Why does hillary clinton suck?

[b.c.]

You are a liar, bc and you are a serious detriment to this forum.

In the interest of decorum, I shall put you and your loud mouthed empty headed friends on ignore again.

Riiiiiiiiight. Figured you wouldn't have much of a rebuttal.

 

[Industrialsize]

You are kidding me?

Is this not reported in the U.S.?

Can you read the articles online?

No I am not kidding. I can read very well and am quite well informed. Please explain to me the "nefarious" nature of the Clinton Foundation? Hint: the Clinton Foundation is a charity that should be praised for its good works.

 

[Industrialsize]

How does the charity world see the political brouhaha over the foundation?
"It's unfortunate that it's become this punching bag, this political punching bag," Borochoff said. "There's a lot of things that are said that are false. If Hillary Clinton wasn't running for president, the Clinton Foundation would be seen as one of the great humanitarian charities of our generation."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/

 

[Klingsor]

Funny, I'd feel the same if I were a Clinton supporter.

No matter who wins the election, a significant part of the population will utterly despise the next president from day one. It's too bad things have become so polarized, but I see few signs of that changing any time soon.

 

[Chrysippus]

No matter who wins the election, a significant part of the population will utterly despise the next president from day one. It's too bad things have become so polarized, but I see few signs of that changing any time soon.

And this wasn't true for Obama? I mean Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim non-American black man now in office? He may not have been a liar, a thief, a fraud, a misogynist, or a racist, but he is despised by a significant part of the population, and we all know why...

 

[Drifterwood]

No i am not kidding. I can read very well and am quite well informed. Please explain to me the "nefarious" nature of the Clinton Foundation? Hint: the Clinton Foundation is a charity that should be praised for its good works.

The issue with the foundation, or issues, allegedly are that donations from foreign "governments", interests and companies are seen to buy access to the US government department and people of your choice. There are also questions as to the number of donors who also have supported her campaign to the extent that donations to the foundation are another way to buy influence. This is what is being reported in Europe. Foreign companies etc are apparently barred from financially supporting internal political campaigns.

I would guess that along with the emails etc her opponents find her a bit "dodgy".

I am sure the charity does great things as well as enhance the Clinton's personal prestige.

 

[Drifterwood]

Riiiiiiiiight. Figured you wouldn't have much of a rebuttal.

BC your attacks on me are ad hominem, to the point of trolling me. If you actually addressed the point I made rather than continue our disagreement over other things, I would perhaps answer you. But you haven't made a counter point to the specific one in this thread.

 

[ActionBuddy]

Hillary Clinton Says No Ground Troops in Iraq 'Ever Again'
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-ground-troops-iraq/story?id=41937708

Oopsy!...

US Iraq agree on plan to send more American troops
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/us-iraq-agree-on-plan-to-send-more-american-troops/

A/B

 

[Industrialsize]

The issue with the foundation, or issues, allegedly are that donations from foreign "governments", interests and companies are seen to buy access to the US government department and people of your choice. There are also questions as to the number of donors who also have supported her campaign to the extent that donations to the foundation are another way to buy influence. This is what is being reported in Europe. Foreign companies etc are apparently barred from financially supporting internal political campaigns.

I would guess that along with the emails etc her opponents find her a bit "dodgy".

I am sure the charity does great things as well as enhance the Clinton's personal prestige.

All donations to the Clinton Foundation are disclosed. There are no secrets. I'm glad you used the word allegedly. There has been NO PROOF found that any donations to the Clinton Foundation in any way were rewarded with "Access" that did not go through normal State Department Procedures. Donating to the Clinton Foundation in NO WAY assists Secretary Clinton in her campaign for President. It is not in any way part of her campaign. It was founded after Bill left office. The Clintons do not receive one cent from the Foundation. As I said before, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about the Clinton Foundation, just right wing noise. However, the Trump Foundation is another story. That's the Foundation with real scandals. That foundation benefits one person, Mr Trump.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

BC your attacks on me are ad hominem, to the point of trolling me. If you actually addressed the point I made rather than continue our disagreement over other things, I would perhaps answer you. But you haven't made a counter point to the specific one in this thread.

