Opinion of Hillary Clinton
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:53:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of Hillary Clinton
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: Opinion of Hillary Clinton
#1
Freedom Fighter
 
#2
Horrible Person
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 111

Author Topic: Opinion of Hillary Clinton  (Read 6718 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2014, 07:32:53 PM »

She voted the wrong way on the most infamous vote of the 21st century so far when the facts were there to justify voting the correct way, so definitely count me as not ready for Hillary.

I assume you were also not ready for Kerry and not ready for Biden 08 and not ready for Biden 12?

And now we wait for the crickets.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,552
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2014, 07:35:28 PM »

Not a fan.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2014, 07:42:57 PM »

Meh.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2014, 08:05:50 PM »

I still am perplexed at how people STILL use Iraq against her.
Iraq was a major policy decision. The vote on that war resolution demonstrates how a President Hillary Clinton will respond to the intelligence she is shown by her generals and military advisers. In 2003, she chose to go with panic over WMDs and a destructive war. That is still fair game.

However, to be fair to the former Secretary of State she has said she regrets the vote and this reflects a lot better on what her foreign policy may be as president.

No offense, but how old were you in 2002-2003? It's utter revisionist poppycock that president Bush just listened to the intelligence he was getting from the government and made an objective decision that Saddam had WMD. He decided to go to war first and then pressured the intelligence community to come up with "information" to support his political decision. However, that did not become fully clear until much later. The Downing Street memo was incendiary, but was not leaked until April 2005. Similarly, ambassador Joseph Smith's article saying Iraq had not bought yellowcake uranium from Niger did not appear until July 2003.

Hillary's sin, along with others who supported the war in both parties, was essentially to trust that the POTUS who had stood on the rubble of the WTC barely 12 months earlier was not manipulating intelligence to monger the country into a war. Congress has to be able to trust that the president is telling the truth when it comes to matters of national security. If they cannot trust him, who oversees the CIA, DoD, and State, who can they trust? No one. Then the system is fundamentally broken. Call me old fashioned, but I still think the president had a sacred duty to the Constitution to he truthful about such matters, where hundreds of thousands of troops are going into harms way. I still think that those who try to shift the blame to Hillary or other Senators here with the benefit of hindsight are implicitly letting Bush off the hook and assuming that a dishonest war presidency should be expected. I think that's a dangerous precedent.

There is a difference between Senator Clinton and those other Senators, Kerry, Biden, and Edwards, though. The difference was that more than 2,000 of her constituents had been killed in the most dramatic terror attack in world history just a year earlier. These were the people she was sworn to represent and whose interests to look after. Now a war president was claiming, with the backing of the whole edifice of the US government, that a new terror threat was being presented. Just imagine for a moment had she been wrong the other way- if she had opposed the war, (implausibly) stopped the war, and then the threat was realized and more if her constituents were killed in another terror attack. Can you even imagine the epic dereliction of duty she would have been accused of? These are serious matters which is why everyone must play their role. Intelligence was the role of the executive branch and the fault lies solely with the president who failed to carry out that role.
Logged
Dixie Reborn
BeyondTruthAndIdeals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 817
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 13, 2014, 08:53:29 PM »

Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2014, 09:16:12 PM »

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2014, 09:19:43 PM »

It astounds me that anyone could defend Clinton and speak of the President's "sacred duty to be truthful" in the same breath without being overwhelmed by irony.

You don't think the leader of the country has a sacred duty to be truthful when it comes to war? This is not on the same level as not being truthful about screwing interns.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you deny that there was a concerted, administration-led effort to mislead the public (including Congress) on the threat posed by Iraq, and this biased the information coming out of the U.S. government?

It's really amazing how True Leftists will shift over to the Right Wing position on a dime when it's convenient to attack Clinton.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2014, 09:22:21 PM »

I still am perplexed at how people STILL use Iraq against her.
Iraq was a major policy decision. The vote on that war resolution demonstrates how a President Hillary Clinton will respond to the intelligence she is shown by her generals and military advisers. In 2003, she chose to go with panic over WMDs and a destructive war. That is still fair game.

However, to be fair to the former Secretary of State she has said she regrets the vote and this reflects a lot better on what her foreign policy may be as president.

No offense, but how old were you in 2002-2003? It's utter revisionist poppycock that president Bush just listened to the intelligence he was getting from the government and made an objective decision that Saddam had WMD. He decided to go to war first and then pressured the intelligence community to come up with "information" to support his political decision. However, that did not become fully clear until much later. The Downing Street memo was incendiary, but was not leaked until April 2005. Similarly, ambassador Joseph Smith's article saying Iraq had not bought yellowcake uranium from Niger did not appear until July 2003.

