Yeah honestly you can't even call her a liberal. She's more centre right than centre left
‘Hillary 2016’ Has Never Made Sense for Democrats
- Thread starter No1
- Start date
B-b-b-b-but she's a woman.
B-b-b-b-butt she's a Clinton.
Etc. etc. Her husband was not much better. Shouts to all the brehs whose lives were further ruined by 3 strikes.
Naw, she can sit this one out. I'm skeptical about Bernie as I think going too far left is bad, but I love his convictions and his ability to get people talking about what's important, whether they agree with him or not. We need that..... not the BS Hillary is trying to sell.
and all the school kids lives were destroyed be the No Tolerance law. Kids getting expelled for bringing hot chillies to school and shyt
A social democrat is too far left?
Would you be more open to a warren (who seems slightly less left overall) presidency than sanders?
She won't talk abut it? She wrote about it in her last book and she talked about in 2014 and also this year. She may be an uninspiring candidate but on the Iraq thing she doesn't shy away from admitting she fukked up.this alone should have Democrats looking around. They are so blinded about having the first female POTUS they are over looking major policy decisions that are still having negative affects on the world. And she wont even answer questions about it
.
And I am still trying to figure out how some of the same people shytting on her for her Iraq vote are all giddy over the idea of Joe Biden as a Presidential candidate when he voted the exact same way. It's like Biden sprung up fully grown out of Barack Obama's imagination in the summer of 2008 and he doesn't have over 30 years of shytty policies to answer for.
Are you a dissatisfied Democrat? I don't recall saying you were.Nice strawman, never cosigned either of these guy (especially not)
But Bernie's voting record and ties are way more in line with what Dems claim to be about. By comparison Hillary is a DINO.
And Bernie is more in line with what Dems used to be about; Hillary is much more in line with the co-opted Democratic Party of the last 20-30 years.
QFT. Her problem isn't her past positions so much as that she always looks like she's just taking a position because it's opportune. She can't make others believe she believes what she's claiming to be near and dear to her heart. You add in the 25 years in Washington and the cloud of corruption allegations, justified or not, she's not a good candidate. In a long, long election cycle she'll fatigue the electorate and drive down turnout, which is death to democrats.
To be fair, she spent the 08 cycle dodging that question. Her vote there will and should always haunt her, and as the article states, it hasn't apparently cowed her when it comes to intervention. She campaigned as a hawk in 08 and mutters that way to sympathetic audiences now.
People pining for Biden either have specific problems with Clinton or are worried about her electability. Policy wise there's not much light between them.
first off your avi is
Second, the Iraq war vote should be unforgivable to Democrats. George Bush said it was not the right solution to the conflict in hindsight also but what does that have to do with where we are now? Sorry and the realisation of something you should've known in the first place doesn't cut it.
Third, Libya was my main point of that post. Show me where she answered real questions on that entire fukk up of a policy decision. That's one of her main policy decisions of her time as SoS and she wont even field questions on it. Just asking about emails has her tossing up her arms and walking off from the press. Real Voters see that and it translates to no transparency. It's not a good look breh.
IVS
Superstar
Fux that phony, always trying to skirt the rules, hungry for power b!tch. I hope she does not get the nomination. And I pray that Bernie Sanders gets chased out too (no Israelites in the executive office - although enough of them will still be the top advisors to the whitehouse , and in positions of power, regardless of who wins).
Probably one of the better anti-hillary articles that I've read.
Which Libya fukk up? The Benghazi thing or the booting out Qaddafi?first off your avi is
Second, the Iraq war vote should be unforgivable to Democrats. George Bush said it was not the right solution to the conflict in hindsight also but what does that have to do with where we are now? Sorry and the realisation of something you should've known in the first place doesn't cut it.
Third, Libya was my main point of that post. Show me where she answered real questions on that entire fukk up of a policy decision. That's one of her main policy decisions of her time as SoS and she wont even field questions on it. Just asking about emails has her tossing up her arms and walking off from the press. Real Voters see that and it translates to no transparency. It's not a good look breh.
There have been a billion hearing on the Benghazi thing that have resulted in jack shyt in terms of State being culpable and she has testified before Senate Committees (think she will be doing it again this October with that dipshyt Trey Goudy).
If it is Qaddafi than I agree she fukked up pushing for that agenda especially when Qaddafi had been a ally for years and was in the process of grooming his (from all accounts pretty progressive for that region) son for a transfer of power. But as far as I am concerned the blame for Libya is Obama's. He was looking for a quick win in an election year, he was feeling himself with the whole Arab Spring uprising being credited as being something he was greatly responsible for; and our NATO allies wanted Qaddafi out for reasons that had nothing to do with human rights intervention (and the bulk of the human rights violations Qadddafi was being accused of at the time were completely overblown and in some cases pretty much made up).
So she was one of the hawks pushing for regime change in Libya (along with Susan Rice, Samantha Power and not coincidentally current SoS John Kerry) but this was an Obama fumble because he made the final decision. And I don't recall any Dems/progressives looking away from Obama during the 2012 elections. There were no cries for a primary challenger to President Obama.
Hillary Clinton is flawed as fukk as far as being a politician and a future possible president but there is just something insanely hypocritical that people who gleefully voted for Barack Obama twice and routinely act like Joe Biden would be a better option have this massive hate on for this lady when politically she is almost in complete lock-step with the current President and VP.
It just bewilders me especially as someone on the outside looking in at the way this primary season is unfolding among likely Democratic Party voters.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Hillary by far.
Madvillain
Pro
Hill... i've said it before, but its reallll easy to trap yourself in a bubble here
I'm speaking purely from the aspect of a campaign and her weaknesses that make Democrats nervous about her ability to win. The Benghazi issue is just another example of a story that should've gone away quicker but she just can't handle being questioned on anything she does so she just dismisses it until it gets out of hand. Benghazi is such a non story and issue but here we are in 2016 and she is still trying to explain herself.
Libya is a completely different beast. She actually went around congress to bring what some say was an alley down which turned out to be a huge mistake. Obama has a nice portion of the blame but he could care less at this point. She's the one that has to explain why after Iraq she made the chose to basically to do the samething on a smaller scale. It's the Sanders of the world that are going to get her on this issue and of course she will be unprepared to combat the criticism. She'll probably brush it off as unimportant or try and blame Obama or some crazy shyt.
The Democratic field isn't as weak as we first thought. This is going to be harder than she thought and she just sucks performing under pressure.