• 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!

Clintons

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was distinctly unimpressed with Fiorina. I would have like to see how Condi Rice and Colin Powell worked in Congress.

And Powell is somebody else I could have enthusiastically voted for back in the day. Not now, but back in the day.
 
I couldnt know where to start it ,off topic may be suitable,dana's thread inspired me to start it

I see many anti Hillary people insult her for the things Bill C did before .I don't like her either but please be honest .men just dont want to have a female president..Clinton cheated on hillary with Monica ,yes so what ?Clinton is the worst guy or the president ever seen ? Other presidents were always loyal to their wifes ?maybe Clinton should have choosen angelina jolie :mrgreen:

Why don't liberals realize the criticism about Hillary is that she went after the women who accused Bill of criminal behavior. She tried to destroy their credibility and them personally so the Clinton crime family could continue their deceptions of the public.

So much for Hillary being a defender of women.
 
And Powell is somebody else I could have enthusiastically voted for back in the day. Not now, but back in the day.

That's a good point. I could have also. I still remember, although a bit dimly, his pressers during Gulf 1. Impressed with him back then already.
Now? Err, not so much. When he's injected himself into politics, it seems to have been on the basis of the race of the candidate, rather than something more substantive.
 
It seemed that way to me too, and I'm sorry about that. I think his e-mails about Clinton's e-mails were rather revealing too.
 
This is going to get off topic, but I'll address it here. If you want another response, we should probably start a new thread.

Because it must be quite a staggering list indeed, to sway you to vote for a woman that you clearly find objectionable and even contemptible.

Thanks in advance, good sir.

Trump, beyond race-baiting and misogynistic dog-whistling, has a number of obvious problems that totally disqualify him from the presidency. So, for me, if you say that Mexicans are rapists and murderers, and "probably" some of them are good people, that disqualifies you automatically in my book --but if that doesn't disqualify him in your book, then let's keep going. Let's start with the first obvious problem which is that Trump doesn't have an ideology, and that's the chief source of his lies. He gets in front of audiences, and then changes his mind almost literally every time he's in front of a new crowd. Because of this, Donald Trump lies about 5 times every week, if I had to put a rough guesstimate on the part of the primary and general elections that I've followed; that's not an exaggeration or hyperbole. Some of it is innocuous, but a lot of it isn't. Foreign policy is the worst, because it oscillates from I don't want to be involved in the middle-east, to let's do unthinkable torture and let's murder innocent civilians just to prove a point, and that he wants to "bomb the s*** out of [ISIS]". And he's lied about being publicly against the Iraq War, because he supported the Iraq War publicly before we entered, and now says in private he disagreed with it. Oh yeah, a confirmed Trump advisor was asked, repeatedly, by Trump why we don't use nuclear weapons more often. If it's starting to look like this guy: A.) Doesn't know a goddamn thing. B.) Doesn't care enough to know a goddamn thing, then you're probably correct.

Trump isn't merely boorish, the dude seriously mocked a disabled person for being disabled (and then lied about mocking this disabled person), he race-baits (that's why he doesn't call black people "niggers," but boy, his supporters do at his rallies and even assault old women), and the fact that ranking KKK members have endorsed him. I can corroborate this with my own experience of knowing several Trump supporters who are closet racists and support him because of racism. His ban on Muslims (which he's lied about, as well) is deplorable. His official, top campaign coordinator physically assaulted a member of the press that he didn't like, and he was never fired or disciplined for it.

And that's to say nothing of his stated policies, which were written for him (and because he's a lazy SOB, we know that it will be carried out) by Michael Pence and his cohorts, who're right-wing extremists (Just look at how hard he's screwed Indiana, even people in Indiana hate him for how much of a right-wing fanatic he is). The stated policies are just the more severe Reaganomics, which, for the record, is what destroyed, right alongside NAFTA, the poor white communities that are now flocking to Trump. In fact, pretty much every estimate I've read would lead to increased debt while shafting the middle-class and the poor. So Trump doesn't give a damn about helping poor white Americans, this is all to activate the pleasure center in his brain associated to blind adoration.

