Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
If it really were so simple, why all of these cover-ups?

Mediamatters is a Clinton front group and is also a left-wing propaganda machine.

The fact is Chairman Trey Gowdy tried to run a decent hearing (no thanks to Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, who tried to turn the whole thing into a Clinton campaign ad) and even asked for political candidates NOT to run ads on the hearings as he clearly wanted to conduct them fairly.

Now, McCarthy came under heavy fire for those comments—and rightly so. But the fact that Gowdy personally appealed for no ads to be run says something about his character as a committee chair.

This is what is meant about standing up to the establishment of both parties so that he could do his job.

He wasn’t going to take the Democrat’s nonsense because they were scared of their frontrunner being irreparably damaged and he wasn’t going to let the GOP candidates compromise the integrity of the hearings with ads because frankly it’s not his job (despite McCarthy’s arrogant comments) to help them win elections but to oversee a committee.

One would think that paying those campaign consultants as much as they do wouldn’t require such shenanigans. 😊

Also, Hanna and McCarthy are probably two of the biggest reasons why the republican race is down to Cruz and the current frontrunner.

If the State Department had done its job and come clean, we wouldn’t even be in this mess.

One has to wonder why Hillary didn’t come out and cooperate immediately; instead she undoubtedly opted to protect the president’s re-election bid.

Remember, the mainstream media covered for the Democrats in October 2012 so that Obama/Biden could win and perhaps even so Reid could keep his majority in the Senate.

A consequence of that safety net is what is happening today.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what Mediamatters is in this case. What people said is what they said. They don’t deny it. Other Websites carry the same information.

I don’t see any cover-ups in this matter. What I see are Republicans trying to make something appear to be what it is not. They admit the Benghazi hearings were an attempt to tarnish Clinton’s reputation. It’s an attempt that didn’t work.

I don’t think politicians are lily-white, but I think the corruption exists on both sides. And I’m not speaking of anyone in particular, just in general.
 
otjm said:
Stevens was posted May 22, 2012.

On June 7, 2012 he requested Mobile Security Deployments; they were refused.
as a basis for his request, he listed increasing attacks against international organizations and foreign interests, including an attack on a U.N. official in Benghazi, and IED explosion at the consulate compound and a rocket propelled grenade attack on the British ambassador’s convoy.

On August 6 in an email he discussed the security situation; on august 8 a cable mentioned a series of violent incidents and warned that the local security forces the Obama administration was relying on to protect diplomats “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence”.

And on the day of his capture, brutal beating and sodomization and finally his murder, he reiterated the warning.
Click to expand...
Link?

Why then did he refuse extra security when it was offered?

“Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked that security not be increased at the Benghazi consulate. I know US diplomatic personnel posted to places like Beirut where the US embassy is a fortress and they just can’t very easily get out and mingle with Lebanese. They deeply regret the imposed isolation and feel it interferes with them doing their jobs as diplomats. But, well, security in Beirut for embassies isn’t always very good. I was in Libya in May-June 2012 and walked around without incident, and it just was not the case that the situation was Beirut-like at that time. Stevens had supported the Libyan revolution and valued his ability to move among Libyans, who loved him, and did not want to be isolated by security. The Secretary of State doesn’t micromanage these matters, an Stevens was rightly given control over this issue.”

readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/21554-five-reasons-benghazi-wasnt-hilary-clintons-fault
 
Catholic supporters of Hillary Clinton - what do you think is going to happen to issues such as abortion, to religious liberty, if Hillary Clinton becomes President? This election could decide how long Roe v Wade stands. The stakes are absolutely massive!

Clinton: Election ‘make or break’ for Supreme Court
“This election is about more than just one seat on the court,” Clinton said at the University of Wisconsin. “The next president could end up nominating multiple justices. That means the president elected this fall could determine the future of the court for decades to come.”
Click to expand...
washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-election-make-or-break-for-supreme-court/article/2587023?custom_click=rss
she offered that she would not appoint someone who thought Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide, wasn’t settled law
Click to expand...
m.lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/at-uw-madison-hillary-clinton-urges-voters-to-think-of/article_601a4be2-d903-5522-8542-5de2b50c0fed.html
 
Lily_Bernans said:
A Republican appointed Supreme Court made it a Constitutional right. 🤷
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the presidential election of 2016? This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Did Eisenhower or Nixon have an abortion litmus test with their Supreme Court Justices? Neither may have had any knowledge of what was coming down the road before the Supreme Court, what would turn out to be, Roe v Wade. Who knows whether they would have changed their Supreme Court nominations if they knew that case was coming. I suspect despite what their personal positions on abortion were, that back then, abortion would not have been something that was looked at in regards to the Supreme Court justices views, correct me if I am wrong. This US presidential election could decide how long Roe v Wade stands.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Catholic supporters of Hillary Clinton - what do you think is going to happen to issues such as abortion, to religious liberty, if Hillary Clinton becomes President? This election could decide how long Roe v Wade stands. The stakes are absolutely massive!

Clinton: Election ‘make or break’ for Supreme Court

washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-election-make-or-break-for-supreme-court/article/2587023?custom_click=rss

m.lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/at-uw-madison-hillary-clinton-urges-voters-to-think-of/article_601a4be2-d903-5522-8542-5de2b50c0fed.html
Click to expand...
I haven’t read your links yet, but you bring up one of the most important aspects of this election in my opinion.

While I do not believe Roe v. Wade is in danger of being overturned, I do agree that the next President will probably (depending on how many terms she serves) have the opportunity to nominate 3-4 Justices to the Supreme Court. Clearly, a Democratic President will nominate jurists that likely lean left.

But I don’t think points that LB often makes - that the Supreme Court doesn’t always follow the makeup of its majority composition (Right or Left) when deciding cases - can be overlooked. I mean, for Heaven’s sake, a Right majority Court gave us Obergefell last June! Things on the bench aren’t always as black and white as some assume they should be.

1993’s PP v. Casey controls the abortion discussion these days and Casey is extraordinarily vague with its “undue burden” language. That language has allowed States to chip away at abortion rights by virtue of various and sundry TRAP laws and I think a fair few of those laws will reach the Supreme Court for consideration within the next 4 years. I look forward to a future court more specifically defining what “undue burden” is.

My personal opinion is that neither Democrats nor Republicans have any intention or desire to undo Roe v. Wade, though both parties will be delighted to continue to make hay with the political football that abortion rights has become.
 
Little_Sheep said:
I haven’t read your links yet, but you bring up one of the most important aspects of this election in my opinion.

While I do not believe Roe v. Wade is in danger of being overturned, I do agree that the next President will probably (depending on how many terms she serves) have the opportunity to nominate 3-4 Justices to the Supreme Court. Clearly, a Democratic President will nominate jurists that likely lean left.

But I don’t think points that LB often makes - that the Supreme Court doesn’t always follow the makeup of its majority composition (Right or Left) when deciding cases - can be overlooked. I mean, for Heaven’s sake, a Right majority Court gave us Obergefell last June! Things on the bench aren’t always as black and white as some assume they should be.

1993’s PP v. Casey controls the abortion discussion these days and Casey is extraordinarily vague with its “undue burden” language. That language has allowed States to chip away at abortion rights by virtue of various and sundry TRAP laws and I think a fair few of those laws will reach the Supreme Court for consideration within the next 4 years. I look forward to a future court more specifically defining what “undue burden” is.

My personal opinion is that neither Democrats nor Republicans have any intention or desire to undo Roe v. Wade, though both parties will be delighted to continue to make hay with the political football that abortion rights has become.
Click to expand...
I don’t think a Right majority did give America Obergefell. Roberts and Kennedy are known to be swing voters, moderates, but they are not known to be conservatives generally. Compare both of them to Scalia for example. Scalia was clearly of the Right, neither Kennedy and Roberts are.

Imagine a Supreme Court with three or four more justices in the mold of Scalia, or three or four of four more in the mold of Ginsburg? Roe v Wade could be overturned if the makeup of the court was with the former, if it’s the latter, if Hillary Clinton gets to make the nominations and has Roe v Wade being settled law as a litmus test, abortion could be legal a lot longer in America, and a lot more unborn babies die, than if one of the candidates who have said they want pro-life justices, were elected.

