• 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!

Questions for Hillary Supporters

code1211 said:
It's difficult to define how the two differ.

Both were Political party operatives who did just about everything to advance their political futures and little for the future of the Republic.

Both ran up the debt with amazing ease and speed. It's popular to refer to both doubling the debt. Bush doubled it by adding about 5 trillion. Obama is up to about 9 trillion added, but, as Curly said, "the day ain't over, yet". He may be much better at this than we know. Obviously, he is the best in our history.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

Both were globalists. Both don't seem to think there is a tomorrow. Both aren't much better than a book mark in the lexicon of the presidents. They are just about the same empty suit holding the same office of diminishing importance.

That said, though, how could anyone avoid bashing both?
Click to expand...

Because most of the additional debt accumulated under President Obama's is the result of President Bush 2's policy failures.
 
Absentglare said:
Because most of the additional debt accumulated under President Obama's is the result of President Bush 2's policy failures.
Click to expand...

Wow! Blame Bush? Again?

Your guy is among the worst presidents to ever serve. Witness his failure:

Our society is splintered more profoundly than it has ever been,
our international respect is gone,
we are at the highest debt level by far in our history and climbing,
there are more people not working than ever before in our history both as a number and as a percent of the population,
our government selectively enforces some laws and ignores others entirely,
The IRS and DOJ are tools of the Democrat Party,
US home ownership is at the lowest rate since 1965,
median household income has decreased compared to 2000 and should have been increasing,
Russia is treating international borders like welcome mats and hacking our data centers,
China is cheating on every treaty, manipulating their currency and hacking our data centers,
The entire world is destabilized and hacking our data centers

and

you are living under the delusion that Bush, who is pretty much silent in retirement, is the man who has caused all of this.

Astonishing! Do you blame him when you blow a shot on the golf course?
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Wow! Blame Bush? Again?

Your guy is among the worst presidents to ever serve. Witness his failure:

Our society is splintered more profoundly than it has ever been,
our international respect is gone,
we are at the highest debt level by far in our history and climbing,
there are more people not working than ever before in our history both as a number and as a percent of the population,
our government selectively enforces some laws and ignores others entirely,
The IRS and DOJ are tools of the Democrat Party,
US home ownership is at the lowest rate since 1965,
median household income has decreased compared to 2000 and should have been increasing,
Russia is treating international borders like welcome mats and hacking our data centers,
China is cheating on every treaty, manipulating their currency and hacking our data centers,
The entire world is destabilized and hacking our data centers

and

you are living under the delusion that Bush, who is pretty much silent in retirement, is the man who has caused all of this.

Astonishing! Do you blame him when you blow a shot on the golf course?
Click to expand...

Yes, blame who is at fault. If you want to blame our political divisiveness, the blame rests on republican shoulders.
 
code1211 said:
Wow! Blame Bush? Again?

Your guy is among the worst presidents to ever serve. Witness his failure:

Our society is splintered more profoundly than it has ever been,
our international respect is gone,
we are at the highest debt level by far in our history and climbing,
there are more people not working than ever before in our history both as a number and as a percent of the population,
our government selectively enforces some laws and ignores others entirely,
The IRS and DOJ are tools of the Democrat Party,
US home ownership is at the lowest rate since 1965,
median household income has decreased compared to 2000 and should have been increasing,
Russia is treating international borders like welcome mats and hacking our data centers,
China is cheating on every treaty, manipulating their currency and hacking our data centers,
The entire world is destabilized and hacking our data centers

and

you are living under the delusion that Bush, who is pretty much silent in retirement, is the man who has caused all of this.

Astonishing! Do you blame him when you blow a shot on the golf course?
Click to expand...

You make it sound like that's not what he was trying to do. He's been pretty damn good at it.
 
bubbabgone said:
You make it sound like that's not what he was trying to do. He's been pretty damn good at it.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand why anyone plays this blame Bush game anymore.

How many decades or centuries will this go on?

Will Obama EVER be responsible for what Obama did?
 
Absentglare said:
Yes, blame who is at fault. If you want to blame our political divisiveness, the blame rests on republican shoulders.
Click to expand...

In what way is one of the divisive, self interested, wedge generating political hate machines more responsible than the other for the splintered society in which we live.

I have NEVER hear Obama speak when he did not point at one segment of our society and blame them for the problems of another segment of society. He is utterly incapable of being apolitical.

Do you not see this as being divisive?
 
code1211 said:
I just don't understand why anyone plays this blame Bush game anymore.

How many decades or centuries will this go on?

Will Obama EVER be responsible for what Obama did?
Click to expand...

