Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 34 of 46
Quote:The Houston Chronicle noticed, but its editorial board did not come to your conclusion. Why would that be?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Did anyone notice that her reaction, by itself, indicates unfitness for office?
It's not because the Republicans controlling the Chronicle love Hillary. It's because Trump is . . . well, read the editorial to discover what is so very wrong with Trump.
www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650
345.php
For Hillary Clinton
These are unsettling times that require a steady hand, and that’s not Donald Trump.
On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.
Her opponent
The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.
An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let’s say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation’s future, about each candidate’s experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them — fairly and decisively, we should point out — is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.
Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities — his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance — is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, ”I alone can fix it,” should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.
It’s telling that so many Republicans have distanced themselves from their party’s nominee. That sizeable list includes a number of prominent Texans, Bush family members foremost among them, as well as Sen. Cruz and House Speaker Joe Straus. These stalwart Republicans are concerned not only about the future of their party (and, with the exception of the two Bush presidents, their own political careers), but, more important, they’re concerned about the future of this nation.
It would not be surprising to discover that these experienced politicians and public servants share the existential concern that first lady Michelle Obama raised in her powerful speech on behalf of Clinton at the party convention in Philadelphia: “Because when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military at your command, you can’t make snap decisions. You can’t have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. You need to be steady and measured and well-informed.”
Experience
Americans know Hillary Clinton; post-Philadelphia, they’re even better acquainted with “the real Hillary Clinton,” as her husband phrased it. After her quarter century and more in the public eye, they know her strengths and her weaknesses. Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to her experience as first lady, as U.S. senator, as secretary of state and as candidate for president will have at least a general notion of her positions on the issues. As President Obama noted, she’s the most qualified person in years to serve as president — “and that includes Bill and me.” The only candidate to come close is Geor
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you referring to the part about the RUSSIAN MSM being in bed, or maybe only in Platonic love, with Trump?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In all of the falderal about "Russia" "hacking" the DNC, one important aspect of the story was buried by the MSM: . . .
Russian television shows what the Kremlin thinks of Clinton
Lynn Berry, Associated Press Updated 12:44 pm, Sunday, July 31, 2016
MOSCOW (AP) — To understand what the Kremlin thinks about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the U.S. president, it was enough to watch Russian state television coverage of her accepting the Democratic nomination.
Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted, while the Democratic Party convention was portrayed as further proof that American democracy is a sham.
While Trump's position on NATO has delighted the Kremlin, Clinton's statement clearly stung.
"She mentioned Russia only once, but it was enough to see that the era of the reset is over," Channel One said in its report.
www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/Russian-television-shows-what-
Kremlin-thinks-of-8869848.php
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Paul Manafort, Trumps chief campaign aide has strong ties to the ousted Ukraine leader or put another way, Putin's stooge. Talk about the three stooges.
Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s chief campaign aide
A lawyer for Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s chief campaign aide, acknowledged Tuesday evening that the longtime GOP operative has been questioned by officials from the Cayman Islands in connection with a $26.2 million investment by a billionaire Russian oligarch who was his partner in an ill-fated telecommunications development in Ukraine. The lawyer’s comments came in response to an earlier story by Yahoo News about the Cayman officials’ efforts to track down Manafort for his testimony.
The dispute goes back years, but last summer, court-appointed liquidators from the Cayman Islands initiated legal action in federal court in Alexandria, Va., seeking to question under oath Manafort and two business partners about a business deal involving firms controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate who for years was barred from entering the United States over allegations of ties to organized crime.
“These guys are chasing their money,” said Rick Davis, one of the partners subpoenaed in the case and the manager of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “They [Deripaska’s firms] invested in something and it just went away. They are actually trying to track down where the company went and where the [money] went.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-campaign-chief-ducks-questions-about
-214020365.html
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
George Stephanopoulos awkwardly corrects Donald Trump when he says Putin 'is not going into Ukraine
(Donald Trump in an interview on "This Week."ABC)
ABC host George Stephanopoulos corrected Donald Trump after the Republican presidential nominee claimed that Russia was "not going to go into Ukraine."
In an interview on ABC's "This Week" that aired Sunday, Trump asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not going to invade Ukraine, where pro-Russian rebels — and some Russian special forces — have been operating for several years despite Putin's reluctance to acknowledge any role.
"He's not going into Ukraine, just so you understand. He's not going to go to Ukraine," Trump said.
"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanopoulos replied.
Trump responded by simultaneously criticizing the US's decision not to intervene to stop the annexation of Crimea, a former Ukrainian territory seized by Russia in 2014, and noting that many citizens of Crimea were allegedly supportive of Russia's decision to invade.
"Well, he's there in a certain way, but I'm not there. You have Obama there," Trump said. "And frankly that part of the world is mess, under Obama. With all the strength that you're talking about, and with all the power of NATO, and all of this, in the mean time, [Putin] takes Crimea."
Holly Shit Trump is all over the place. He is clueless.
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I have noticed is that you are voting for a bigot and traitor who asked another country to involve itself in our elections.
