Hillary Clinton Thread

[Sy_Noe]

So what do y’all think will happen in Arizona on Tuesday? From what I’ve seen, it looks like more Clinton and more Trump.

Nice change of pace, LS…

Well…

AZ, I think might be similar to NV. Hillary and the Donald. I do think Bernie can do well though.

Utah, I’m going with Cruz and Bernie.

Idaho, Bernie?

American Samoa for the Republicans, Cruz??

Pay no attn to my predictions though. I was only perfect thru February.

But on the Democratic side with her huge lead and proportional delegate apportionment, Hillary still maintains her path to a successful nomination and hopefully the Presidency.

 

[Sy_Noe]

---

You have distracted yourself over another excuse for abortion. NO excuse for abortion.
You are Protestant - that isn’t going to matter. If YOU do not accept Christian teaching don’t suggest you are doing so because Christian teaching is not SOUND. It will be a discussion for another day for sure and you may find yourself learning something. Don’t wait until its too late. Abortion is killing - the 5th Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.
Don’t be confused or distracted with examples of exceptions or what is legal. Peace.

This confuses me. What do you mean “if YOU do not accept Christian teaching”? Doesn’t the poster whose post you were responding to identify as Episcopalian? I thought Episcopalians and Protestants are Christians. Or are you saying you believe only Catholic teaching is Christian teaching?

 

[YADA]

Pregnancy, abortion, motherhood and our individual beliefs about all of these things - many of us recognize these issues to be profoundly complicated and profoundly personal. I am unable to answer hypotheticals about these things because my answers would be meaningless.

I cannot possibly know everything that might inform a woman concerning her health or the things that occur in or to her body. I trust each woman to make these choices for herself because I cannot begin to imagine who else has a right to make them for her. Her government? Her neighbor? Her boss? Her pastor? Not on my watch.

I support the wisdom and justice of Roe v. Wade.

If there was true wisdom and justice in Roe v Wade - the people who brought the suit would not have had to lie and make up a story … the entire case of Roe v Wade was a lie - fabricated …

There can be no justice that comes from lies:
thefreelibrary.com/%22Jane+Roe%22+Tells+True+Story+Behind+Roe+v.+Wade+Norma+McCorvey+Says…-a055342471

amazon.com/Compelling-Interest-Real-Story-behind/dp/1618431137

wnd.com/2001/02/8054/

 

[YADA]

How many “serious academics” are proposing killing a child with Down syndrome or one who is an economic burden? I recall one such article on the topic. Who else among serious academics has proposed this?

Here are three - Govind Persad · Alan Wertheimer · Ezekiel J Emanuel

archive.larouchepac.com/node/11188
ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

We know Ezekiel J Emanuel is Rahm Emanuel’s brother and that Rahm is a close advisor and close friends with Hillary and Bill Clinton … the above articles illustrates the views of Ezekiel Emanuel on the “Complete Lives System” …

 

[YADA]

Yes, that’s the ONE I alluded to. But who else among serious or not-so-serious academics has agreed with him?

Here are three - Govind Persad · Alan Wertheimer · Ezekiel J Emanuel

Ezekiel Emanuel is Rahm Emanuel’s brother … Rahm - at least - has close ties to the Clintons

 

[Tomdstone]

Here are three - Govind Persad · Alan Wertheimer · Ezekiel J Emanuel

archive.larouchepac.com/node/11188
ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

We know Ezekiel J Emanuel is Rahm Emanuel’s brother and that Rahm is a close advisor and close friends with Hillary and Bill Clinton … the above articles illustrates the views of Ezekiel Emanuel on the “Complete Lives System” …

Are they talking about direct killing here, or are they talking about how to allocate scarce resources? For example, suppose your blood bank is low and you have 5 people that need blood immediately. But you have only enough blood to save one person. Then what? Do you think that tossing a coin is a fair way to determine who gets the blood, or do you use some sort of plan such as they seem to recommend, so that the person saved is the one who has the most chance of living longer than the others?

 

[Theo520]

I wonder whether the upcoming Democratic Party Platform will end up being even more pro-abortion than the one from four years ago. It seems to become more pro-abortion with each election cycle. No doubt Hillary will embrace the pro-abortion planks enthusiastically.