By the way, the Washington Post had an opinion article out a while back that I can not access right now because I would have to subscribe, titled,‘Democrats could destroy the GOP – if only they would welcome antiabortion liberals’. It is a shame for the pro-life movement that the Democratic Party is so hostile to sensible abortion restrictions, even if they wouldn’t support a total ban, and the Democratic Party is in turn probably paying in some way for that hostility because they could probably achieve more electorally etc. if they were more welcoming.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
A Republican appointed Supreme Court made it a Constitutional right. 🤷
Click to expand...
Does it really matter who ruled on the original case? Abortion is wrong no matter who voted for it. And as I recall it has expanded from how it was originally was decided to now including abortion at any time during the pregnancy. I not that some states, with GOP governors, have put constraints on the procedure. Kant noted legal scholars have said that the finding in the Constitution of such is flawed. If anything it should have gone back to the states as outlined in that document. What our legislators on the other side want is a SC that will legislate from the bench that which they cannot pass in Congress.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Catholic supporters of Hillary Clinton - what do you think is going to happen to issues such as abortion, to religious liberty, if Hillary Clinton becomes President? This election could decide how long Roe v Wade stands. The stakes are absolutely massive!

Clinton: Election ‘make or break’ for Supreme Court

washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-election-make-or-break-for-supreme-court/article/2587023?custom_click=rss

m.lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/at-uw-madison-hillary-clinton-urges-voters-to-think-of/article_601a4be2-d903-5522-8542-5de2b50c0fed.html
Click to expand...
Indeed:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took a feminist tone on Thursday. She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/hillary-on-abortion-deep-seated-cultural-codes-religious-beliefs-and-structural-biases-have-to-be-changed/#ixzz44IQZyLtJ
 
DeniseNY said:
Indeed:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took a feminist tone on Thursday. She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/hillary-on-abortion-deep-seated-cultural-codes-religious-beliefs-and-structural-biases-have-to-be-changed/#ixzz44IQZyLtJ
Click to expand...
That’s just a talking point for the Republicans. Hillary was talking about women’s rights and changing beliefs in patriarchal societies in which men “rule” women, whether their wives or not.

This has come up about 20 times. I guess you missed it. 🤷
 
Lily_Bernans said:
That’s just a talking point for the Republicans. Hillary was talking about women’s rights and changing beliefs in patriarchal societies in which men “rule” women, whether their wives or not.

This has come up about 20 times. I guess you missed it. 🤷
Click to expand...
Didn’t know you were the only one who could use talking points (particularly since you just gave the Democrat spin on her comments) My bad.
 
_Abyssinia said:
What does this have to do with the presidential election of 2016? This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Did Eisenhower or Nixon have an abortion litmus test with their Supreme Court Justices? Neither may have had any knowledge of what was coming down the road before the Supreme Court, what would turn out to be, Roe v Wade. Who knows whether they would have changed their Supreme Court nominations if they knew that case was coming. I suspect despite what their personal positions on abortion were, that back then, abortion would not have been something that was looked at in regards to the Supreme Court justices views, correct me if I am wrong. This US presidential election could decide how long Roe v Wade stands.
Click to expand...
If the Supreme Court justices who decided Roe v Wade in 1973 didn’t know what was coming, they were stupid, and we both know not one justice on the court was stupid. Quite the contrary. Abortion became legal in the state of New York in 1970, and women from all over the US were flocking to clinics there for abortions. My own mother had a friend who went there for an abortion; the friend was young and unmarried and not religious. The man who drove her said it made him sick just to be in the waiting room because of the lack of respect the would-be mothers, and fathers, had for their unborn children.

I don’t think this election will decide how long Roe v Wade stands. I think it’s going to stand for a long time. The 1973 court defined “person” constitutionally, and any court is going to be loathe to overturn what a previous court has upheld. It isn’t like they are overturning a lower court. The Supreme Court does not often overturn what an earlier court has upheld, though it has happened rarely. They would have to redefine the constitutional meaning of “person,” and I can’t see them doing that, especially Republicans because, as I said, they tend to be strict constructionists. However, I’m just one person, and that’s just my opinion.
 
DeniseNY said:
Didn’t know you were the only one who could use talking points (particularly since you just gave the Democrat spin on her comments) My bad.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to imply that you couldn’t use talking points. Sorry! Feel free to use them as often as you like. I have no control over who posts what.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top