So yes, Hillary is less awful, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
So yes, Hillary is less awful, in my opinion.

We disagree.
I have too much history with her record of corruption and dishonesty, and though much of what you describe about Donald Trump is true, most of it is ad hominem exaggerations and assumptions.

In the end, you will hold your nose and go and vote for Hillary, and I will hold my nose and vote against Hillary.
And I will roll the dice and hope and pray that a President Trump isn't anywhere as near as awful as you speculate he might be.

With Hillary, there is no gamble, and there is no mystery;
She is a crook, a liar, and a self-serving, power-mad harpy.
 
We disagree.
I have too much history with her record of corruption and dishonesty, and though much of what you describe about Donald Trump is true, most of it is ad hominem exaggerations and assumptions.

In the end, you will hold your nose and go and vote for Hillary, and I will hold my nose and vote against Hillary.
And I will roll the dice and hope and pray that a President Trump isn't anywhere as near as awful as you speculate he might be.

With Hillary, there is no gamble, and there is no mystery;
She is a crook, a liar, and a self-serving, power-mad harpy.

And, I am sure that we won't have to worry about a President Trump.
 
And, I am sure that we won't have to worry about a President Trump.

There is a VERY good chance that a President Trump could be a train wreck.
But it's a bit of an unknown.

My point was that there are no unknowns about the crooked, dishonest Hillary Clinton.
She is a horrible, self-serving, power-mad liar.
The woman cares not one iota about the security of this nation, but rather about taking money from other nations to further their interests, and to line her own pockets with gold.
She cares not one iota about the security of Classified information and materials, and in fact, thinks that the entire notion of protecting Classified materials is folly.

She promises, in essence, a third Barack Obama term.
And that's enough for me to vote against her.
 
We disagree.
I have too much history with her record of corruption and dishonesty, and though much of what you describe about Donald Trump is true, most of it is ad hominem exaggerations and assumptions.

No, it isn't, and on basic logical grounds --something can't be both "mostly true" and "mostly exaggerations." When one is a terrible excuse for a human being like Trump and one is wildly unqualified to be president, that's not an ad hominem fallacy, that's simply stating facts about Donald Trump. If you want to vote against Hillary, then there's not shortage of options. There's Johnson, there's Stein, and there's even De La Fuente. But a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, and Trump is a mad man.

If you find Hillary intolerable, I certainly understand that, but when Donald Trump is a such a giant charlatan, a race-baiting asshat, a pathological liar, and is systematically misinformed about the world, his presidency would be disastrous beyond words.

Anyways, like I said, if you want to make a separate thread about this, I'm more than willing to discuss it.
 
Dr. Rice has always made crystal her disinterest in the Presidency, and I respect that, but it's regrettable. I think she would be an outstanding President.

I've been impressed by what I've seen of political newcomer Fiorina and hope that she will again seek public office.

Fiorina is a fraud, whose only talent is selling herself... to boardrooms. She has managed to bankrupt, close and near bankrupt every company she headed, and always got out with a golden parachute when the Directors finally caught up with her lack of veracity. I knew the woman; my husband worked for her and personally saw every rotten thing she did to gain bonuses into her pockets while stiffing employees, ruining their lives, and eventually sending the entire manufacturing facility overseas, after having purchased a Texas competitor and closing it down, which manipulated the annual profit statement, putting millions of bonus dollars in her own pocket, and leaving literally thousands and thousands of people out of a job.

There are some wonderful, experienced women in public service, and yes, in politics, who would make admirable and exceptional presidents. Susan Collins (R) and Pat Warren (D) are only two of them. Fiorina is a total snakeoil-style fraud. I implore you, don't be suckered. She's never done a thing in her life that involved helping others, or serving a public good.

Whether you like Hillary or not, the woman has indeed devoted decades of her life in volunteer work for women and children since the day she stepped out of college... and even before.
 