I'm curious how do you feel about trump not showing his taxes and bragging about being smart in NOT paying taxes? Do you have a comment about that? Should business people not only avoid taxes but be proud of it to point of bragging? And how does that relate to trump's tax plan for the rich? I think people refer to it as trickledown economics. If rich people are avoiding, not paying and in general getting tax breaks how is that fair to the america people?

Trump mentioned how disastrous some neighborhoods are. Isn't that because those areas don't have the money to rebuild their areas? And isn't that because the government or states aren't getting enough in taxes? Once more, why hasn't trump shown his tax returns? Is there something stopping him? What impact would be had if the rich DIDN'T evade taxes and get tax breaks? What the country be better off? Having more money going to infrastructure and jobs?

Why would trump be proud of being able to make money off of the housing bubble? Doesn't he know that that harmed a lot of americans? Does he just not care? Is he going to do anything to help? Is his only plans that of kicking muslims out of the country and giving the rich tax breaks?

Are you going to counter any of these questions?

 

[deleted15807]

I'm curious how do you feel about trump not showing his taxes and bragging about being smart in NOT paying taxes? Do you have a comment about that? Should business people not only avoid taxes but be proud of it to point of bragging? And how does that relate to trump's tax plan for the rich? I think people refer to it as trickledown economics. If rich people are avoiding, not paying and in general getting tax breaks how is that fair to the america people?

Trump mentioned how disastrous some neighborhoods are. Isn't that because those areas don't have the money to rebuild their areas? And isn't that because the government or states aren't getting enough in taxes?

If you're looking for logic look elsewhere. Don't pay taxes then complain about crumbling infrastructure. You can get the rubes to buy anything as long as you blame it on some minority.

"Only the little people pay taxes"

-Leona Helmsley

 

[Crimsonlurker]

If you're looking for logic look elsewhere. Don't pay taxes then complain about crumbling infrastructure. You can get the rubes to buy anything as long as you blame it on some minority.

"Only the little people pay taxes"

-Leona Helmsley

Oh i agree, the only logic i can think of regarding it would have to be very very dishonest and maybe criminal. It being an attempt to displace blame but i wonder how Drifterwood feels about it. Since he's been so vocal about certain topics while ignoring others. I just wanted to get @Drifterwood 's thoughts on trump's tax plan and trump's actions regarding taxes. I'm sure since he has injected himself into american politics he has got to know exactly what trump said and did. I'm just curious what Drifterwood thinks about it. My bet is that Drifterwood doesn't agree with trump's tax plan for the rich and doesn't agree with trump's actions regarding tax and doesn't agree with trump bragging about avoiding taxes but we can't know for sure until Drifterwood replies to that very exact grouping of issues and questions.

 

[b.c.]

BC your attacks on me are ad hominem, to the point of trolling me. If you actually addressed the point I made rather than continue our disagreement over other things, I would perhaps answer you. But you haven't made a counter point to the specific one in this thread.

I've only quoted YOUR exact words, whereas your attacks upon ME have been either mischaracterizations of my positions, or personal, venomous, insults.

Like the time (in the Ferguson thread) you deliberately maligned my position by suggesting I was an advocate for the killing of cops.

Or like above in post 353 where you called me a "dumb ass lying fool."

Or in post 360 where you said "you are a liar... and a serious detriment to this forum."

Or here ( https://www.lpsg.com/threads/ferguson.402034/page-39#post-5450585 ) when you said, "BC, you are an ass. A pompous bombastic egotistical ass with a myopic view of the world."

But I guess none of that should MATTER, eh?

I didn't address your Clinton dig because it was ALREADY addressed in another's response.

And YES, when a person who, on numerous occasions stated that he doesn't involve himself in American politics, or doesn't usually comment in U.S. threads makes it HIS business to disparage the concerns of black people about racial inequities,

and makes it HIS business to attack ONE presidential candidate while completely ignoring the faults of the other, then I think it VALID to point out to anyone who may be reading your comments what positions you've held AND what comments you've made on previous occasions.

If it's any consolation, know that I have some QUITE definite opinions of one who'd seek to apply ANY type of "logic" to someone shouting at a black person, "Go back to Africa." Take comfort in the knowledge that what I HAVE said about it isn't anywhere NEARLY as harsh as what I actually THINK about it.

So YOU considering me a "serious detriment to the forum" is something I take a COMPLIMENT.

 

[Drifterwood]

All donations to the Clinton Foundation are disclosed. There are no secrets. I'm glad you used the word allegedly. There has been NO PROOF found that any donations to the Clinton Foundation in any way were rewarded with "Access" that did not go through normal State Department Procedures. Donating to the Clinton Foundation in NO WAY assists Secretary Clinton in her campaign for President. It is not in any way part of her campaign. It was founded after Bill left office. The Clintons do not receive one cent from the Foundation. As I said before, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about the Clinton Foundation, just right wing noise. However, the Trump Foundation is another story. That's the Foundation with real scandals. That foundation benefits one person, Mr Trump.

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

"The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday"

If the Foundation Officials are admitting that they broke their rules, I am not sure why you are maintaining that they did not.

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

Here are two articles from what I believe to be your leading media. The record also apparently shows that half of the organisations that gave money gained access to Hillary in her role in the State Department. She clearly enjoys power and using it, whether this makes her suck or not is not my place to comment, but her Washington Establishment life is something that can be justifiably attacked by her opponents.

 

[chrisrobin]

There's a lot of general antipathy toward Hillary Clinton out there, a lot of insinuations of her being untrustworthy or corrupt or other things, but I've seen few specifics as to why. It's time I dug into this. So let's hear it: why does she suck so hard? Feel free to point me in the direction of some good reading on this topic too.

she doesn't suck she hires in a proxy

 

[Jjz1109]

What's disappointing but oh so typical a la Swift Boat is the "liberal media's" absence in letting the public know that the entire "email scandal" is just another manufactured scandal that was only pursued when the other made up scandal, Benghazi, failed to terminate her candidacy. "Judicial Watch" which has been the main driver is owned and run by the 1% Scaife family that has been after the Clintons now for 20 years.

A must read...

“Untrustworthy Hillary” is a media construct relentlessly pushed by people who gain politically from it. Regardless of where you stand on Hillary Clinton, you owe it to yourself to know who are the players that have worked so hard for 25 years to push that meme into your consciousness.

The People Who Taught You to Hate Hillary, Part I: Judicial Watch
​

So "Why Does Hillary Clinton Suck"? Because we've been teaching you for 25 years to hate her. And you all have been excellent students. You never ask any questions. You never challenge the teacher. You blindly go forward with the lesson.

Right, just another in the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (please google) against her and her husband. But why do they both continue to give us so much to work with?

 

[Industrialsize]

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

"The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday"

If the Foundation Officials are admitting that they broke their rules, I am not sure why you are maintaining that they did not.

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

Here are two articles from what I believe to be your leading media. The record also apparently shows that half of the organisations that gave money gained access to Hillary in her role in the State Department. She clearly enjoys power and using it, whether this makes her suck or not is not my place to comment, but her Washington Establishment life is something that can be justifiably attacked by her opponents.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."
FALSE

 

[GiantDreamer]

Hillary doesn't suck. That's why Bill went to Monica lol

 

[Jjz1109]

No matter who wins the election, a significant part of the population will utterly despise the next president from day one. It's too bad things have become so polarized, but I see few signs of that changing any time soon.

Let's all hope we hit the reset button in four years and have some better choices to choose from.

 

[Drifterwood]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."
FALSE

Because I am not partisan, this is not a two wrongs make a right question for me. I just look at the career and life of Hillary and I can understand why a lot of people don't take to her and don't take to the persona that she presents. It will be very interesting to see what she does with the ultimate power if she gets it.