With PP being defunded in many states, I would think the ‘war on women’ will remain a central pillar of the dem platform. If not for the POTUS election then to get out the vote and win back some of the State level positions they’ve been losing.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thanks for enlightening me on how things work in the US!

You’re welcome. It gets a lot more complicated than that, though, with states’ rights, etc. Politically, things were a lot easier when I lived in a small country like Switzerland, but then we were voting almost every weekend on something.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

There’s 0% chance of that happening because Secretaries of State before Hillary (including Republican SOS) did the exact same thing she did and were subsequently investigated in the exact same way.

Our government, like the rest of us, is still trying to keep up with the extraordinary changes in technology we have experienced since the birth of the Internet.

I think there’s a 0% chance of indictment, too, LS. Even if the FBI would recommend indictment, it would be Loretta Lynch’s call. Ultimately, though, I think it would be up to Obama, and I don’t think he’s going to opt to prosecute the Democratic front runner.

Some people have compared Clinton’s case to that of David Petraeus, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Petraeus was sharing classified information with his mistress; Hillary was conducting business with her staff.

An indictment of Clinton would open the door for indictments of others who have used non-government servers, and that would be a mess because just about everyone has. They just aren’t running for president.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Even if Hillary Clinton were to be indicted, and I think there is a 0% chance of that, she could still run for president. There is nothing unconstitutional about an indicted person running for president. If she dropped out, her delegates would have to go to someone. Her super delegates are not bound to vote for her or for her choice of person to replace her. So they could vote for Sanders or someone who would step in, like Joe Biden, perhaps, or Andrew Cuomo. But indictment isn’t going to happen even if the FBI should recommend it, and I don’t think they will. Of course for those who like cloak-and-dagger, and I don’t, it must be remembered that shortly after Benghazi, Obama selected a Republican to be head of the FBI, a man who would be great at “taking Hillary down” should it come to that, and Obama has not endorsed Clinton’s candidacy as yet. I would imagine his legacy is more important to him than Clinton’s nomination or presidency.

Upcoming elections, Ted Cruz does well in caucuses; Trump does not. So I think Cruz is going to win Utah, and maybe Bernie. Mormons are yet another group of people Trump has alienated.

Arizona will probably go to Trump and Clinton.

I don’t see either Trump or Cruz arriving at the convention with enough delegates for nomination. I do see the RNC rewriting the rules so Cruz’s name can be placed in nomination on the first ballot. And I see him ultimately winning. However, should Cruz win the Republican nomination, there’s always the problem the “birthers” are going to make, and Trump running third party and splitting the Republican vote, which is good for the Democrats.

 

[mary_bobo]

Are you talking about emails deemed classified retroactively?

Are you saying that Hillary is not sharp enough to recognize what kind of information should and should not be transferred on a non-government server with regard to national security? Does she need a designation of classified to know that it is by virtue of her position as SoS?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some people have compared Clinton’s case to that of David Petraeus, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Petraeus was sharing classified information with his mistress; Hillary was conducting business with her staff.

I agree in a way that they’re not fair comparisons. Not that I approve of men having paramours, but Petraeus’ paramour was cleared for top secret information; just not this particular information. Hillary exposed state secrets to the world.

 

[randomuser]

With PP being defunded in many states, I would think the ‘war on women’ will remain a central pillar of the dem platform. If not for the POTUS election then to get out the vote and win back some of the State level positions they’ve been losing.

PP now has a cheerleader in both parties (thanks to ____), so the “war on women” really can’t be a Dem narrative anymore.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I agree in a way that they’re not fair comparisons. Not that I approve of men having paramours, but Petraeus’ paramour was cleared for top secret information; just not this particular information. Hillary exposed state secrets to the world.

I don’t think it’s fair to say Hillary exposed state secrets to the world. She sent them over a server that was not a government server. And, it was the government server that was hacked, not Hillary’s and Bill’s, so in a strange sort of way, Hillary unwittingly protected state secrets.

Other government employees were using unsecured servers as well. They just aren’t running for president.

Hillary has admitted that even though others were doing it, it wasn’t the best decision, and even though I like her, I’d have to say, that wasn’t the best decision. It might have been convenient, but it wasn’t the best thing to do. That happens a lot of the time, though when “everyone is doing it.” Or nearly everyone.