No, it isn't, and on basic logical grounds --something can't be both "mostly true" and "mostly exaggerations." When one is a terrible excuse for a human being like Trump and one is wildly unqualified to be president, that's not an ad hominem fallacy, that's simply stating facts about Donald Trump. If you want to vote against Hillary, then there's not shortage of options. There's Johnson, there's Stein, and there's even De La Fuente. But a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, and Trump is a mad man.

If you find Hillary intolerable, I certainly understand that, but when Donald Trump is a such a giant charlatan, a race-baiting asshat, a pathological liar, and is systematically misinformed about the world, his presidency would be disastrous beyond words.

Anyways, like I said, if you want to make a separate thread about this, I'm more than willing to discuss it.

I did not say that your litany of allegations was both "mostly true" and "mostly exaggerations".

I said, "and though much of what you describe about Donald Trump is true, most of it is ad hominem exaggerations and assumptions".
And I stand by that.

Go back and read just the ad hominem exaggerations in your latest response to me alone, sir.

Donald Trump is a giant charlatan - Maybe. It's certainly your opinion. I agree that he is a boorish jerk.

race-baiting asshat - I disagree. He's merely willing to criticize minorities and women just as readily as he criticizes white men, which I find to be refreshing in this overly-politically-correct world.

pathological liar - Your opinion, and patently wrong. If you have studied human psychology for as many years as I have, you would discover that pathological dishonesty is a comparatively rare symptom or sub-set of the characteristics of a sociopath. Donald Trump does lie, but not pathologically. Hillary Clinton most definitely lies, but not pathologically. The only true pathological liar that I have studied in Washington DC in recent years is Barack Obama. And if you want to discuss that in a separate thread, I would gladly detail the clinical analysis that led to that obvious conclusion.

systematically misinformed about the world - I would strenuously object to this statement. The asshole has done business with many nations over the past four decades. He knows what's going on. He just doesn't articulate his feelings about these other nations like a polished, insincere politician. He speaks about the world as does any blunt, rude, fairly successful businessman.

Again, I'm not a Trump guy.
I do not like him.
But I WILL vote against Hillary Clinton, and he's the only one on the ballot who has a chance of helping her to go down in flames.
 
We disagree.
I have too much history with her record of corruption and dishonesty, and though much of what you describe about Donald Trump is true, most of it is ad hominem exaggerations and assumptions.

In the end, you will hold your nose and go and vote for Hillary, and I will hold my nose and vote against Hillary.
And I will roll the dice and hope and pray that a President Trump isn't anywhere as near as awful as you speculate he might be.

With Hillary, there is no gamble, and there is no mystery;
She is a crook, a liar, and a self-serving, power-mad harpy.

She is not the head of CIA ,she cant be held responsible for all corruptions .........but I see she is a scapegoat and that is why many others think they may vote her..
 
Fiorina is a fraud, whose only talent is selling herself... to boardrooms. She has managed to bankrupt, close and near bankrupt every company she headed, and always got out with a golden parachute when the Directors finally caught up with her lack of veracity. I knew the woman; my husband worked for her and personally saw every rotten thing she did to gain bonuses into her pockets while stiffing employees, ruining their lives, and eventually sending the entire manufacturing facility overseas, after having purchased a Texas competitor and closing it down, which manipulated the annual profit statement, putting millions of bonus dollars in her own pocket, and leaving literally thousands and thousands of people out of a job.

There are some wonderful, experienced women in public service, and yes, in politics, who would make admirable and exceptional presidents. Susan Collins (R) and Pat Warren (D) are only two of them. Fiorina is a total snakeoil-style fraud. I implore you, don't be suckered. She's never done a thing in her life that involved helping others, or serving a public good.

Whether you like Hillary or not, the woman has indeed devoted decades of her life in volunteer work for women and children since the day she stepped out of college... and even before.

I appreciate hearing an insider point of view about Fiorina; thank you. (Cynical aside: Is nobody as he or she seems?)

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time Clinton did volunteer work for women and children? For what org?
 
I scrolled forward and then backward through this long Wiki entry but didn't see a "Volunteer Work" heading. Did I miss something? Could you direct me to the heading under which this info is?
 
Because you say she doesn't believe what she says?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom