Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
JakeHolman

The Hillary Clinton Thread

Recommended Posts

I thought the iraq war was dubya's fault??? :huh:

 

nader didn't vote for it in the senate, did he? :D

 

Sorry Nipkow -- you needed to connect the dots. Nader's candidacy in 2000 took enough votes in Florida that would have gone to Al Gore. That's where the election was won, that led to the Bush presidency, which led to the Iraq War.

 

Nader got 97,488 in Florida. Gore would have need a very small number of those (less than 600) to win the state and the election; and Gore would have been the natural beneficiary of more than 600 if Nader had not been in the race.

 

(The irony is that Nader was the Green Party candidate. Al Gore has done more for Green issues than Nader ever has. That shows how an egomaniacal third party candidate can hurt a cause he claims to care about.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Nipkow -- you needed to connect the dots. Nader's candidacy in 2000 took enough votes in Florida that would have gone to Al Gore.

 

What - are you on drugs??

 

None of those voters would've voted for Gore. If anything, they'd have voted for Bush - but most likely they wouldn't have voted for anyone.

 

But they hated Gore so much, they voted for a "third party candidate" rather than vote for that Clintonian putz. Same thing may be happening now - Clinton's gonna lose a lot of votes, especially if Jill Stein convinces Sanders to join the Greens after the DNC makes the mistake of choosing her over him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What - are you on drugs??

 

None of those voters would've voted for Gore. If anything, they'd have voted for Bush - but most likely they wouldn't have voted for anyone.

 

But they hated Gore so much, they voted for a "third party candidate" rather than vote for that Clintonian putz. Same thing may be happening now - Clinton's gonna lose a lot of votes, especially if Jill Stein convinces Sanders to join the Greens after the DNC makes the mistake of choosing her over him.

 

See my stats in my previous post -- Gore needed a tiny fraction of them (in FL or NH).  It has already been shown that he would have gotten them.  There have been enough interviews, polls, etc. The only people who have not accepted that are Nader himself and many chagrined Greens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my stats in my previous post -- Gore needed a tiny fraction of them (in FL or NH).  It has already been shown that he would have gotten them.  There have been enough interviews, polls, etc. The only people who have not accepted that are Nader himself and many chagrined Greens.

No one who knows anything about USA politics would doubt this.  Nader gave the presidency to Bush.  No doubt about it.

While some of the Nader voters may not have voted at all, enough would have "held their noses" and voted for Gore rather than Bush.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one who knows anything about USA politics would doubt this.  Nader gave the presidency to Bush.  No doubt about it.

While some of the Nader voters may not have voted at all, enough would have "held their noses" and voted for Gore rather than Bush.

 

No way. Anyone that voted for Nader is too smart to have voted for Gore.

 

You guys just swallow everything you're told. The Party line is your pacifier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way. Anyone that voted for Nader is too smart to have voted for Gore.

 

You guys just swallow everything you're told. The Party line is your pacifier.

 

Nader himself has written “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.”   Those percentages would have given Gore the election handily.  Nader doesn't accept the blame though, pointing to other states where Gore didn't win. But the fact is, the focus in 2000 was clearly on Florida. If Nader hadn't been on the ballot, Gore would have won Florida and the election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the dems should have been brave enough to run with Nader instead of the establishment candidate.  They lost anyway.

You can hardly blame Nader for wanting to run in a rigged two-party system.  It was his right to do so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the dems should have been brave enough to run with Nader instead of the establishment candidate.  They lost anyway.

You can hardly blame Nader for wanting to run in a rigged two-party system.  It was his right to do so.

 

People have rights to do all sorts of things, but they should accept the consequences if they do them.  You view us from afar and can't see that certain candidates would never, ever, win, in this country, when presented to the whole electorate.  Like it or not, that's a fact.

 

Let's see how far this goes. I hope it does go, and that it helps derail Trump's candidacy, but I can't think that they would really go through with it:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-gop-effort-to-draft-an-independent-candidate-to-derail-trump/2016/05/14/1b04682e-1877-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_thirdparty-1248pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have rights to do all sorts of things, but they should accept the consequences if they do them.  You view us from afar and can't see that certain candidates would never, ever, win, in this country, when presented to the whole electorate.  Like it or not, that's a fact.