Yes but it will be described other than the way you know it to be.
Like ... Obamacare is a phenomenal success.
Or ... the Iran nuclear deal is paying dividends.
 
code1211 said:
In what way is one of the divisive, self interested, wedge generating political hate machines more responsible than the other for the splintered society in which we live.

I have NEVER hear Obama speak when he did not point at one segment of our society and blame them for the problems of another segment of society. He is utterly incapable of being apolitical.

Do you not see this as being divisive?
Click to expand...

From a relative standpoint, the republicans are significantly more divisive toward President Obama than President Obama was divisive toward them.
 
Absentglare said:
From a relative standpoint, the republicans are significantly more divisive toward President Obama than President Obama was divisive toward them.
Click to expand...

From Obama's first meeting with Republican leaders forward he has made it clear that he is in charge and they are there only to bow to his wishes and goals.

He closed them out of everything he was trying to do.

There are only two enemyies of the state that Obama recognizes: The Republlican Party and any Republican.

There is almost never an address made by Obama that does not set up an "us vs them" paradigm. I have personally never seen a person who is so consitently divisive in everything he says.

For the love of God, he even attacked the Supreme Court Justices during a State of the Union. There has never been and hopefully there will never be again a president as divisive as Obama.
 
LowDown said:
Does the fact that foreign governments and others with business before the US Department of State while Clinton was Secretary of State contributed money to the Clinton Foundation bother you at all?
Click to expand...

No.

LowDown said:
Does the fact that Hillary illegally handled classified emails on a private email server concern you at all? How about the fact that she deleted 30,000 of the emails?
Click to expand...

Yes.

LowDown said:
Does the fact that the news media and much of the government itself is providing cover for the Clintons' misdeeds make you feel like that our entire system of government and political accountability has become corrupted?
Click to expand...

This is untrue. I can think of no other candidate in recent memory who has been more aggressively investigated by the media than Hillary Clinton. Everything from the whitewater incident to the e-mails and even her health have received widespread, continuous coverage. I'm not sure what world you live in if you can't see this.

LowDown said:
The Clinton Foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is manifestly to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity, and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve the Clintons. Does this bother you at all?
Click to expand...

No, because you made that up.

LowDown said:
Does the fact that Hillary has uttered so many obvious, stupid, and self serving lies bother you at all?
Click to expand...

I wish I lived in a world where this wasn't true of every politician. Alas it is. So...no.

LowDown said:
Does the fact that Hillary covered up for Bill's sexual misdeeds bother you?
Click to expand...

I would be more bothered if she had done the opposite and aired her dirty laundry in the public sphere instead of keeping it a private family matter.

LowDown said:
Do you find it troubling that when the Clinton's left the White House in 2001 they took $190,000 in valuables, such as plates and silverware, that belonged to the American People and then later were forced to return them?
Click to expand...

No. Because that's been debunked: Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House | PunditFact

LowDown said:
Do you find it troubling that even before Bill won the White House there was a laundry list of scandals that the Clintons were involved in while Bill was governor of Arkansas?
Click to expand...

Bill isn't running.
 
CrabCake said:
This is untrue. I can think of no other candidate in recent memory who has been more aggressively investigated by the media than Hillary Clinton. Everything from the whitewater incident to the e-mails and even her health have received widespread, continuous coverage. I'm not sure what world you live in if you can't see this.
Click to expand...

I live in this world:

LoveHillary.JPG

No, because you made that up.
Click to expand...

Alas, no.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

The Clinton Foundation and Conflicts of Interest - The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

I wish I lived in a world where this wasn't true of every politician. Alas it is. So...no.
Click to expand...

But her lies are more numerous and more stupid than most, the latest being that it wasn't her campaign the started the birther rumors. Several news organizations have contradicted that assertion.

I would be more bothered if she had done the opposite and aired her dirty laundry in the public sphere instead of keeping it a private family matter.
Click to expand...

But surely you know that it goes much further than that, to the point of trying to destroy the lives of those women.

No. Because that's been debunked: Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House | PunditFact
Click to expand...

The whole crux of this so-called debunking is that the Clintons made a mistake in mixing up things that belonged to the nation with things that belonged to them. Yeah, right.

Bill isn't running.
Click to expand...

But Hillary Clinton is.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
I live in this world:

View attachment 67207400
Click to expand...

I suppose you live in a world where the above picture tells you a lot despite being devoid of any context whatsoever. A world where you can look at a picture and project into it whatever you want.

LowDown said:
Alas, no.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

The Clinton Foundation and Conflicts of Interest - The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

None of those articles actually support your claim, nor do they even attempt to. They question whether there may be conflicts of interest. This has nothing to do with your made up claim, which was:
Lowdown said:
The Clinton Foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is manifestly to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity, and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve the Clintons.
Click to expand...