Hillary's sin, along with others who supported the war in both parties, was essentially to trust that the POTUS who had stood on the rubble of the WTC barely 12 months earlier was not manipulating intelligence to monger the country into a war. Congress has to be able to trust that the president is telling the truth when it comes to matters of national security. If they cannot trust him, who oversees the CIA, DoD, and State, who can they trust? No one. Then the system is fundamentally broken. Call me old fashioned, but I still think the president had a sacred duty to the Constitution to he truthful about such matters, where hundreds of thousands of troops are going into harms way. I still think that those who try to shift the blame to Hillary or other Senators here with the benefit of hindsight are implicitly letting Bush off the hook and assuming that a dishonest war presidency should be expected. I think that's a dangerous precedent.

There is a difference between Senator Clinton and those other Senators, Kerry, Biden, and Edwards, though. The difference was that more than 2,000 of her constituents had been killed in the most dramatic terror attack in world history just a year earlier. These were the people she was sworn to represent and whose interests to look after. Now a war president was claiming, with the backing of the whole edifice of the US government, that a new terror threat was being presented. Just imagine for a moment had she been wrong the other way- if she had opposed the war, (implausibly) stopped the war, and then the threat was realized and more if her constituents were killed in another terror attack. Can you even imagine the epic dereliction of duty she would have been accused of? These are serious matters which is why everyone must play their role. Intelligence was the role of the executive branch and the fault lies solely with the president who failed to carry out that role.

The moderate chair of the Senate intelligence committee, Bob Graham, started off trusting Bush, and then quickly realized that would be a very bad idea, and urged all Senators to read the full classified report, and voted nay.

Of course one didn't need access to classified information to realize that something was up when Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card said ""From a marketing standpoint, you don't roll out a new product in August." I guess imminent threat had to wait until closer to the elections for maximum political impact.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 13, 2014, 09:25:13 PM »

It's really amazing how True Leftists will shift over to the Right Wing position on a dime when it's convenient to attack Clinton.
What are you even talking about? Considering a candidate's record on the Iraq War to be a critical issue and saying that Bush shouldn't have been trusted is the "right-wing" position?
Logged
Chilltown
Rookie
**
Posts: 49
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 13, 2014, 09:33:51 PM »

She voted the wrong way on the most infamous vote of the 21st century so far when the facts were there to justify voting the correct way, so definitely count me as not ready for Hillary.

I assume you were also not ready for Kerry and not ready for Biden 08 and not ready for Biden 12?

And now we wait for the crickets.

Sorry, when the railroad calls, it's hard to just tell the phone, "Sorry, I have to wait for a response from somebody on an internet forum." Get a life.

Anyways to Beet, no actually, that entire generation of Dems really ought to be retired from public life. I certainly didn't back Biden for President, wouldn't have chosen him for Obama's VP either, and I wasn't old enough to get to choose Kerry in 2004, so I suppose I can dodge that particular question. : P
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2014, 09:37:27 PM »

It's really amazing how True Leftists will shift over to the Right Wing position on a dime when it's convenient to attack Clinton.
What are you even talking about? Considering a candidate's record on the Iraq War to be a critical issue and saying that Bush shouldn't have been trusted is the "right-wing" position?

You're shifting blame for the Iraq war from Bush and Cheney to the "incompetence of the intelligence community" and disparaging Clinton for suggesting that there was a "right wing conspiracy" to make the war happen. As if the Iraq war was an accident that we just bumbled into due to honest bureaucratic mistakes? Come on.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Graham was right (he could have carried Florida as well) - too bad we never nominated him in 2004.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Warren and Sanders are from the same generation and Schweitzer isn't far behind. The problem isn't that older candidates are there, it's that the younger candidates aren't there - they're getting wiped out at the state level. In any case, younger is not necessarily better. Older candidates have had more life experiences and have earned wisdom from them - Hillary certainly has.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2014, 10:14:32 PM »

"The intelligence community" is not monolithic. From what I understand, the CIA was under a lot of pressure to tow the administration line, particularly from the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. Douglas Feith even had a special office that was dedicated to recycling intel from dubious-at-best sources.

Anyway, a lot of people were warning the Bush administration not to go into Iraq, but those warnings were ignored or scoffed at. Worse, the Republican Party used support of the war as a litmus test for patriotism, and successfully persuaded a majority of the American public that the  invasion of Iraq was a necessary part of the Global War on Terror (despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not pose an imminent threat to the US or its interests). This was particularly relevant in the 2002 election cycle, when anyone who dared oppose the war was called a terrorist-enabler. Therefore, Hillary and other Democrats'  lack of moral courage may be distressing, but it's somewhat understandable,  considering the context of the time.



Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2014, 10:25:10 PM »

It's really amazing how True Leftists will shift over to the Right Wing position on a dime when it's convenient to attack Clinton.
What are you even talking about? Considering a candidate's record on the Iraq War to be a critical issue and saying that Bush shouldn't have been trusted is the "right-wing" position?

You're shifting blame for the Iraq war from Bush and Cheney to the "incompetence of the intelligence community" and disparaging Clinton for suggesting that there was a "right wing conspiracy" to make the war happen. As if the Iraq war was an accident that we just bumbled into due to honest bureaucratic mistakes? Come on.
That's just a ridiculous strawman. People who give Clinton a hard time for supporting the Iraq War don't think the war was an "honest mistake"...if they did, why would they be attacking Clinton for supporting it!?
 
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2014, 10:30:10 PM »

The number of problems with the True Leftists' judgement of Clinton on this issue are legion:

1. Selective prosecution. As mentioned numerous times, there wasn't nearly as much outrage over Kerry, Edwards or Biden as there has been over Clinton, the one who, representing New York, had the most to fear from terrorism. There was also virtually no support for Bob Graham, even though he was the only one who was in the Senate and actually voted against Authorization as jfern said, ran in 2004 and would have been probably the strongest candidate of the entire field. That's somewhat understandable since Dean took up the antiwar banner, but the ease with which Graham was dropped and forgotten about was amazing. Hillary's constantly held to a bajillion times higher standard than every other Democratic politician no matter what she does.

2. The vote for Authorization wasn't a vote for war. This issue gets constantly skipped, but the fact is that debate over the war in Iraq continued all the way up until March 2003. I remember attending an anti-war protest that month. Even days before we opened fire, Bush supposedly was giving Saddam one last chance to leave the country. Clinton's position, as well as many of those who were for Authorization, was always that weapons inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job. If they had been, we now know they would never have found WMD. So Clinton was against the war, technically, and the whole premise of this isn't even true.

3. The issue I mentioned above with the fact that you have to be able to trust the President and CoC when it comes to war. This isn't even a political issue, it's basic human relations. Think of a platoon of 12 men deep inside enemy territory. How well would that platoon operate if the members didn't trust each other - particularly their leader? How could they fight the enemy if they're fighting amongst themselves? If you were an infantryman in that platoon, would you feel comfortable knowing that your platoon leader would send you into what could be an ambush because he maybe didn't like one of the other members? I know we all expect our politicians to lie about everything, but war should be an exception, and it would never become a cynical matter of course than the President will lie about war. This is why Bush's pressure on the intelligence community, what were essentially lies, was worse than Bill Clinton lying about his sex life.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's my whole point... the Administration deliberately tried to mislead everyone about the war and put out a ton of claims that we now know weren't true but which weren't known at the time. The blame should fall entirely on them. Members of Congress shouldn't have to filter through biased information put out by the Administration on matters of war and terrorism.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2014, 10:39:47 PM »

She voted the wrong way on the most infamous vote of the 21st century so far when the facts were there to justify voting the correct way, so definitely count me as not ready for Hillary.

I assume you were also not ready for Kerry and not ready for Biden 08 and not ready for Biden 12?

And now we wait for the crickets.

Sorry, when the railroad calls, it's hard to just tell the phone, "Sorry, I have to wait for a response from somebody on an internet forum." Get a life.

Anyways to Beet, no actually, that entire generation of Dems really ought to be retired from public life. I certainly didn't back Biden for President, wouldn't have chosen him for Obama's VP either, and I wasn't old enough to get to choose Kerry in 2004, so I suppose I can dodge that particular question. : P

You seem a tad angry. I wasn't even referring specifically to you (obviously, since I don't know who you are), just in general that critics of Hillary's Iraq War vote tend to flee once it is pointed out that other Democrats they have no problem with (or in some cases, even supported!) voted for it as well.

And even if you didn't support Biden for Obama's VP, I heard no angst whatsoever from the left when Obama chose him in 2008. But he made the unforgivable sin of voting for it! And he would be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Surely this shouldn't have been taken lying down from the same people who regard it as a dealbreaker for Hillary 11 years later. Roll Eyes
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 13, 2014, 10:41:56 PM »

It astounds me that anyone could defend Clinton and speak of the President's "sacred duty to be truthful" in the same breath without being overwhelmed by irony.

What a disgusting sexist comment.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 13, 2014, 11:54:44 PM »

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2014, 12:29:26 AM »

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

There's no need to resort to any of that to establish that Hillary Clinton is frequently and blatantly dishonest. Unless you believe - just for a start - that she was really named for Sir Edmund Hillary six years before he climbed Mount Everest, that she was actually ambushed by snipers at a tarmac in Bosnia, and that her incoherent retrospective justification for her vote to authorize force in Iraq makes any sense.

If that's what you truly believe, then why sink that low in the first place? And there's nothing incoherent about her justification, certainly not any moreso than the other Democrats who you're happy to forgive and let bygones by bygones.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2014, 12:39:33 AM »

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

There's no need to resort to any of that to establish that Hillary Clinton is frequently and blatantly dishonest. Unless you believe - just for a start - that she was really named for Sir Edmund Hillary six years before he climbed Mount Everest, that she was actually ambushed by snipers at a tarmac in Bosnia, and that her incoherent retrospective justification for her vote to authorize force in Iraq makes any sense.

If that's what you truly believe, then why sink that low in the first place? And there's nothing incoherent about her justification, certainly not any moreso than the other Democrats who you're happy to forgive and let bygones by bygones.

Please, tell me who I am "happy" to forgive and why they are comparable.

John Kerry. Point to your outrage when he ran for president in 2004. Point to your outrage when he ran for re-election in 2008. Point to your outrage when he was chosen to be Secretary of State in 2013.

John Edwards. Point to your outrage when Kerry selected him for VP in 2004. Point to your outrage when he ran for president in 2008.

Harry Reid. Point to your outrage when he ran for re-election in 2004. Point to your outrage when he was chosen as minority leader in 2005. Point to your outrage when he became majority leader in 2007. Point to your outrage when he was retained as majority leader in 2009. Point to your outrage when he ran for re-election in 2010 and was retained as majority leader in 2011. Point to your outrage when he was retained as majority leader in 2013. Point to your outrage when he was just returned as minority leader yesterday.

Joe Biden. Point to your outrage when he ran for president in 2008. Point to your outrage when Obama selected him for VP in 2008. Point to your outrage when Obama retained him as VP in 2012. Point to your outrage when articles are posted about how he may run for president in 2016.
Logged
#CriminalizeSobriety
Dallasfan65
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,859


Political Matrix
E: 5.48, S: -9.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 14, 2014, 12:52:58 AM »

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

There's no need to resort to any of that to establish that Hillary Clinton is frequently and blatantly dishonest. Unless you believe - just for a start - that she was really named for Sir Edmund Hillary six years before he climbed Mount Everest, that she was actually ambushed by snipers at a tarmac in Bosnia, and that her incoherent retrospective justification for her vote to authorize force in Iraq makes any sense.

If that's what you truly believe, then why sink that low in the first place? And there's nothing incoherent about her justification, certainly not any moreso than the other Democrats who you're happy to forgive and let bygones by bygones.

Please, tell me who I am "happy" to forgive and why they are comparable.

John Kerry. Point to your outrage when he ran for president in 2004.

So uh, is Nix supposed to bump a bunch of old threads from 2004 and go "No! Undecided" ? Huh
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2014, 01:04:50 AM »

We may seem a little sensitive, but remember, in 2008 Hillary was accused of being overconfident and acting entitled to the nomination. It doesn't matter how likely she seems likely to win, as a supporter, I am going to assume that she/we need to earn support of as many people as possible, and going to engage in discussion about her record with people whenever possible. The attitude isn't going to be, "I don't care what you think, she's winning," the attitude is going to be "here's why I support her/will defend her, and you may not agree but I'm putting this out there." Feel free to engage or not.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2014, 04:02:35 PM »

I do not object to Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution - the Syrian Civil War calls into question the story that the Iraq War's strongest critics have been telling for the past decade, and I've begun to reassess my own views as a result

Wait, really? How do you figure? Most people I know seem to think that the Syrian Civil War vindicates that you need a Saddam-like strongman in charge.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well according to her, Gates was off the mark, although part of her problem with the surge was that it lacked political support at home at the time. Bush had, of course, long since poisoned the well by 2007 and turned the war into a partisan issue. Pretty much every Dem lined up against the surge, and Clinton and Obama actually released their statements against it on the same day. Given the state of Iraq today, the surge isn't looking as successful as it did a couple years ago.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2014, 04:34:30 PM »

HP (sexist, obvi.)
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2014, 05:34:40 PM »

Lol this thread.

FF, by the way.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 14, 2014, 06:11:11 PM »

I fail to see the appeal of Hillary, she is the most boring candidate the Democrats have to offer.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 14 queries.