 

Let's see how far this goes. I hope it does go, and that it helps derail Trump's candidacy, but I can't think that they would really go through with it:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-gop-effort-to-draft-an-independent-candidate-to-derail-trump/2016/05/14/1b04682e-1877-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_thirdparty-1248pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

I may be from afar but I can recognize that in this two party system you have ended up with two pathetic candidates for President with such high negatives.

Trump is the epitome of the 80's narcissistic excess era and Clinton, well ... people just don't like her.  And as you say, like it or not, that's a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be from afar but I can recognize that in this two party system you have ended up with two pathetic candidates for President with such high negatives.

Trump is the epitome of the 80's narcissistic excess era and Clinton, well ... people just don't like her.  And as you say, like it or not, that's a fact.

 

Although it's a bit different, you think the British system is any better? There are people who hate Cameron and people who hate Corbyn. They have other parties as you know. The Lib Dems were eviscerated for joining the Tory coalition. The constituency I think may be yours had already been lost to the Tories; nearby Twickenham, which I know well, was lost to the Tories last year. Those were two reliable "third-party seats" for a pretty long time. Simon Hughes, the popular and well-liked Lib-Dem MP in "my" neighborhood, lost to Labour in 2015. In the end, people gravitate to two parties apart from exceptional cases like Scotland. Yet when there are more than two parties, there is wrangling to make a coalition which is rarely useful.

 

Yet you hear the same old drivel -- look at all the new voters Corbyn is bringing in! Look at all the new voters Sanders/Trump is bringing in! In the end, we will still have a two-party system with a few fringe candidates who know how to amass crowds, get media attention, and call it a mandate.

 

In the U.K., more people than ever are turning against Labour. Europe as a whole is rife with new parties verging on racist. I think what we have in the U.S. works for us. I don't see any better system on the horizon. And I certainly don't see a perfect candidate who could get elected, because what is perfect for me would not be perfect for millions of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You view us from afar

 

Not far enough.

 

We are joined at the hip, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the trailers of "Independence Day - Resurgence" (2016) the president played by Sela Ward sounds, talks EXACTLY like Hillary Clinton.  Since this film was conceived before Hillary made her announcement to run, did someone had great insight?  It is 20 years later, 1996-2016.

 

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/sela-ward-independence-day-resurgence-hillary-clinton-1201763984/

 

This one part of the movie may very well come true.

 

This movie is both pro Hillary and U.N.!

 

Independence_Day_Resurgence_128207.jpg

 

 

 

Maybe Trump can hold out hope he has supporters else where. ;)

 

19bx6onviix9yjpg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie is both pro Hillary and U.N.!

 

And viciously anti-alien! Maybe they just want to talk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gary_varvel_gary_varvel_for_may_11_2016_

Anyone who will put a stake in the heart of the entire fossil fuel industry gets my vote.  Moving towards clean energy technologies will create safer, better paying, sustainable  jobs.  The environment where these people live will be made safe , clean air, clean water, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What - are you on drugs??

 

None of those voters would've voted for Gore. If anything, they'd have voted for Bush - but most likely they wouldn't have voted for anyone.

 

But they hated Gore so much, they voted for a "third party candidate" rather than vote for that Clintonian putz. Same thing may be happening now - Clinton's gonna lose a lot of votes, especially if Jill Stein convinces Sanders to join the Greens after the DNC makes the mistake of choosing her over him.

Dark, for once you are the one in the dark. It's inconceivable that any Nader supporter would have voted for "W".  They would have either sat out or voted for Gore. If the balloting in Florida hadn't been rigged in various ways and a small number of Nader people would have voted for Gore, he would have carried the state and the election. And if the ridiculous Electoral College had been done away with, Gore won the overall popular vote.  And a Gore presidency would have been way, way better than what America ended up with.  The same way Hillary Clinton (whatever her faults) will be way, way better than having the insane egomaniac Trump trying to run things.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who will put a stake in the heart of the entire fossil fuel industry gets my vote.  Moving towards clean energy technologies will create safer, better paying, sustainable  jobs.  The environment where these people live will be made safe , clean air, clean water, etc.

 

Yea,  I was disappointed HRC felt she needed to pander to that coal miner and the coal mining industry in general instead of just explaining what I believe is the correct course;  phasing out coal as an energy source.   Note I say 'phasing out';   i.e. a reasonable time period to train people so they can work in other professions.    My grandfather died of black lung in his 40s so it isn't only the environment that gets polluted by the coal industry.      

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the trailers of "Independence Day - Resurgence" (2016) the president played by Sela Ward sounds, talks EXACTLY like Hillary Clinton.  Since this film was conceived before Hillary made her announcement to run, did someone had great insight?  It is 20 years later, 1996-2016.

 

 

Hillary was running before Bill left office, just hadn't announced it.  She resigned as Sec. of State so she could run for president.

I am not criticizing her, but the political reality is everything since Bill got elected has been prepartation for her running.

As for the coal and oil industries, we do need a better way to make energy and petroleum based products.  In a follow-up, Hillary did state that she should have said the lost jobs in coal industry are not coming back.  That's a fact, just as many manufacturing jobs are not coming back in US.

One of the problems of running for elective office is that you have to address the wants and beliefs of whatever group you are speaking to.

I live in a town where our water comes from a river intake that is about 10 miles downstream from a coal ash pit. There are plans to do something, but nothing done yet and nothing was planned until the catastrophe in NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea,  I was disappointed HRC felt she needed to pander to that coal miner and the coal mining industry in general instead of just explaining what I believe is the correct course;  phasing out coal as an energy source.   Note I say 'phasing out';   i.e. a reasonable time period to train people so they can work in other professions.    My grandfather died of black lung in his 40s so it isn't only the environment that gets polluted by the coal industry.      

I certainly have empathy for the people who live in coal country, if there are alternative jobs provided for these people they will certainly give up mining coal. It is still a very dangerous, unhealthy way to make a living. Does any caring parent want to see their children's future tied up in mining coal for a living?   We can see how the mine owners do so much to operate in a safe responsible manner, they do everything they can to maximize the profit line, violating safety regulations (its  often cheaper to pay a fine than comply) regardless of the risks.  The environment where these people live  is being raped, when the coal is gone, what's left?  And the burning of coal ( and oil)  for creating energy is dirty, always has been, always will be. When there are proven alternative technologies available it makes no sense to rely on fossil fuel for energy. The ONLY benefit is to put more money in the pockets of the ones who have their vast wealth tied to the oil and coal industry. And if those people had any sense of social responsibility they could take their wealth and invest in the new technologies.  They would still come out on top financially.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems' new fear: Sanders revolt could upend Democratic convention
(CNN)Sen. Barbara Boxer, a veteran of Democratic politics, says she never saw anything quite like this before.

Loud cursing, shouting, obscene gestures and vile insults, including crude comments about the female anatomy. It was all on display over the weekend as supporters of Bernie Sanders turned the Nevada State Democratic Convention into chaos.

 

"I was not able to stop these people for doing what they did," Boxer, a Hillary Clinton supporter, told CNN. "Apparently they've done it before. .... This group of about 100 were very vocal, and I can't describe it -- disrespectful doesn't even explain it, it was worse than that."

 

Would you like to know more? Go to >

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/

 

Predict the Dem convention will be nasty.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TRUMP'S PROBLEM WITH WOMEN

 

The New York Times' front-page article last Saturday on Donald J. Trump's dealings with women forced me into a weekend of self-examination. As much as I support Trump, this isn't a cult of personality. He's not Mao, Kim Jong-un or L. Ron Hubbard. We can like our candidates, but still acknowledge their flaws. No one's perfect.

 

I admit there are some things about Trump that give me pause. I'm sure these will come out eventually, so I'm just going to list them.

 

First -- and this is corroborated by five contemporaneous witnesses -- in 1978, Trump violently raped Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel room, then, as he was leaving, looked at her bloody lip and said, "Better put some ice on that" -- oh wait, I'm terribly sorry. Did I say Trump? I didn't mean Trump, I meant Bill Clinton.

 

Read more Ann Coulter:

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-05-18.html#read_more

 

 

Crooked Hillary & Lyin' Bill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HILLARY CLINTON (Obama & Trump) ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS-

 

"Not only are Clinton’s and Trump’s foreign policy platforms vastly different from each other, they are both miles apart from that of U.S. President Barack Obama. The “Obama Doctrine,” as it has become known, has kept the United States out of conflicts that did not pose a direct threat to national security in the White House’s view, but not without consequences...."

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-05-17/hillary-clinton-doctrine?cid=nlc-twofa-20160519&sp_mid=51416474&sp_rid=a2FyaW5rYW1wQGdtYWlsLmNvbQS2&spMailingID=51416474&spUserID=NTA0ODM0ODE4MzMS1&spJobID=922408674&spReportId=OTIyNDA4Njc0S0

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...