 

[Jeanne_S]

If there was true wisdom and justice in Roe v Wade - the people who brought the suit would not have had to lie and make up a story … the entire case of Roe v Wade was a lie - fabricated …

There can be no justice that comes from lies:
thefreelibrary.com/%22Jane+Roe%22+Tells+True+Story+Behind+Roe+v.+Wade+Norma+McCorvey+Says…-a055342471

amazon.com/Compelling-Interest-Real-Story-behind/dp/1618431137

wnd.com/2001/02/8054/

Absolutely!Norma McCorvy,who was the poster child for Roe vs Wade ,never had an abortion,was used by two feminist lawyers intent on legalizing the slaughter of babies in the womb.
Norma has since converted to Catholism and is a ardent pro life advocate:thumbsup:

 

[grotto]

This confuses me. What do you mean “if YOU do not accept Christian teaching”? Doesn’t the poster whose post you were responding to identify as Episcopalian? I thought Episcopalians and Protestants are Christians. Or are you saying you believe only Catholic teaching is Christian teaching?

---

Read, study and give serious thought to what is being presented. Maybe you won’t be confused. Good luck.

 

[Theo520]

I think there’s a 0% chance of indictment, too, LS. Even if the FBI would recommend indictment, it would be Loretta Lynch’s call. Ultimately, though, I think it would be up to Obama, and I don’t think he’s going to opt to prosecute the Democratic front runner.

Some people have compared Clinton’s case to that of David Petraeus, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Petraeus was sharing classified information with his mistress; Hillary was conducting business with her staff.

An indictment of Clinton would open the door for indictments of others who have used non-government servers, and that would be a mess because just about everyone has. They just aren’t running for president.

If they don’t indict, we don’t have the ‘rule of law’ pure and simple.

Petraeus was sharing information with his official biographer, who had top secret clearance. That he also slept with her is wrong and salacious.

Hillary was intentionally sharing top secret information with people who had NO SECURITY CLEARANCE, like Sydney Blumenthal. And then there are her methods, which may have unintentionally shared top secret information.

There is no comparison between Petraeus’s petty transgression and what Hillary did.

 

[JimG]

Absolutely!Norma McCorvy,who was the poster child for Roe vs Wade ,never had an abortion,was used by two feminist lawyers intent on legalizing the slaughter of babies in the womb.
Norma has since converted to Catholism and is a ardent pro life advocate:thumbsup:

Norma McCorvey, aka the “Roe” of Roe v Wade, actually petitioned for the ruling to be overturned.

cbsnews.com/news/roe-wants-abortion-case-reversed/

 

[grotto]

I don’t think it’s fair to say Hillary exposed state secrets to the world. She sent them over a server that was not a government server. And, it was the government server that was hacked, not Hillary’s and Bill’s, so in a strange sort of way, Hillary unwittingly protected state secrets.

Other government employees were using unsecured servers as well. They just aren’t running for president.

Hillary has admitted that even though others were doing it, it wasn’t the best decision, and even though I like her, I’d have to say, that wasn’t the best decision. It might have been convenient, but it wasn’t the best thing to do. That happens a lot of the time, though when “everyone is doing it.” Or nearly everyone.

---

You are entitled to your opinion about Hillary Clinton’s private server and that it was not hacked, and your attempt to reward her strange way of protecting the classified info. However, your statement demands to be declared an opinion of fantasy not facts. It does come to be a surprise though that you would profess that you “like her”.

After reviewing many of your former posts, it appears you have changed your mind about several matters. “I am not a democrat” / “I am a democrat” - “I do not support her” and obviously, repeatedly, you do.

You imply that you personally are against abortion but cannot declare that you are against it; enough to not finance the evil with federal funds, or think revocation of the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade should happen.

Maybe its just misunderstanding on my part and would be encouraged to hear from such as yourself, highly educated etc., that you condemn abortion and those who provide and profit from it. That would have to include the Democrat Party and Chairwoman who
epitomizes the champion of Planned Parenthood.

 

[rmartensjr]

And because the law is a teacher, it has taught several generations that child killing is perfectly fine, at the mother’s discretion, but not the father’s.

**THAT **is what the “pro-choicers” on this forum do not, or refuse to, understand.