LowDown said:
But her lies are more numerous and more stupid than most, the latest being that it wasn't her campaign the started the birther rumors. Several news organizations have contradicted that assertion.
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence that they are more numerous. "More stupid" is a matter of opinion. It says more about you than it does about her that you consider them "more stupid".

LowDown said:
But surely you know that it goes much further than that, to the point of trying to destroy the lives of those women.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

LowDown said:
The whole crux of this so-called debunking is that the Clintons made a mistake in mixing up things that belonged to the nation with things that belonged to them. Yeah, right.
Click to expand...

That's a gross oversimplification. The crux of the debunking is that your claim was untrue. There was some confusion over whether some furniture given to them as a gift was meant as a gift for them personally, or as a gift to the White House as an institution and when it was cleared up they returned the items. No one forced them to do anything.

Here's what I never manage to comprehend. These websites you visit have lied to you. They misrepresented the above to you. They told you that the Clintons had tried to steal things form the White House and then were forced to return things. But that turns out to not be true. If I found out that a media source I have been using has been lying to me...I would be livid! I would drop that source immediately and speak out against them constantly. I would feel betrayed. But here you are, after someone has brought to your attention the fact that one of your sources deliberately misled you and rather than being angered about being betrayed by your source you dismiss it with a "yeah right". I honestly can't comprehend that. If my sources lied to me I would not defend them, I would feel betrayed by them and dump them like a hot potato.
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
I suppose you live in a world where the above picture tells you a lot despite being devoid of any context whatsoever. A world where you can look at a picture and project into it whatever you want.



None of those articles actually support your claim, nor do they even attempt to. They question whether there may be conflicts of interest. This has nothing to do with your made up claim, which was:




I have seen no evidence that they are more numerous. "More stupid" is a matter of opinion. It says more about you than it does about her that you consider them "more stupid".



What are you talking about?



That's a gross oversimplification. The crux of the debunking is that your claim was untrue. There was some confusion over whether some furniture given to them as a gift was meant as a gift for them personally, or as a gift to the White House as an institution and when it was cleared up they returned the items. No one forced them to do anything.

Here's what I never manage to comprehend. These websites you visit have lied to you. They misrepresented the above to you. They told you that the Clintons had tried to steal things form the White House and then were forced to return things. But that turns out to not be true. If I found out that a media source I have been using has been lying to me...I would be livid! I would drop that source immediately and speak out against them constantly. I would feel betrayed. But here you are, after someone has brought to your attention the fact that one of your sources deliberately misled you and rather than being angered about being betrayed by your source you dismiss it with a "yeah right". I honestly can't comprehend that. If my sources lied to me I would not defend them, I would feel betrayed by them and dump them like a hot potato.
Click to expand...

Your analysis is completely whack.

We all know the context of the picture. You do as well. You pretend not to know it.

Conflicts of interest to what purpose? Obviously it's as I explained it to be. Again, you pretend not to know this.

When a person tells a lie that is easily found out it is objectively a stupid lie. This characterizes many of Hillary's lies.

As for the furniture and what not, obviously the Clintons thought they could get away with theft, but they were called out on it. They had no choice but to return the items then. You pretend not to know this.

Discussion with a person who willfully refuses to acknowledge the truth is tiresome. Have a nice life. I have no further use for you.
 
LowDown said:
Your analysis is completely whack.

We all know the context of the picture. You do as well. You pretend not to know it.
Click to expand...

Do we? Please elaborate on it then. Where were they? What was being discussed? What was said right before this picture was taken? What question was she responding to?

LowDown said:
Conflicts of interest to what purpose? Obviously it's as I explained it to be. Again, you pretend not to know this.
Click to expand...

No. You made up that claim and provided absolutely no evidence to back it up. Instead you provided some links about a whole different topic entirely (whether there may have been conflicts of interest). You have absolutely nothing to support your original claim other than your say so and the insistence that anyone who doesn't see things the way you made up is pretending not to know it.

LowDown said:
When a person tells a lie that is easily found out it is objectively a stupid lie.
Click to expand...

That word does not mean what you seem to think it means.

LowDown said:
As for the furniture and what not, obviously the Clintons thought they could get away with theft, but they were called out on it.
Click to expand...

Sure...which is why they provided an itemized list of everything they had taken with them because you know...that's how you steal. :roll:

LowDown said:
They had no choice but to return the items then. You pretend not to know this.
Click to expand...

Sure they did. In fact, some of the items were returned back to them; because they realized the Clintons were right to begin with. You would know this had you read the article. But you pretend not to know this.

LowDown said:
Discussion with a person who willfully refuses to acknowledge the truth is tiresome. Have a nice life. I have no further use for you.
Click to expand...

Oooh...personal attacks. You really reached such a low? I suppose it matches your name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom