| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Media coverage so far seems to be strongly in Hillary's favor.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
Yes, it could. She's flip-flopped once, but there's absolutely no indication she will again. You can argue that she has great capacity to do so given her history, but there's no indication she actually will.
Side note: her flip-flopping is exaggerated and overdramatized when there are actually quite a lot of politicians who do it to the same extent.
|
GIRL  Wake up and smell the roses.
There are plenty of reasons that indicates she may flip again.
1. Presidents break their promises. It happens.
2. Bernie has clearly moved the conversation to the left. And that tends to happen in primaries anyway. I believe she is just pandering to liberals who have been perpetually against TPP. Not only that but most democrats are against it too, maybe she is trying to get the support of super delegates?
3. This wouldn't be the 1st time she has done something of the sort to adhere to corporate interests. Namely, the bankruptcy bill proposed by credit card companies which she originally opposed (while she was still only a First Lady), but supported once she was in a power of position. Whose to say she won't do this again?
4. Her language: "As of today" indicates that she may change in the future. "Doesn't meet my standards" paints the picture that once she is in power, they will resubmit the bill as they have done plenty of times already, with some superficial/insignificant reforms, and she will pass it when given the opportunity. She uses all these caveats in her response so she can't be truly held accountable.
5. The 1st leaked draft of TPP was not pretty. At this time, Hillary had called it the "Gold standard". She had plenty of nice comments to say about it.
But sis, why do you think this/she is worth the risk? I could understand if it was some gay rights bill or social issue that someone could be so nonchalant about it. But it's not. Legislation like TPP would be devastating for Americans. It massively undermines democracy. I suggest you look into the severity of this issue.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
You didn't address what I said at all, Javan. You gave me reasons that she might, or has the capacity to - which I already noted.
You gave me no reason why she will. There is no indication.
Your argument is only that it's significant enough that we can't afford to accept anyone who ever, ever supported it - and I guess you might be part of the camp that says she can't possibly know how it's changed.
But I don't think there's a good reason at all to expect her to double-flip on the issue, especially when we don't actually know what she knows about the new details.
All I can say is that I don't have reason to believe she'll come out and support it again, while you can counter that you do. We have different standards.
What will be a bigger deal is if she DOES. Then, we can talk about what that means, especially if it's when she's President.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
You didn't address what I said at all, Javan. You gave me reasons that she might, or has the capacity to - which I already noted.
You gave me no reason why she will. There is no indication.
|
Semantics pls 
But the question remains, why are you willing to take the chance on this?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
Semantics pls
But the question remains, why are you willing to take the chance on this? |
I don't believe I'm taking a chance. I don't believe that she's going to flip, and I don't believe it will be an issue.
If she does, before the election, it will impact my decision to support her and I will take a critical look at whether she's right for the nomination or Presidency, because I do know it's a significant issue.
But I do not believe she will.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Martha Roby is perhaps more irritating than Brooks today. I haven't heard anything useful from her yet.
This damn hearing is a witch hunt. The panel doesn't want to ask what Hillary thinks went wrong, or what she thinks should change - they're asking, "what did YOU do wrong, and why?"
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 13,781
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
Martha Roby is perhaps more irritating than Brooks today. I haven't heard anything useful from her yet.
This damn hearing is a witch hunt. The panel doesn't want to ask what Hillary thinks went wrong, or what she thinks should change - they're asking, "what did YOU do wrong, and why?"
|
Why does she sound so nervous and unprepared? Didn't they have 18 months to prepare for this?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 9,758
|
What percentage of the electorate could find Benghazi on a map/even point to the correct continent/even point to the correct hemisphere?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 13,781
|
Quote:
|
"Why didn't you pick up the phone and call your friend?"
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
But I don't think there's a good reason at all to expect her to double-flip on the issue, especially when we don't actually know what she knows about the new details.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
What will be a bigger deal is if she DOES. Then, we can talk about what that means, especially if it's when she's President.
|
You shouldn't be so passive because the bill has already been fast tracked, and according to Elizabeth Warren if it is passed, it will be in effect to at least 2021. These trade agreements are virtually permanent. You don't want another repeat of NAFTA on your hands. You can't reverse these things. This isn't something to be taken lightly.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
I don't believe I'm taking a chance. I don't believe that she's going to flip, and I don't believe it will be an issue.
If she does, before the election, it will impact my decision to support her and I will take a critical look at whether she's right for the nomination or Presidency, because I do know it's a significant issue.
But I do not believe she will.
|
Ok. You have much faith in her character. I can only put that down to blind optimism but lets agree do disagree.
Say she changes her stance after winning the primaries? What are you to do? Vote GP? 
She doesn't even have to change her mind during the elections. She can do it while in office. This is still a very low visibility bill. She is not bound to a 2 minute interview she had on abc.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
Martha Roby is perhaps more irritating than Brooks today. I haven't heard anything useful from her yet.
This damn hearing is a witch hunt. The panel doesn't want to ask what Hillary thinks went wrong, or what she thinks should change - they're asking, "what did YOU do wrong, and why?"
|
LOL, she did something wrong. One of her newly revealed emails sent to an Egyptian official revealed that she knew the night of Benghazi that it was a planned terrorist attack. She herself wrote it. Then two days later, she and several white officials lie to the media and the families that the attack was based on a video. They then arrest a private citizen for the video because it "incited" attack halfway around he world (like what happened to free speech). Many believe they did it secure Obama's election. You don't think she should be held accountable for that?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
"No, no - what could YOU have done? Personally? Why was it your fault?"
That's all they're fishing for. Awful people.
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
I believe this was last leaked of the TPP bill. As you can see it was in February of 2011.. This had all the content progressives were worried about.
Yet in March of 2011, at the Seniors Officials Meeting she had no criticisms whatsoever.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092.../03/157940.htm
You shouldn't be so passive because the bill has already been fast tracked, and according to Elizabeth Warren if it is passed, it will be in effect to at least 2021. These trade agreements are virtually permanent. You don't want another repeat of NAFTA on your hands. You can't reverse these things. This isn't something to be taken lightly.
|
First - are you Hillary? Do you know what parts she takes issue with, and what she values over other parts? Do you know what has actually changed since then, details she very well could know as former SoS?
Second - I have the time to be passive because there is time until it is approved. If we're talking about Hillary theoretically making the decision to sign or veto the final deal, that's almost a year and a half away. More significantly, however, it will very likely be Obama to sign or veto; it's expected to come up during his time as the lame duck President or even before that during the summer of 2016.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
LOL, she did something wrong. One of her newly revealed emails sent to an Egyptian official revealed that she knew the night of Benghazi that it was a planned terrorist attack. She herself wrote it. Then two days later, she and several white officials lie to the media and the families that the attack was based on a video. They then arrest a private citizen for the video because it "incited" attack halfway around he world (like what happened to free speech). Many believe they did it secure Obama's election. You don't think she should be held accountable for that?
|
Provide me that email. Then provide me her thoughts, the thoughts of other officials and the President, and thoughts of whoever made the arrest.
Unless you can do that and I see that she lied without good reason, of her own accord, and ordered herself the arrest of the citizen who produced that video with her reasoning solely being to save face, I will not think she should be held accountable.
Otherwise, I will maintain the position that we are not Hillary, we are not Obama, and we do not have all the details. We have what we are given, and should be wary of drawing conclusions that we cannot fully defend.
As Javan noted, I'm a blind optimist. I like to see the good in things when it isn't totally obscured. Take that as you will, but I want actual hard facts showing that she is culpable for something before I buy into the (mostly GOP-paraded) claim that she is.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,240
|
Conservatives are being so extra on FB today.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
Provide me that email. Then provide me her thoughts, the thoughts of other officials and the President, and thoughts of whoever made the arrest.
Unless you can do that and I see that she lied without good reason, of her own accord, and ordered herself the arrest of the citizen who produced that video with her reasoning solely being to save face, I will not think she should be held accountable.
Otherwise, I will maintain the position that we are not Hillary, we are not Obama, and we do not have all the details. We have what we are given, and should be wary of drawing conclusions that we cannot fully defend.
As Javan noted, I'm a blind optimist. I like to see the good in things when it isn't totally obscured. Take that as you will, but I want actual hard facts showing that she is culpable for something before I buy into the (mostly GOP-paraded) claim that she is.
|
Wow at you moving the goal post in order to confirm the beliefs you want to have. They are reading her emails on the news now and she explicitly says the attack was not based on a film. That's it. Anything after is a lie. Maybe Obama forced her to lie, who knows. But you're asking for telepathy powers to discern motive, instead of accountability for the real world result of the actions.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
I'm asking you for telepathy to illustrate how ridiculous it is to make such solid judgments of character based on outward actions when our government is so bad at being transparent.
*ties this response into a rambling I already wrote*
I mean, politics as a whole is a debate. I do not subscribe to the theory that HRC is without fault, but I note that almost no politician - especially in the current group of Democratic and Republican candidates - is without fault. I will note that almost no politician has failed to flip flop in their career, or "evolve" as some people like to nicely put it.
I find Hillary to be one of our most passionate politicians and by far the one in the modern field who is most ready and able to be President, especially with her diplomatic experience in a time of growing international tensions and globalization.
She's not the most honest human being in Washington, and she probably never was. She does likely have some personal interest in being in the highest seat in our government (next to the Chief Justice, arguably) and in being the so-called "leader of the free world."
But despite these facts, I support her because she knows the issues, she has the viewpoints I want in a candidate, and she is ready.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Hillary just winked  while Roskam was screaming
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,240
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Haburo
What percentage of the electorate could find Benghazi on a map/even point to the correct continent/even point to the correct hemisphere?
|
Quote:
|
Overall, 58 percent of respondents knew Benghazi was in Libya, compared with more than 40 percent who chose another location or said they were not sure
|
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/13/...d-it-on-a-map/
Not people thinking it's in Cuba though
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Hillary LITERALLY reading this dude under the table when he tried to get smart and took one of her statements out of context 
|
|
|
|
|
|
