Hillary Clinton Thread

[Crossbones]

No you weren’t.

The topic that you were making comment on was the e-mail scandal. You used the eleven hour grilling to shift the focus to the Republicans.

I may not have made my point clearly enough in the original post, but that was my intention.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess the Republicans should have waited to grill her until they had their ducks in a row.

Maybe. But nothing so interests law enforcement as stonewalling an investigative body. Hillary might have been too crafty for her own good in those hearings.

 

[zz912]

I don’t know what the FBI is convinced of or not convinced of, but I am convinced you don’t know for sure, either.

Do you have an example of even ONE federal official setting up a private email server?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do you have an example of even ONE federal official setting up a private email server?

I’m no technical expert, but I think I know what you’re saying. At my business we can receive email, and it was nothing to set it up here. However, the server is at our tech service where it’s actually operated. That’s a whole different thing from just receiving email.

 

[Crossbones]

Maybe. But nothing so interests law enforcement as stonewalling an investigative body. Hillary might have been too crafty for her own good in those hearings.

Not sure if the FBI would pay that much attention to a poorly constructed committee meeting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not sure if the FBI would pay that much attention to a poorly constructed committee meeting.

I am not personally privy to the evidence before the committee from all sources, so I can’t say how well or poorly the thing was done. Sometimes when someone testifies, things they say can be shown to be false later, without any drama at the time the testimony is given.

Eventually, we’ll know at least some of what the FBI has and where it came from. But no matter where it came from, the FBI has expended a lot of resources investigating Clinton for whatever they’re investigating her for. Could be the private server. Could be transmission of secret stuff. Could be influence peddling. We don’t know.

 

[Crossbones]

I am not personally privy to the evidence before the committee from all sources, so I can’t say how well or poorly the thing was done. Sometimes when someone testifies, things they say can be shown to be false later, without any drama at the time the testimony is given.

Eventually, we’ll know at least some of what the FBI has and where it came from. But no matter where it came from, the FBI has expended a lot of resources investigating Clinton for whatever they’re investigating her for. Could be the private server. Could be transmission of secret stuff. Could be influence peddling. We don’t know.

Could be nothing. The problem here is the Democrats well remember Bill Clinton’s administration where he was chased for scandal after scandal and there was little criminal there but a blue dress from a special prosecutor who was assigned to investigate Whitewater.

 

[Theo520]

Could be nothing. The problem here is the Democrats well remember Bill Clinton’s administration where he was chased for scandal after scandal and there was little criminal there but a blue dress from a special prosecutor who was assigned to investigate Whitewater.

That only applies to Dems nearing retirement. Millennials and younger only see Hillary and her big money dishonest nature, they don’t remember the economy under Bill or feel his mojo.

 

[Crossbones]

That only applies to Dems nearing retirement. Millennials and younger only see Hillary and her big money dishonest nature, they don’t remember the economy under Bill or feel his mojo.

I’m not near retirement and definitely remember Clinton’s administration well. I think you have the ages wrong. I would think most over 40 would how much the Republicans cried wolf during the Clinton administration and even those that are younger will remember the Republicans attacking Obama non-stop for 8 years.

I think there is a credibility issue for Republicans on Democratic scandals at this point.

 

[zz912]

I’m no technical expert, but I think I know what you’re saying. At my business we can receive email, and it was nothing to set it up here. However, the server is at our tech service where it’s actually operated. That’s a whole different thing from just receiving email.

Bingo. FAAAAR different.

Of course there’s been no response to my questions, because no federal worker or politician has done anything similar to what Clinton did.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not near retirement and definitely remember Clinton’s administration well. I think you have the ages wrong. I would think most over 40 would how much the Republicans cried wolf during the Clinton administration and even those that are younger will remember the Republicans attacking Obama non-stop for 8 years.

I think there is a credibility issue for Republicans on Democratic scandals at this point.

As Kasich points out, the near-balance and (arguable) balanced budget during the Clinton administration was due to the Repubs in Congress, particularly Kasich and Gingrich. Clinton fought them tooth and nail, but then caved in and (among other things) claimed credit for changing welfare “as we know it”, as well as for the near-balanced budget.

The problem with Repubs during the Obama years is not so much that they didn’t try to improve the economic situation as it is that it did no good to pass laws or budgets designed to do it. They were, of course, afraid to be blamed for a “government shutdown” if Harry Reid and Obama wouldn’t move on any of their legislation. Maybe they should have risked it, and maybe not, but in any event, they didn’t.

But it’s true that attacking Obama during the last eight years served little purpose for the Repubs for the most part. Who cares, after all, about his attempt to define “ministers” for the Lutheran Church? Who cares that he crunches down on the Little Sisters of the Poor? Who, outside West Virginia, Ky and Wyoming care about bankrupting coal companies? Who, in the cities, care whether the army is now in charge of every farm pond?

But with Obamacare, people do care, because it is job-killing and expensive. And someday, when they reopen the coal mines out of necessity and the government decides religious persecution is not really a government function, Obama will be remembered for Obamacare, and probably not much more.

 

[Peter_J]

I would disagree with the idea that liberal will support Democrats no matter what.

I agree. I absolutely think that, if Donald Trump were the Democratic nominee, a lot of Dems wouldn’t vote for him

On the email issue, the Republicans have done their best to make this look like a witch hunt. The committee meeting where they grilled Clinton for 11 hours and did nothing but make her look like a genius and the Republicans look like middle school students would be a prime example.

I hate to say, but you’re right.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

As Kasich points out, the near-balance and (arguable) balanced budget during the Clinton administration was due to the Repubs in Congress, particularly Kasich and Gingrich. Clinton fought them tooth and nail, but then caved in and (among other things) claimed credit for changing welfare “as we know it”, as well as for the near-balanced budget.

The problem with Repubs during the Obama years is not so much that they didn’t try to improve the economic situation as it is that it did no good to pass laws or budgets designed to do it. They were, of course, afraid to be blamed for a “government shutdown” if Harry Reid and Obama wouldn’t move on any of their legislation. Maybe they should have risked it, and maybe not, but in any event, they didn’t.

But it’s true that attacking Obama during the last eight years served little purpose for the Repubs for the most part. Who cares, after all, about his attempt to define “ministers” for the Lutheran Church? Who cares that he crunches down on the Little Sisters of the Poor? Who, outside West Virginia, Ky and Wyoming care about bankrupting coal companies? Who, in the cities, care whether the army is now in charge of every farm pond?

But with Obamacare, people do care, because it is job-killing and expensive. And someday, when they reopen the coal mines out of necessity and the government decides religious persecution is not really a government function, Obama will be remembered for Obamacare, and probably not much more.

Of course Kasich would say that. He wants to be the next president very, very badly.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m not near retirement and definitely remember Clinton’s administration well. I think you have the ages wrong. I would think most over 40 would how much the Republicans cried wolf during the Clinton administration and even those that are younger will remember the Republicans attacking Obama non-stop for 8 years.

I think there is a credibility issue for Republicans on Democratic scandals at this point.

I’m thirty-three, way older than a millennial, and younger than someone who would remember Clinton’s administration well. I will, however, remember Obama’s administration partly for the largely unsubstantiated attacks and criticism of the Republican Party.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course Kasich would say that. He wants to be the next president very, very badly.

Hardly so one would notice, and I am not entirely sure he isn’t simply being a “spoiler” against Trump in this. I like Kasich, but he has no chance of getting the nomination.

And it isn’t just Kasich who says it or knows it. It really is true that the Repubs reined in spending during the Clinton years. Clinton fought them, and fought them hard, but finally just took credit for it himself. Remember the “contract with America”, the government shutdowns and threatened shutdowns? It was a real battle.

Now, it’s also true that Repubs showed little fiscal discipline during the G.W. Bush years until toward the last few years of his administration.

But attributing the spending restraint during the Clinton year to Clinton is just factually incorrect.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m thirty-three, way older than a millennial, and younger than someone who would remember Clinton’s administration well. I will, however, remember Obama’s administration partly for the largely unsubstantiated attacks and criticism of the Republican Party.

A remarkable admission.

I agree with you that Obama and his people have made a lot of unsubstantiated attacks and criticisms of the Republican party.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hardly so one would notice, and I am not entirely sure he isn’t simply being a “spoiler” against Trump in this. I like Kasich, but he has no chance of getting the nomination.

And it isn’t just Kasich who says it or knows it. It really is true that the Repubs reined in spending during the Clinton years. Clinton fought them, and fought them hard, but finally just took credit for it himself. Remember the “contract with America”, the government shutdowns and threatened shutdowns? It was a real battle.

Now, it’s also true that Repubs showed little fiscal discipline during the G.W. Bush years until toward the last few years of his administration.

But attributing the spending restraint during the Clinton year to Clinton is just factually incorrect.

Well I hope he doesn’t get the nomination. He seems a nice enough man, but I don’t think he’d make a very good president. There are things about him I like and things about him I don’t like.

He seems to have a very close knit family with well-bahaved, well-mannered daughters, but it takes more to make a president. True, he has spent much of his life in politics, but I just don’t see him as “presidential.”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

A remarkable admission.

I agree with you that Obama and his people have made a lot of unsubstantiated attacks and criticisms of the Republican party.

Okay, you caught me in a grammar mistake and made the best of it! LOL I don’t blame you; I would have done the same. Yes, it would have been remarkable had I meant what I wrote. I would have had to have been drunk, and that’s not likely since I don’t drink alcohol, or even caffeine.

To correct myself, I should have written, I will remember Obama’s administration as one in which the Republican Party made many, many unsubstantiated attacks - on President Obama!

I shouldn’t try to post when I’m at work! Shame on me; that’s what I get for doing so!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay, you caught me in a grammar mistake and made the best of it! LOL I don’t blame you; I would have done the same. Yes, it would have been remarkable had I meant what I wrote. I would have had to have been drunk, and that’s not likely since I don’t drink alcohol, or even caffeine.

To correct myself, I should have written, I will remember Obama’s administration as one in which the Republican Party made many, many unsubstantiated attacks - on President Obama!

I shouldn’t try to post when I’m at work! Shame on me; that’s what I get for doing so!

Ah! I see.

So, what are the unsubstantiated attacks on Obama made by the Repubs?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Ah! I see.

So, what are the unsubstantiated attacks on Obama made by the Repubs?

I was waiting on you to come back! LOL You know a big Sanders/Hillary supporter like me wouldn’t have said that and meant it! I’ll admit, I even proofread it wrong! No excuse!

Instead of me typing it all out, I’ll just offer this:

forwardprogressives.com/debunking-almost-every-republican-lie-against-president-obama/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferc14bb&utm_medium=twitter

Of course you probably won’t accept the source.