to attain the White House, or they would not expose themselves as a party to such risk.

The Clintons can be dangerous political animals - this could back-fire on the GOP. They are giving her a perch & placing a microphone in front of her - anything could happen.
 
oh, he will interrupt her
there is no doubt
gowdy will insist on hogging the air time
but your problem is he will have no ability to counter her answers
especially after he has shot his wad by publicizing his questions
he has made it certain that hillary will look good at this hearing
gowdy and the other reich wingers, not so much

What do you mean "counter her questions"?

Do you understand what an investigation is?
 
Nope. The last thing she needs is sympathy points.

If he can't interrupt her and bring her back on point. She will waste time with her ramblings and memories.
 
I have especially like the smug attitude with which the "Bush did it too!" is delivered. Why would anyone want to continue a conversation with a person who decries Bush and uses his actions as a justification for Obama's in the same breath?

Its because they just say things, there is no underlying concept or idea-just get out of the heat in the moment and attack away.
 
I was taken aback this morning after reading the headline "Hillary agrees to testify." It sounded like she was in charge of the investigation and had a decision to make - and that surprised me. What would have happened if she had said no? I'm not being snarky; I honestly don't know how these things work. :shock:



Good question.

They have the option of subpeona and forcing her to testify. Probably why she sol graciously "agreed" to testify....

She has nothing to hide you see....she is too clever for them according to her supporters and that's what counts in a president, not being caught!
 
I was taken aback this morning after reading the headline "Hillary agrees to testify." It sounded like she was in charge of the investigation and had a decision to make - and that surprised me. What would have happened if she had said no? I'm not being snarky; I honestly don't know how these things work. :shock:

I think she would eventually be subpoenad.
 
Indeed. And it implies that Republicans value the lives of four white males more than those of a hundred thousand mostly nonwhite, Iraqi men, women, and children.

100,000 to four. Even the Deutsche Mark didn't have an exchange rate that bad at the height of post-WWII hyperinflation!



It suggest that Republicans value the lives of Americans who served their country and died doing so as opposed to a lame president who hides behind a lie of a "spontaneous demonstration" and sends in the FB ****ing I to get the terrorists who are as we speak training other terrorists.

And if you're so concerned about the lives of Iraqi's, let's talk about that early withdrawal and Obama's "I ended the war" which seems to still be a war.

To equate the lives lost of servicemen and diplomats to a bunch of baby killing terrorists shows the true colors of the Amerikan liberal.....

It's it's American it has to be apologized for, and uniformed Americans are fodder for the great left wing propaganda wars
 
no. he cannot make her give a deposition
that is what he sought. a private hearing with a transcription
and hillary insisted that any such activity be conducted in the public's view
she has already nailed his ass to the wall on that one


No he offered.....that if she felt that her use of private emails was a concern of hers. He was willing to leave that as an option for her.

That doesn't mean she cannot be subpoena'd in the future due to any revelations that come forth, and over a specific issue.
 
It suggest that Republicans value the lives of Americans who served their country and died doing so as opposed to a lame president who hides behind a lie of a "spontaneous demonstration" and sends in the FB ****ing I to get the terrorists who are as we speak training other terrorists.

And if you're so concerned about the lives of Iraqi's, let's talk about that early withdrawal and Obama's "I ended the war" which seems to still be a war.

To equate the lives lost of servicemen and diplomats to a bunch of baby killing terrorists shows the true colors of the Amerikan liberal.....

It's it's American it has to be apologized for, and uniformed Americans are fodder for the great left wing propaganda wars

Isn't it amazing? The President and SoS refused to provide additional security or withdraw like everyone else had, ignored pleas for help, failed to send a rescue, and after hours of combat without help 4 Americans died-and then hillary blamed a video that wasnt even viewable in Libya. And all of this for politics because Obama was "tough on terrorism" (ISIS struck in texas this week, btw).

And yet despite this its the republicans who are playing politics for calling out and investigating this behavior. An investigation which amongst other things, led to the discovery of Hillarys email server.
 
She's never been a people person, dont see it happening now.

Yeah she wont be looking to many in the face for long amount of time.....she will have to watchout for not letting it look like she is rolling her eyes around in her head.

Do you think she will be a bit shifty?
shifty.gif
..... :mrgreen:
 
Yeah she wont be looking to many in the face for long amount of time.....she will have to watchout for not letting it look like she is rolling her eyes around in her head.

Do you think she will be a bit shifty?
shifty.gif
..... :mrgreen:

Just a bit. :lol:
 
my first - and only - postulate normally, (s)he who aspires to a position of authority, does not deserve it, applies in this matter
so many seek the power and authority yet have no idea what they want to do with it
this is how i view hillary. she wants to be president, but is unable to articulate what she would do with the power of the executive once she acquired it
and in contrast, it is why i support Elizabeth Warren; she is the reluctant leader. she has a sense of purpose, and that is why she should be the democratic contender for the white house


the world is always unraveling somewhere, while being knitted together in other places
i see this as a wonderful era ... especially when compared to the times of WWI, WWII and the (un)civil war. those who lived in those times would likely marvel that we would so disparage the circumstances of the world today by comparison to their own experiences

Greetings, justabubba. :2wave:

I agree with you on Elizabeth Warren. Why she's not seeking the nomination is puzzling, because I feel she would have some good ideas, especially regarding the banks and their shenanigans that are being exposed. There are apparently high-ranking people who do not want her in charge!

I
assume you are aware that Bank of America, using its Merrill Lynch investment banking unit, quietly in 2011 shifted almost $80 trillion of its European derivatives liability, which means they are now going to be insured by US taxpayers, and America's two most important financial institutions - the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. JP Morgan Chase also shifted $79 trillion of its derivatives debt in the same manner. This was done quietly and in secret, with no regulatory or Congressional approval or public input, but the information is now coming out that both banks made billions in profits from creating and marketing derivaties that they probably knew in advance would collapse. How's that for getting screwed? Don't hold your breath on seeing that anyone is hung from the gallows on this fiasco, either! :thumbdown:
 
It suggest that Republicans value the lives of Americans who served their country and died doing so as opposed to a lame president who hides behind a lie of a "spontaneous demonstration" and sends in the FB ****ing I to get the terrorists who are as we speak training other terrorists.

And if you're so concerned about the lives of Iraqi's, let's talk about that early withdrawal and Obama's "I ended the war" which seems to still be a war.

To equate the lives lost of servicemen and diplomats to a bunch of baby killing terrorists shows the true colors of the Amerikan liberal.....

It's it's American it has to be apologized for, and uniformed Americans are fodder for the great left wing propaganda wars

benghazi-cartoon-luckovich-495x357.jpg


"It's it's" 'MURICAN!
 
With all due respect, I believe it is a bit of a stretch to typify Ms. Clinton as 'left wing'. She is a Democrat & a proponent of national healthcare (and recently and seemingly begrudgingly - LGBT rights & marriage), but many of her policies lean more centrist, particularly in relation to foreign policy, business & finance, and matters of expenditure & debt - remember, her husband signed welfare reform & 'welfare to work' into law.

At best, I'd describe her as 'left-center' or perhaps 'moderate left'.

Now if you'd like to use derivatives of the term 'left (wing)', Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders might be better examples.

The largest singular complaint in her party, is she's not 'left enough'!

Greetings, Chomsky. :2wave:

As usual, I guess it all come down to perception. I've often wondered about how far left, or right, does anyone have to be to earn the "radical" descriptive, on both sides of the aisle? Some are readily apparent, others aren't until you see them in action, or listen carefully to what they say about what they believe in.
 
Greetings, Chomsky. :2wave:

As usual, I guess it all come down to perception. I've often wondered about how far left, or right, does anyone have to be to earn the "radical" descriptive, on both sides of the aisle? [...]
'Perception' is a good word, and I might even add 'point of reference'.

If your comfort zone & frame-of-reference is pretty far Right and you move in those circles, most everything will appear 'Left'. And vis a' versa.

The one thing forums like this has taught me, along with the internet & cable news, is just how different our spheres of reference can be from each other. It took me awhile to realize that for those that differ from me in what seems like outlandish ideas & perceptions, are very true perceptions and realities to those posters - no different than they appear to myself.

Well for the most part - there's always a few trolls & rabble-rousers, but I believe most people that differ from me do honestly believe in their take-on-things.
 
benghazi-cartoon-luckovich-495x357.jpg


"It's it's" 'MURICAN!

When you think that the Benghazi compound had already been hit weeks prior when someone blew a 12 foot hole in the Compound wall, and every other Western Government pulled their people out ( even the Red Cross pulled their people out ) because of the increasing dangers, and the fact that Chris Stevens had been requesting additional security detail it seems unbelievably cold and irresponsible not to at least have enough offsite military assets available to mount a immediate counter offensive or even a rescue.

But there was nothing there apparently.

Those people were left to fend for themselves and all the American people got from the Obama administration was a BS narrative about a YouTube video.

Now we know you support people Politically who would play Politics with the deaths of 4 Americans but don't expect us to.
 
Just a bit. :lol:

Whats amusing is why they laugh at Benghazi.....that this Committee of Number 9. Has caused 2 IG Investigations. One for where the 6 Billion that was lost at State while she ran the place. The other for her aides and their Special Designation as Employees of State.

Then they got copies of the Emails that Blumenthal sent to Hillary......while she broke her agreement with BO over Foreign Donors to Charity. Then allowing a breach of US National Security.....and opening up BO and the White House too.

Plus they were the ones to discover Hillary's Emails and that State never had Hillary's when the other Committees asked for the info. I would stress "asked" as no other committee had the powers to compel any to do anything.
 
'Perception' is a good word, and I might even add 'point of reference'.

If your comfort zone & frame-of-reference is pretty far Right and you move in those circles, most everything will appear 'Left'. And vis a' versa.

The one thing forums like this has taught me, along with the internet & cable news, is just how different our spheres of reference can be from each other. It took me awhile to realize that for those that differ from me in what seems like outlandish ideas & perceptions, are very true perceptions and realities to those posters - no different than they appear to myself.

Well for the most part - there's always a few trolls & rabble-rousers, but I believe most people that differ from me do honestly believe in their take-on-things.

I worked at headquarters for a multi-national corporation, and experienced first-hand how business differs from government. Business has to make a profit, where the government doesn't have that Damocles sword hanging over its head. Business could never have an $18 trillion debt, as an example, or they would have long since had to file for bankruptcy - so their eye is always on the bottom line. In truth, most of us have the same limitations on our family budgets, so I understand that thinking. What I don't understand is why those in DC seem to think otherwise, and I'm talking both sides of the aisle. Business also seems to be more nimble in making decisions, too; plus a CEO and his advisors can get fired almost immediately if the shareholders get irate enough, so I wonder, if government had to live under the same conditions, if we'd be in better shape financially than we are?. I think we probably would be, because of the accountability factor, and they wouldn't be allowed to keep their job until the next election, either. The only "shareholders" in government are the taxpayers, and few politicians seem to care what we think - until election time comes. Then we're suddenly important again, and the cycle continues, ad nauseum, as lots of promises are made to correct things that aren't working. Weird way to live, but I guess we're used to it. :shock:
 
So he's "stupid"?


Really man, you cannot attack this guy that way and then claim a moral high ground.

On the one hand you claim Hillary will "stand on the truth" [which is ****ing laughable] then suggest Gowdie is not craty enough to catch her. If she's standing on truth, what's to catch? If she's so ****ing honest, why is it important for the Hillary propaganda machine to make Gowdie into an inept and "stupid" lawyer.

Were me, I would be championing how smart he is.
go for it

but he's actually a lightweight


You blew it friend, ice cream and hot coals do not make for a good argument
then it's good thing i offered neither
 
What do you mean "counter her questions"?

Do you understand what an investigation is?

do you understand what i wrote

never did i post "counter her questions"
 
Back
Top Bottom