Unhunh. I take it you don't 'do' sarcasm?
Asking someone to hack another is also a crime.
Let's see that statute, big boy. I'm sure you have it at hand. BTW, it's those over-the-top, completely unsupported (and bogus) claims you freely post everywhere that reduce your limited credibility even further.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Second, you have a serious problem assuming that Trump somehow excuses everything that's wrong with Clinton. If you REALLY want Clinton to win the WH you need to stop being in denial, and start thinking about what SHE needs to be doing to address the things that are making her poll only on par with Trump. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_elec
tion_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Originally posted by second:
It's not because the Republicans controlling the Chronicle love Hillary. It's because Trump is . . . well, read the editorial to discover what is so very wrong with Trump.
www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650
345.php
For Hillary Clinton
These are unsettling times that require a steady hand, and that’s not Donald Trump.
On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.
Her opponent
The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.
An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let’s say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation’s future, about each candidate’s experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them — fairly and decisively, we should point out — is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.
Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities — his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance — is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, ”I alone can fix it,” should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.
It’s telling that so many Republicans have distanced themselves from their party’s nominee. That sizeable list includes a number of prominent Texans, Bush family members foremost among them, as well as Sen. Cruz and House Speaker Joe Straus. These stalwart Republicans are concerned not only about the future of their party (and, with the exception of the two Bush presidents, their own political careers), but, more important, they’re concerned about the future of this nation.
It would not be surprising to discover that these experienced politicians and public servants share the existential concern that first lady Michelle Obama raised in her powerful speech on behalf of Clinton at the party convention in Philadelphia: “Because when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military at your command, you can’t make snap decisions. You can’t have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. You need to be steady and measured and well-informed.”
Experience
Americans know Hillary Clinton; post-Philadelphia, they’re even better acquainted with “the real Hillary Clinton,” as her husband phrased it. After her quarter century and more in the public eye, they know her strengths and her weaknesses. Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to her experience as first lady, as U.S. senator, as secretary of state and as candidate for preside
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In all of the falderal about "Russia" "hacking" the DNC, one important aspect of the story was buried by the MSM" ..."Are you referring to the part about the RUSSIAN MSM ..."
Strawman AGAIN, second? Your record is starting to rival geezer's for sheer sleaze, and that's saying something.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You can vote for any of the thousand candidates for President, but it is really only a binary choice: Hillary or Trump.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Second, you have a serious problem assuming that Trump somehow excuses everything that's wrong with Clinton. If you REALLY want Clinton to win the WH you need to stop being in denial, and start thinking about what SHE needs to be doing to address the things that are making her poll only on par with Trump.
www.politics1.com/p2016.htm
If Hillary loses to Trump, it will be her fault. On the other hand, because of the mechanical nature of elections, the choice is only Hillary or Trump. Green Party's Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico and Libertarian, can't be elected because of the Electoral College. Since it was made impossible by the Constitution, there will be no rescue by a White Knight riding in and becoming the next President after slaying both the dragons Hillary and Trump. Choose your dragon!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A lot of people have made their choice - which is why Hillary is unbelievably just scraping by on par with Donald. Donald! of all people.
What I posted WWAAAAAaaay at the beginning was that it will be decided by who has the fewest people running away from them. That's sad for a democracy, but still true.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
*** IF *** Hillary is a democrat - she is, isn't she? - then she could get a lot of support by hewing to Democratic Party principles, which are 1) sticking up for the little guy and 2) being the party of peace. Or, more practically, 1) disavowing 'free' trade agreements and 2) reversing her neo-CON pro-war agenda.
Let me ask you, second, do you think those two things could garner Hillary extra votes?
538 The Big Issues Of The 2016 Campaign
The Economy
By Ben Casselman
After two straight elections dominated by economic issues, 2016 is shaping up to be … another election dominated by economic issues.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Extra votes? Who knows? But I googled proxy questions for your actual questions 1) and 2).
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Or, more practically, 1) disavowing 'free' trade agreements and 2) reversing her neo-CON pro-war agenda.
Let me ask you, second, do you think those two things could garner Hillary extra votes?
1) What is Hillary's position on TPP?
Hillary: I oppose CAFTA & TPP, but global economy needs trade
CLINTON: I voted for a multinational trade agreement, but I opposed CAFTA because I did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of America. I did hope that the TPP, negotiated by this administration, I was holding out hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. Once I saw the outcome, I opposed it. I have a very clear view. We have to trade with the rest of the world. We are 5 percent of the world's population. We have to trade with the other 95 percent. And trade has to be reciprocal. That's the way the global economy works. But we have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy.
I absorbed new info and changed my mind to oppose TPP
Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not.
www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
2) What is Hillary’s position on the Iraq War?
At CNN’s Feb. 4 town hall in Derry, New Hampshire, Sanders described the vote, with good reason, as “the key foreign policy vote of modern American history.” Clinton, he suggested, came down on the wrong side of history; Sanders, who voted against a similar bill in the House (where he served at the time), chose the right side.
In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_c
linton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME